Russia warns of response to US missile shield

[tannybogus]

Source: Breitbart.com

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.
Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia.

The U.S. says the missile defense system is aimed at protecting the U.S. and Europe from future attacks from states like Iran.

The United States and Poland signed a deal Wednesday to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost fringe.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M5GM81&show_article=1

[hedgehog]

1. Why the hell are the Poles risking an invasion from Russia to

install a missile defense shield that doesn't work? Any word on money changing hands?

[Demeter]

6. You Have Never Heard of a Stubborn Pollack?

And I am one--100%!

The Poles have been enamoured of the USA since Thaddeus Kosciusko, or more accurately, Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko, came to enlist in the Continental army in August of 1776, after Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Prussia had just "disappeared" a third of his native land into their empires by cordially dividing the spoils amongst themselves. His story is fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosciusko


But in the 1980's, when St. Ronnie was giving aid and comfort to the Solidarity Movement, the Poles fixated more narrowly upon the GOP in this country. Ronnie didn't do shit for Solidarity, but there it is. And here we are today, with Polish leaders shining apples for America's answer to Caligula.
(Poland was never conquered by Rome).

[Igel]

9. Partial answer.

They have a history with Russia and have followed the course of Russo-Polish relations for the last 400 years. Few Americans have. That might account for a difference in understanding, and certainly a difference in perceptions and sensibilities.

In the last 250 years, there have been maybe 40-50 years without Russian troops on the ground there making sure the Poles behave themselves, or an active war by Russia to conquer Poland. That's including German time under occupation. Meanwhile, Poles remember when they were independent, and helped keep the Ottomans from taking Vienna.

Part of it is sensibility. When an American black detects a racist threat, one doesn't accuse him of having pecuniary motives. One assumes that having been kicked in the nuts for his entire life he's either appropriately sensitive or he's oversensitive. Or both, depending on the context.

Russian's tried to intimidate Poland since 1990. Poland's said no, and Russia's response has typically been condescending, arrogant, and insulting. They treat Poland as a lesser people.

[hedgehog]

10. Who cares if they're condescending as long as their troops keep out!

George certainly established that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable!

[The Croquist]

29. Russia launched a pre-emptive strike on Poland in 1939

I don't think you can blame that one on Bush.

[happyslug]

38. After the poles refused to accept the Soviet Union as an Ally

In March 1939, Hitler took over those parts of Czechs NOT given to him in Munich the year before (With parts to Hungary and other countries). England, France, Poland and Russia all knew Poland was next on Hitler's conquest list. The English and French tried to get the Poles to agree to Russian troops in Poland, but the Poles declined. At that point Stalin took up Hitler's offer to divide Poland. Stalin would NOT go to war with Poland till the Poles were defeated by the Germans (and Stalin then divided the Polish Army units that fell to Soviet Troops into enlisted ranks from the Officers, and then shot the Officers a mistake even Soviet officials of the time admitted, but that was Stalin attitude to what he considered "Threats").

My point is not to white wash the Soviet's Action in 1939, but to explain them, In many ways the Poles had two choices, neither of them good. Hitler or Stalin. The Poles wanted neither but that was their choice in 1939, the Poles decided to opt for Britain and France, two countries that did NOT border Poland. Even the British Government told the Poles to deal with the Russians, but the Poles refused. It may have worked out had not France fell to the Germans in 1940. From that point forward the only way Britain and the US could enter Europe was if Russia took on Germany. Hitler did that in June 1941. With that attack Hitler faced the Alliance his Generals feared the most. A two front war. The Russians tied up so much German resourced that the Allies could invade France (Without the German Army tied up in Russia, the German Army was strong enough to defeat ANY Ally invasion, thus the Importance of Russia to the Western Allies).

One of the comments of WWII, was WWII was not one war, but Four wars. One was between the US and its Allies Against Japan, the Second was the German-Russian War. The third was the US-Western Ally war against Germany. The Fourth war was the war Hitler won in 1940. That was the War for the Conquest of Poland. The Fall of France ended that war. The subsequent "Battle of Britain" was more two dogs barking at each other at the end of their leads, leads that prevented them from actually coming into real combat. It was a real battle but resolved nothing, it just confirmed Germany's domination of Continental Europe and Britain's domination of the Atlantic. For Britain and later the US to re-enter Europe something had to tie up the German Army, and after 1940 that had to be the Soviet Army and the price of that Army was Soviet Domination of what the Soviet Army could take, including Poland for which Britain and France had gone to war for in 1939.

Thus Poland had a safe bet (Stalin) or a risky bet (France) and took the risky bet and lost. Except for Finland and the Baltic states, Soviet Russia never invaded another country that had NOT attacked Russia first (Or had been conquered by Hitler First). Thus the Russian invasion of Poland in 1939 was like the later takeover of the Baltic nations and Finland, taking over areas which has been, and had become, German bases to invade Russia. More defensive then Offensive in Nature. Poland had an choice and decided it was NOT going to be part of any defensive alliance with Russia, and do to that choice became part of Nazi-Germany. It was not a conscious choice, but a choice none the less and one the Poles regretted for decades afterward.

[The Croquist]

39. Exactly what point are you trying to make?

You say you are not trying to white wash the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 but you are certainly trying to justify it.

I have never read that the British government wanted Poland to deal with the Russians (I would love a source) but exactly what does dealing with the Russians entail? I don't consider surrender of my country an acceptable deal.

Nor do I buy the idea that after Poland was defeated, Russia took up Germany's offer to divide Poland. The German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact was signed about a week before Germany invaded Poland. The Pact had a provision to divide Germany between Germany and the Soviet Union. Far from the Soviet Union from coming to 1939 Poland's rescue they sealed it's doom.

Your description of the Soviet execution of about 22,000 Polish officers, policemen and civilians as a "mistake" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps I can provide a better choice of words:

"Stalin was a mass murderer who didn't give a rats ass about Poland but only his power."

I also take exception to your statement that "a mistake even Soviet officials of the time admitted"

The Soviet Union did not admit the murders until 1989. That was 50 years after they shot these people dead.

WWII was one war not many. If I was to break it up like you are there would be more then just 4. All were interrelated and that is why it was one war. In my opinion you are calling battles wars. I understand that the difference is blurred (I still think of Pluto as a planet).

Stalin was not a safe bet. I'm not even sure that Stalin would have been less destructive or murderous then Hitler given more time. Stalin did manage to murder more Soviets then Hitler.

The statement "Except for Finland and the Baltic states, Soviet Russia never invaded another country that had NOT attacked Russia first (Or had been conquered by Hitler First)" leaves allot of wiggle room. First of all that exempts Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. None of these countries attacked Russia or Germany. Are you saying that as long as you keep it down to 5 invasions you are cool? That will make Bush feel really good. He still has 3 invasions left. On the other hand you are wrong. Russia attacked Japan near the end of WWII. I'm willing to bet that there were others but I think I've made my point.

Invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was in no way defensive in nature. It was simply a land and economic grab. The Soviet generals did not want to deploy their troops in these forward positions. Their predecessors (mostly murdered by Stalin) had spent decades developing defensive positions and plans to defend the USSR from it's previous border. One of the reasons why the Soviet Union suffered such disasters was the offensive deployment of their troops.

[happyslug]

41. Some cites

"During negotiations in Moscow during August 1939, Rydz refused all attempts by the Western Powers to obtain Polish permission for the Red Army to march westward, stating: "there is no guarantee that the Soviets will really take active part in the war; furthermore, once having entered Polish territory, they will never leave it"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Rydz-%C5%9Amig%C5%82y

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9359257

"The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a disaster for Britain. They had now lost a potential ally. The USSR was the only country that could have helped Britain stop a German invasion of Poland. In fact, maverick MP Winston Churchill had urged Britain to sign an agreement with the USSR all through the summer of 1939, despite his own suspicions of communism. Britain did not hurry the negotiations with the USSR believing that there was still time to spare. Chamberlain was wrong, Hitler had already signed a deal with Stalin"

atschool.eduweb.co.uk/.../International%20Relations%201919-1963%20GCSE/Polish%20Question%201939.doc
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HMH2QjnWh4cJ:atschool.eduweb.co.uk/redschl/historydocs/International%2520Relations%25201919-1963%2520GCSE/Polish%2520Question%25201939.doc+1939+Soviet+Polish+1939+relation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

More comments:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1939.htm

I also have read about the attempt at an alliance, France-British-Soviet Union in other works NOT ON THE NET. The problem is the March 1039 talks appears to be just that talks. The Poles just did NOT want to make a deal with the Soviet Union that included Soviet Troops in Poland and with the decision, the Soviet Union agreed to the offer made by Hitler to divide up Poland instead.



http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4J2c4jEhjYC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=1939+Soviet+Polish+1939++relation&source=web&ots=bYDnFl2tTc&sig=fAThpsQrX3q3yLj23XlCG5Y9Iz8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA86,M1

[The Croquist]

43. Thank you

I didn't realize that Britain had done that. Frankly I don't blame Poland for turning down the offer.

[struggle4progress]

57. By the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Nazi attitude towards treaties was universally clear

Germany began to to rearm in 1935 in violation of the Versailles treaty; and in a similar 1936 violation, remilitarization of the Rhineland; the 1938 Sudentanland annexation was a further violation, as was the March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia

In this context, the significance, of Germany's April 1939 renunciation of its non-aggression pact with Poland, was completely clear. Moreover, constant German propaganda about Germany's "need for more living room" was well-known. By 1939, everyone expected war

The Soviet Union had been a feudal state, with essentially no industrial capacity, at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. Two decades later, with considerable brutality (which the Stalinists excused as necessary and comparable to mistreatment of workers under capitalism), the Stalinists had succeeded in producing an effective industrial base by 1939. But the prospects for success with a war against Germany, which remained one of the world's leading scientific and technical centers, may still have seemed uncertain. The Soviets clearly hoped to buy time, by a treaty which would enable them to place available troops between themselves and Germany, preferably at some distance from their borders, in the hopes that (by delaying war with Germany) they would have the opportunity to improve their military situation

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the Soviet invasion of Poland following the Nazi invasion, cannot be understood as evidence of eternal Russian designs on Poland: the events must be understood in their actual context. The subsequent German invasion of the Soviet Union suggests that the Soviets very nearly failed to produce a military machine that could defeat the Germans -- and one can only guess what the outcome might have been, if Germany had been able to attack the Soviets much earlier

[cliss]

16. That was my first thought, too.

What on earth could motivate Poland to do this? The US is proving to be a lousy "friend" as Mr. Saakashvili is just now finding out.

Money greasing palms.
Actually, I believe it was the US which made the concessions. A radio update on PBS said that "in the end the US quickly made its concessions to get the thing wrapped up. Poland had, in fact, been stalling for months and months. They wanted a lot of money and I think the US was balking.

So for some reason, it was THE U.S. which made the concessions.

[The Croquist]

30. The US would never have intervened in Georgia

regardless of whether or not we were in Afghanistan and Iraq. Geographically it is impossible for us to defend.

Poland is a different matter.

[Demeter]

37. The US Would Not Intervene In Poland, Either

The Germans and french and such would have to.

[The Croquist]

44. I meant that the US would defend Poland today not in 1939

Russia knows that. There will be no attack on Poland.

[Demeter]

47. I Beg to Differ

The US Will not defend Poland today, just as it didn't in times past. Poland means nothing to the US, and Poland's descendants are several generations removed form the motherland by now and thoroughly Americanized, with no close ties (except for the more recent emigrees from the 80's, who weren't anywhere near as many as those of the 1890-1919 wave of immigrants.


Haven't you noticed the pattern? Modern America goes to war for conquest (and invariably fails) for the corporate masters would rather steal resources than pay a market rate for them. After the war for gain fails, they blame the Democrats, and pick the next target. Lather, rinse, repeat endlessly.

What are the corporate masters going to find in Poland? People and culture. They couldn't care less.

[The Croquist]

48. Poland is a member of NATO

As a member of NATO the US is required to defend it. It maybe your opinion that we would violate that treaty but I strongly disagree.

I also disagree that "Modern America goes to war for conquest". If we really did we would own Kuwait and Iraq now and be pumping the oil revenue into our own treasury. All we would have needed to do this was to drop a couple of Neutron bombs onto Baghdad, Basra and a few other cities.

I don't know what you consider the time frame of modern America but I assume it postdates WWII when hundreds of thousands of Americans died defending freedom. Does it postdate Korea and Vietnam? I don't recall any huge economic reasons for fighting there. You can understand how one can disagree with those policies but I don't see how you can blame them on conquest for corporate masters.

If I was a corporate master I would rather conquer Poland then 1950's Korea or 1960's Vietnam.

Sorry but I just think you had a knee jerk reaction against Bush. In less then 6 months he will be a footnote (accent on the foot) of history.

[Demeter]

51. Where To Start?

1. Bush would break a treaty just for the hell of it. And since he's destroyed our armed forces, his successor won't have the option of defending a NATO ally.

2. I said we go to war for conquest. We just don't win, ever, unless you count Graneda, which was just for Reagan's ego and to intimidate the rest of Latin America, which evidently really didn't work, either.

3. Nukes are no good for conquest--nobody wants to buy radioactive oil. Ask the natural gas companies in Colorado, where the early nuclear nuts tried to shake loose the gas field under the shale. Too hot to handle!

4. Modern America starts with the Great Depression, IMO.

5. We went to Korea because Eisenhower was a Red Menace fighter. It was not a success, nor quite a failure, but it was distinctly unpopular.

6. We went to Vietnam for the oil. We didn't get it, either. Now they aren't so sure there's any there, and it's moot anyway--no US oil bidness is going to get their hands on it now.

7. No, no corporate master is going to want to conquer Poland. For which fact the Poles should be daily thankful.

8. Until Bush and his cronies are imprisoned, he will always be with us in a way that Nixon never was. He will be worse than St. Ronnie as the malevolent ghost of fascist follies past.

[The Croquist]

53. Where to respond

Bush has used the armed forces but he hasn't come close to destroying them. Bush won't be President in 6 months. His successor will certainly defend a NATO allie. So would Bush.

I don't agree that WWI, WWII, Korea, Kuwait or even Iraq were wars of conquest. The only land we took from France were used for cemeteries. We didn't even demand that from Kuwait.

I said that "All we would have needed to do this was to drop a couple of Neutron bombs onto Baghdad, Basra and a few other cities." I didn't mention dropping nukes on the oil fields.

Truman was President at the start of the Korean war not Eisenhower.

Bush will be a forgotten man in less then a year.

[24HRrnr]

18. Why would Russia risk

invading the Poles for a missile system that doesn't work?

[amborin]

65. exactly, the missile defense system is a total sham, useless, always will be

it's also insane for the US to push Russia away, toward a sino-soviet alliance against the west

sheer madness to push the frontiers of nato so close to russia's borders

we should be reaching out to engage russia, not saber rattling or provoking it

georgia was totally the aggressor in this recent event; georgia has a very long history of aggression and attacks on Abkazia and South Ossettia

Georgia's prez is corrupt and authoritarian, the last elections were rigged

Insane that the US may have emboldened Georgia to make that insane move and so scary that the US media is playing along with Bush and Cheney

total madness

[Vincardog]

2. Why would Russia be worried about a system that does not now and never has had a snowballs chance of

working? The missile shield is a ploy to reinvigorate their own military industrial complex.

[stillcool]

3. Maybe it's the "Defense Base"

on Russia's border that might be problematic, although I'm surprised there isn't one there already.

[Parmenion]

4. Russian border

Technically Russia does not border Poland (other than the enclave of Kaliningrad) and the missile shield will be near the Polish-Belarus border. Nevertheless, Belarus is integrated within Russia's military structure and Russia will probably build up a troop presence along the Polish-Belarus border. Also, back in '98 or '99 the Poles accused Russia of moving nuclear tipped missiles into the Russian enclave of Kalinigrad and this caused quite a stir in Eastern Europe during the time, but the affair died down. Maybe the Russians will move missiles to this enclave for real this time.

My prediction is that Russia will simply bomb the missile installation- and there will be no military response. Poland won't bomb any equivalent missile sites in Russia, nor will the U.S. It will be like when Israel conducts isolated bombing raids in Syria or Lebanon.

[tannybogus]

5. Keep in mind you are talking about Bush and Cheney.

You are assuming that rational adults are in charge.

[Unsane]

11. "Russia will simply bomb the missile installation- and there will be no military response."

ROFL

[Pavulon]

15. Response, global thermonuclear exchange

you die instantly and so does you counterpart in europe. 10,000 megatons cross in the air..

The system meant to kill us all is still in place. and still work.

World war three at a minimum..

[AlphaCentauri]

17. The Russians when green sometime ago, they can destroy a city with the Vacuum bomb

no nuclear pollution so they can recycle whatever is left.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1155952320070911

[Regret My New Name]

20. At least Russia takes the enviroment seriously.

[AlphaCentauri]

22. I guess they don't want to destroy the planet

[Regret My New Name]

23. Well, at least no their half.

[Odin2005]

27. Poland is in NATO so if Russia attacks them it's World War 3.

And most likely... :nuke:

[The Croquist]

31. Would you like to put a time frame on this prediction?

"My prediction is that Russia will simply bomb the missile installation"

If so I might be willing to place a bet against you.

[Parmenion]

45. Sure Thing :-) (and other predictions)

What do you want to wager?

I predict that this will happen by the end of February 2009.

Putting a time-frame on this is difficult since as far as I know the base won't be installed until 2010/2011. A lot will change in the world between now and then. Maybe Russia will bomb what is there now. I don't know anything about the site itself. This issue greatly interests me. Funny story: I was offered a job by a DOD contractor to translate/analyze Polish media reactions to the shield issue (this was back in Spring 2007). I ended up not taking it since the contract would only have been for 3 months since that was how long the negotiations were expected to last! If only I took the job...

I have one other bold geo-political prediction: Israel will start a limited military campaign in Lebanon soon. I am so sure of this prediction that I am leaving Beirut on Monday morning to go to Syria for two weeks to "head for the hills." If I am wrong- at least I can go hang out with the Russian navy at Tartus.

[The Croquist]

49. I'll give you to March 1st 2009.

Five dollars. If Russia bombs the site by then you win. If not I win. Is it a deal?

[Parmenion]

50. ::Handshake::

All-right sir. I hope you pay-pal account is up and ready ;-)

I will go back to lurking, and then when the LBN of the bombing happens I hope you can respond with level-headed analysis about Russia's geo-political intentions (when the rest of DU is ignorantly cheering the Russians on).

Until then...

[The Croquist]

54. I've marked my calender and cell-phone

Hopefully I won't wash my cell-phone before then (again).

My e-mail address is [e-mail]

PS: I don't do pay pal but I'll send you a check if I lose.

[fascisthunter]

55. Please Show Where "...DU is ignorantly cheering the Russians on"

It's obvious you state as such because you wish people here were lockstep behind America's latest actions. Your position is clear... but your mischaracterization of DUers is pretty exagerated and a baseless charge. So, before you go making wagers with one you feel akin to, let's see if you can back up that charge with an example, and try real hard to be honest.

[Demeter]

8. The Russians Don't Want an American Foot in the Door

and I can't say I blame them. We make them nervous--can't imagine why...Bush, Cheney, Addington, fraudulent intelligence, wars of choice, general nastiness throughout history....

[Amonester]

26. and now, "officially" renouned for barbarian torture methods worldwide...

thanks" to the $tupid neocons' never-ending & bloody greed, and their idiot voters (+machinations).

* not really... :grr:

[The Croquist]

32. Russia makes Poland nervous

Do you blame them?

[struggle4progress]

63. Russia will suspect that this is not a dysfunctional "defensive" installation but an "offensive" one

in sloppy disguise

[Ian David]

7. News to Russia: Missile shield WILL NOT WORK!

I own stock in one of the companies building the thing, and STILL I am telling you... IT WILL NOT WORK!

So chill!

Let the Bushies throw money at this until January 2009, and then sit down and negotiate with President Obama.

Geesh!

Ivan needs to calm the fuck down.

[defendandprotect]

13. And suppose Russia put a missile shield that didn't work . . . let's say in Cuba?

[Ian David]

28. The proper response would be "Please, don't throw me in the briar patch."

Which I think may be the strategy the Russians are using now.

[The Croquist]

33. No problem

As long as it is a missile shield and not Surface to Surface missiles I've got no problem.

[defendandprotect]

12. Neo-cons finally swung Poland to create the new Cold War . . . !!!

Militarizing the skies --- PNAC all the way!

[The Croquist]

34. This has nothing to do with Georgia does it?

It's just a coincidence that right after Russia invades a foreign country on faulty intelligence (greatly exaggerated casualty estimates) that Eastern Europe gets nervous.

No it's just a coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[fascisthunter]

56. Excuse ME... but Where Are you Getting Your Information from?

"Russia invades a foreign country on faulty intelligence"


I swear, it's almost ironic that you would state such a thing since the US did just the same when invading Iraq? Would you agree with that, or disagree?

[The Croquist]

59. That is exactly my point

Both countries used "faulty intelligence" to invade another country.

My point is; why is Russia treated better here then the US? Both were aggressor nations.

[trthnd4jstc]

14. Imagine a world were the UN has control over all nuclear weapons, and

individual countries only protect their own borders, and the UN prevents all invasions, including Iraq, or Georgia.

[conspirator]

19. The world could be a peaceful place. But that's not in the interest of the elite. forget about it nt

[The2ndWheel]

21. Prevents all invasions with what?

The nuclear weapons?

If individual countries and protecting their own borders, where is the UN getting the power to prevent invasions?

[slackmaster]

25. Bad idea

Read my .sig.

[hack89]

46. So having Iran, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China,

and all the other non-democratic despotic dictatorships controlling nukes is going to make the world a better place? Pull the other one. Lets not forget that being peaceful is not a prerequisite to join the UN - UN countries have invaded each other, murdered their own citizens, supported terrorism, etc with impunity. And you want to give them control of all nukes?

[daggahead]

24. Here it is ... your October Surprise ...

Only a bit early.

This situation is going to heat up, and the lambs in this country will choose John McCain to lead them to slaughter, based on his "war hero" status and his "military experience."

Getting shot down and getting caught by the enemy hardly qualify a person for hero status, but I suppose enough people don't see it that way.

We're screwed ... BIG TIME.

Sorry to be so negative.

[lonestarnot]

35. So you're thinking another warmonger in chief egh?

[daggahead]

36. Yep ... as much as it would sicken me ... n/t

[lonestarnot]

40. Beast in cheater chief does have that mortal head wound. LOL

[Neshanic]

42. I think you ae correct. Manufacture the new war with Russia. Push war monger.

[Imagevision]

52. Didn't the US. demand that missiles be removed from Cuba only 90 miles from Miami?

And now the US. says it's ok to put their missiles within 115 miles of Russia?

[hack89]

58. Those were nuclear armed ballistic missiles

Offensive missile designed to threaten US territory. The missiles going to Poland are defensive missiles designed to shoot down ballistic missiles - they cannot threaten Russian territory.

[SpikeTss]

61. Those missiles in Poland are offensive weapons as well

These weapons have two main purposes:

1. To steal money from us. The money paid for these attack weapons goes to the usual profiteers of war and their price tag is impressive: About 200000000000 $ for now. And we all know once they are produced the costs for them will further explode. The crooks within the MIC always knew how to maximize their booty.

2. To reduce (or annihilate) the Russian possibilities for a counter attack after a nuclear first strike. Those who believe Iran would attack Europe, Israel or us with long range missiles are the same people who believed that Iraq was a threat in 2003.

http://www.nenasili.cz/en/832_noam-chomsky

The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is, virtually, a declaration of war.

Respected US military analysts describe missile defense as "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action." It "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad.” “By insulating the homeland from reprisal, will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment elsewhere."

...

The logic is simple, and well understood. A functioning missile defense system informs potential targets that “we will attack you as we please, and you will not be able to retaliate, so you cannot deter us.” The system is being marketed to Europeans as a defense against Iranian missiles. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the chances of its using them to attack Europe are lower than the chances of Europe being hit by an asteroid, so if defense is the reason, Czech Republic should be installing a system to defend the country from asteroids. If Iran were to indicate even the slightest attention of such a move, the country would be vaporized. The system is indeed aimed at Iran, but as a first strike weapon. It is a component of the escalating US threats to attack Iran, threats that are in themselves a serious violation of the UN Charter, though admittedly this issue does not arise in outlaw states.

...

Over half a century ago, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued an extraordinary appeal to the people of the world, warning them that they face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Accepting a so-called “missile defense system” makes that choice, in favor of an end to the human race, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.

[hack89]

62. Russian missiles would be fired over the North Pole

it is the shortest distance - especially for submarine launched ICBMs.

Russia has so many missiles and so few missiles will go into Poland that it is laughable to think that they are there to blunt a Russian counter attack. The Russian counter attack would come from submarine launched missiles - submarines operating in the Barents Sea and the North Pacific. Defensive missiles in Poland would be irrelevant in such a situation.

[The Croquist]

64. I don't follow this logic

"If Iran were to indicate even the slightest attention of such a move (nuclear strike), the country would be vaporized."

Correct me if I am wrong but Iran has hinted at just that against Israel multiple times, a country with nuclear weapons, yet the last time I checked Iran hadn't been vaporized yet.

"The system is indeed aimed at Iran, but as a first strike weapon."

Since Iran currently doesn't have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles how is this considered a "first strike weapon"? What are we going to strike with it?

[bdab1973]

68. That's crazy...

2. To reduce (or annihilate) the Russian possibilities for a counter attack after a nuclear first strike.


Dude, it's 10 interceptors. Assuming that all 10 hit their mark, that would vastly reduce Russia's ability to strike by, oh, 0.004%. Russia has around 2,400 nuclear warheads installed on various types of ICBMs, and an unknown number of "tactical nuclear" warheads.

Thinking that these 10 interceptor missiles, which work something like 80% of the time, are aimed at destroying Russia's nuclear capability is nonsense.

[Codeine]

60. One system was an offensive weapon

made to hurl nuclear missiles at Americans, while the other is a defensive system designed - in theory if not particularly well in practice - to defend against incoming nuclear missiles.

Apples and oranges, whether you agree with the deployment or not.

[sofa king]

66. I somewhat disagree.

The problem is that anti-missile systems--and I'm specifically talking about nukes here--are easily overwhelmed. The way they're overwhelmed is by simply building more missiles than one can possibly defend against. Therefore the missile shield becomes useful only as an offensive weapon, in which a nuclear first strike is hoped to take out most of the other side's missiles, so that the shield has a chance of working... some.

The Russians are not unfamiliar with this logical path (if such a path can be considered logical at all). In the 1960s, the U.S. was busily working on an anti-missile system while simultaneously hardening their missile silos. The Soviets responded by building many more missiles with larger warheads, and within a few years the American plan was foiled. (Edit: I should add that the ABM treaty was a direct result of the Soviet end-run around the US plans.)

The point being that while an anti-missile system can be justified any way the builder wishes, the result is always more missiles, more missiles targeted at strategic points, the risk of even larger catastrophe, the neutralization of the system as a defensive weapon, and its remaining usefulness converted to part of a first-strike platform.

[The Croquist]

67. What you are saying maybe correct for a major military power

but the US is trying to defend against North Korea or Iran. Nobody expects either to build as many ICBMs as Russia or China.

[Codeine]

69. While I have nothing but contempt for the Bush junta

they are not contemplating a nuclear first strike.