It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia warns of 'measures' against US missile shield

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Russia warns of 'measures' against US missile shield


prisonplanet.com

AFP
Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Russia will retaliate against any deployment of a US missile shield in central Europe which would weaken Moscow's nuclear deterrent, the foreign ministry spokesman said Monday.

"This will be a strong action designed to weaken Russia's nuclear deterrent. We would have no other choice than to take measures of reprisal," spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a foreign ministry statement.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 27-12-2007 by gabriel5578]

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gabriel5578]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
WW3? Is this what the NWO is setting up? Or are we really at odds with Russia? This is my first post so I would like to hear any opinions... and my apologies if this has already been posted as I did not see it.

prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by gabriel5578]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
WHO IS Russia exactly to say that there is no other choice than to take matters into their own hands?

I hate politics alot now.....its always talking smack and a little nudge here and there. But when push comes to shove it gets nasty really quick and degenerates into really crappy situations where any outcome, is not a positive one.

Russia shuold not take this missle system as an act of aggresion or an insult; rather, take it as an oppportunity. An opportunity of peace and understanding.........I really dont know what i am talking about now. I just want to find something good out of this....



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
does this belong here or should it be on a whole 'nuther different thread?


MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's military on Tuesday successfully test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads—a weapon intended to replace aging Soviet-era missiles.

The RS-24 missile was launched from the Plesetsk launch facility in northern Russia and its test warheads successfully hit designated targets on the Kura testing range on the Kamchatka Peninsula some 4,340 miles east, Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Alexander Vovk told The Associated Press.


link

Anyway, looks like they just tested a new ICBM.


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jarheadjock
WHO IS Russia exactly to say that there is no other choice than to take matters into their own hands?


WHO IS the U.S. to deploy military installations wherever they see fit?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Technically, Russia did NOT say it will strike the missle shield. They said they would retaliate if it gets installed. Retaliation can come in many forms such as economic means.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jarheadjock
 


Hmm, ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Seems like the US didn't take to kindly to aggressive actions being taken in their back yard. How is this any different?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
WHO IS the U.S. to deploy military installations wherever they see fit?

Its NOT wherever the U.S. sees fit.

The countries who would be hosting the shield do not have to agree with the U.S. They could deny the request to install it. Do you think that perhaps these countries might want the shield and think its a good idea?

So the real question is why does Russia think they can decide what defensive measures other countries can install.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Hmm, ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Seems like the US didn't take to kindly to aggressive actions being taken in their back yard. How is this any different?

No, never heard of it.....kidding.
That is not a good analogy for a number of reasons. The most glaring reason being that the missles being deployed in Cuba were actually missles, an offensive weapon, which could carry a nuke warhead. On the other hand, the missle shield is a defensive weapon. BIG difference.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
They won't attack. They'll apply economic and political pressure to any European nation that goes along with this, they'll give Iran all the defensive capabilities they can, and they'll probably threaten to restart the arms race by shoring up their ability to circumvent the shield using nuclear cruise missiles delivered by sub and aircraft.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


no same difference - this postion weakens russia so it will retaliate - who does the US think they are telling other countries what they can and cannot do and what US equipment they have on there own soil; that is what it boils down to.

confidence is high for incoming icbm`s - hwo will you fight.

remember russia doesn`t just arm its icbm`s with nukes - its the worlds only super power in biological warfare agents.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Oh, I don't know, maybe because IT IS NOT!!!!! An offensive missile system.

The total number of interceptors that will be placed all over the world would not even be close tot eh total number of nuclear missiles the Russia has.

Russia has the ability to launch WELL over 3000 nuclear missiles think more like 5-10K missiles.

Clearly the 20-30 interceptors would have absolutely no bearing on a missile exchange with Russia.

The system is meant to stop a few missiles from one or more "rouge" states.

Furthermore, Russia was invited to be present and help run the site in Poland that Russia is throwing a pissy fit about.

Vlad is trying to bring back the old Soviet Union with all its bluster and pompousness-he is doing a good job of it.

Lastly, for someone who's country is completely secure because it boarders the US and is allies of the of the US, you sure have a lot of attitude about the US.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Russia cracks me up, the launch an icbm and then proclaim that it can defeat any missile defense system, and yet somehow the missile defense system is such a threat to them that they would retaliate.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The point of having nuclear weapons is to stop yourselves being attacked by anyone else with nukes.

Having a nuke net that diminishes anyones possibilities of a succesful missile launch is a good thing, but it's also a bad as it reduces the strength of a nuclear defense by a country surrounded by these nets, and strengthens the nuclear attacking power of the country that placed the nets.

If these European countries want a missile defense net then they should install their own, not somebody elses.

Do you think Canada or Mexico would allow Russia to install these same style of defenses in their territory? I think not.

This is a political and financial 'power hour' campaign by the USA to diminish anyone elses ability to have any defenses of their own. The USA must begin to realise that they cannot dictate to everyone.

I'm in agreement with Russia here. But as some of us know, the USA has said that it's not aimed at Russia (some say it is) but rather at other countries with the ability of nuclear weapons.

Look at Pakistan right now, Bhutto is dead, Pakistan is in uproar. Who is to say that the nukes Pakistan has will not be used pretty soon?

There does seem to be a whole lot more going on that we, at present, realise. This does not in any way stand for or against what Russia believes to be going on.

Russia sees these nets as a direct softening of their nuclear deterent, quite rightly too.

If you had CCTV on your home, pointed at your front door, as a deterrent for thieves, and then a thief put a photo of your front door in front of the camera, would you not be a little 'miffed' at the loss of your defensive tactics? I sure would.

An anti missile net on your doorstep is an obvious obstruction.

If the USA was so worried about getting nuked by missiles, why are these nets not being installed where they should be.. all over the USA.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
no same difference - this postion weakens russia so it will retaliate

It weakens Russia??.....GOOD!
Using your logic, the U.S. should just get rid of their entire military because any military technology which is better than Russia's will weaken Russia.


who does the US think they are telling other countries what they can and cannot do and what US equipment they have on there own soil

Sorry, but this point makes no sense because the U.S. is not forcing any country to install the equipment. The U.S. would not install the system in a particular country if they did not want it there. The U.S. cannot force a country to accept the equipment. Did you ever think that these countries might actually want to install the system?

Sorry, but it boils down to who does Russia think they are by trying to tell other countries what defensive equipment they can and cannot install.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


It may be hosted by the US, however, dont other nations in the EU want to have some sort of protection from a possibly nuclear-weapons capable Iran?

www.nytimes.com...


Russia has taken a tough stance against the American plan to deploy missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic, saying it would undermine Russia’s national security — a concern Warsaw, Prague and Washington have repeatedly dismissed. They maintain that the system was conceived to protect Europe from attacks by so-called rogue states.


I just think that if the EU nations and Poland took more of a stance and say in this instead of the US, things may go smoother between Russia and others.

reply to post by intrepid
 


Because we're not in a war, so to speak, right now, neither directly or proxied with Russia. Sure Iran can be counted, but thats a political means.

IMO, different times call for different measures. Back then, Cuba was hosting nuclear missiles, aimed for the US shores and numerous civillian sites. Cuba and Russia were obviously gunning for a quick shot to the US if a nuclear war broke out. Today, they want to build a radar stations and missile shield near Russia aimed at rogue states, most notably Iran, and most recently a possible stolen nuclear weapon from Pakistans chaotic state. I may not agree with what the US is doing, but I agree with it on the terms of building a defence now, instead of later against possible threats from Iran, or an aggressive Russia.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by Harlequin
no same difference - this postion weakens russia so it will retaliate

It weakens Russia??.....GOOD!


No, not good. You don't poke a sleeping bear. Remember the reaction that the Pearl Harbor attack provoked? "Let sleeping dogs lay."


sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
i think that atomic war is out of the table as Russia can bring Europe to the knees by stopping the petrol/natural gas exports. I remember the panic they created over here (Eastern , Western Europe ) when they got the "conflict" with Ukraine and the flow of Russian gas was disrupted during winter. Why risk having their country bombed by Americans? This is how i would explain "retaliation"



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
i think that atomic war is out of the table as Russia can bring Europe to the knees by stopping the petrol/natural gas exports.


That's a double edged sword though. The Russian economy is reliant on this income. I was surprised to find out that they were the worlds #1 exporter of natural gas and #2 in oil. Sure they could turn off the source. And endure economic hardship, not like the Russians aren't used to hard times BUT how long could they sustain that?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
From my understanding, the missile shield for Central Europe is for protection against the ever growing threat of more sophisticated missiles with greater range originating from the Middle East.

Namely the same country that Russia is so eager to be in bed with. The same nation that vows to destroy Israel.

Remember when the United States had a neutral status? Hitler was taking over the entire continent of Europe and commitng atrocities against the Jewish people that is unparallelled in history. Hirohito and his henchmen was taking over the Pacific rim and raping and pillaging China.

Should we afford history to repeat itself?



[edit on 27/12/07 by Intelearthling]




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join