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.

 

U.S. May Station Ballistic Missiles Instead of Interceptors in Poland

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

U.S. May Station Ballistic Missiles Instead of Interceptors in Poland


www.kommersant.com

Washington may station in Poland short/mid-range ballistic missiles under the guise of interceptors, said Alexander Pikaev, head of the disarmament and conflict settlement department at Russia’s Science Academy, RIA Novosti reported.
The United States intends to station ten interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic under the pretext of opposing potential threat of Iran. Russia is concerned about too close location of these facilities to its borders, fearing they would undermine the national security.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Doesn't sound very likely, but sure is a possibility. But anyway, placing missile sites close to someone's borders is sure to cause tension. And if the missiles are ABMs indeed, they could also mean threat to Russia's security, cause they are a mean to control part of Russian airspace.

Your thoughts?

www.kommersant.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is simply Russian propoganda the likes of Bushs WMD talk.


All these govs know how to do these days is scare people.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


It is a possibility, of course. But as I previously stated, even if it is purely ABM shield system, which is by its nature defensive poses threat to Russian national security. All defensive measures will bolster offensive capabilities (and vice versa). Those ABMs will most certainly be capable to endanger air activity in Russian airspace, and thus pose a threat.

However, placing tactical missiles in Poland seems to be a plausible idea, in case of increasing tensions between USA and Russia.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I have read a few articles on this but i dont understand. Sorry. I have a few questions about this. Why would Russia have a say in this where we put the defense shield or missiles. Where we are wanting to put them has nothing to do with Russia right. Czech and Poland I thought these were the two countries that we are talking about right now. They arent part of Russia so why does it matter that Russia doesnt want it there. And why do we need this missile shield anyways? Shouldnt all the countries try to get a long and be friends and no one would need this shield. Or is it because of someother threat that they are putting this up. And does Russia have one?

Thanks

Sorry for all the questions.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
meh the pershings II`s were all gone 17 years ago - verifeid by the russians and the only deployed SRBM - the MGM-18 Lacrosse was gone in the 60`s


as for poland and the czech republic - how would the USA feel if russia decided to put an `ABM` system in mexico and in alaska? thats the equivilent distance



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Thank you, Yes I can understand how we would feel if Russia wanted to do that. But do we or anyone for that matter really need this sheild?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by isa75
 


I just would like to add that Russia still considers (at least formally) this area as part of its influence (Warsaw pact, Poland being part of Russian empire and such) and since US (its main "genetic memory" adversary) is getting footprint around Russia on several sides (Europe, Caucasus, Asia) some people with cold war background/mentality get itchy.
Another aspect - inside Russia government feeds feelings that previous humiliations and economical problems are behind them and Russia is already back into super powers game. This is a little problematic when real geopolitical situation is seen , as on this occasion. So at least verbally there has to be response to show that they are not push-overs.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The premise that the missiles are there to protect from Iranian missiles is utter rubbish since the range of the shahab3 covers

kazakstan, russia, ukraine , molodva,romania, bulgaria and some greek islands *maybe crete*

and thats as far north as it goes.

the thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

covers the range of the `best` iranian missile.

so what use are missiles when its 530 miles from warsaw to bucharest?

poland have caught on to the game the USA want to play and don`t want any of it.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Ahhhhhh i was correct if this happens.The us pulling a cuban missile crisis.We park them near Russia.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by isa75
 


I agree that it isn't Russia's job to decide where those facilities will be stationed if it isn't their own territory, sovereign countries where this system are ment to be placed are entitled for such decisions. But fact is, they don't want those systems THAT close to their territory. And they are considering them as a possible threat for their own air (and maybe space) traffic in their own airspace, above Russia.

As for necessity of ABM in Europe - against 'rogue countries' - not by a long shot. Against Russia and/or China? Could be, could be...

Also, what ZeroKnowledge and Harlequin wrote here is also making an excellent point.

And alienstar, you are making an interesting point - I think that new missile crisis could arise about this. Let's hope we're wrong. Right? World was never that close to nuclear confrontation like it was in these days back in 1962.






[edit on 10-7-2008 by Duby78]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Its funny besides 15 pershing II missiles that went to museums,they pulled almost 400 of these out of Europe in the 80's to early 90s following the new treaty.Why would they start now with installing abm's again is beyond me.Think Russia has threaten military strikes if they install this missile shield in the Ch Republic.Poland is a former warsaw country.You think Russia is remotely let this one slide?HAHAHA!



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Well, to be honest, I don't know about Russians and their reactions, but I think that direct military action against countries where ABM should be placed is not an option. They will likely mass ground forces near the border zone and aim their conventional and nuclear weapons on ABM countries (and publicly declare it). Furthermore, they will likely declare they're building their own ABM, which could be placed in Russia and her friendly countries (Serbia, maybe? I've heard some rumors about it, but can't provide links.)

Anyways, here are some news considering this ABM project and its necessity, from the Russian point of view:

Tests show US shield 'not needed'



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Why doesn't the US start to use some common sense and logic, and ask Russia if they want to help build and run this missile base, this way every one is happy.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by SKUNK2]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join