Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

reply to post by Wotan


True, it's simple as that. But what do we do? We have bush and cheney and mccain blasting off on how they want to punish Russia for their invasion of Georgia. As much as I didn't agree with Russia's invasion of Georgia, I equally disagree in any for of punishment against Russia for doing the same thing we did back in '02 in Iraq.
Truth be told, they want conflict, both sides, and they're poking each other to see who bites first. very dangerous.

Idiotic behavior from the US. I don't know why they're so intent on upsetting Russia. It's already hard enough to push their foreign policy with Russia tending to veto anything the US wants at the Security Council, but now Russia is just going to go out of its way to make life difficult. Surely anybody with half a brain can see it's better to keep Russia happy?

news.yahoo.com...

This is not good. How did the bad cold war feelings surface so quickly?

I'm in shock.

Russia has it's chin held high right now from walking into a pansy country named Georgia. Poland is a different animal, its a full member of NATO. Attacking Poland will result in a short war, but different outcome war with Russia.

Russia would be slapped and slapped hard. No columns of tanks running loose as Poland has an air force and it would have the full military backing of NATO.

The talk of a Russian general using nukes is just that, talk. Russia will use nukes to defend itself, just as the USA would. Let Russia invade a smaller country and threaten to use nukes over that, (TOS won't allow me to say what I want, but it would be something like; go fornicate yourself.) Anything done that stupid would require the USA to use the full military meaning nuclear capabilities to remove further Russian nuclear sites. This would turn into a very bad day.

Russia is stupid and crazy about some things, they are not insane.

Originally posted by ufo reality
news.yahoo.com...

This is not good. How did the bad cold war feelings surface so quickly?

I'm in shock.

i'm especially intruiged by our [Poland and the 'States] mutual agreement to come to each other's assistance "in case of trouble." And all of this because Poland feels threatened by Russia's military campaign against Georgia. Who would have thunk it...
No bueno my friends, no bueno...

Russian chest beating.Nothing more.They have a population of 140 million.The US is over 300 million.A nuke would be devastating to both sides but Russia would cease to exist.As some previous posters have said the US would never use nukes to attack.And neither will Russia.Theres always the China factor and im sure they are watching.Poland is entitled to protect itself and a missile defense system is justified.If Russia did not want that system in Poland they should have thought about that before they invaded Georgia.Gee its looking like the Russian got had instead!

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Justice11]

Well I live next to Russia,and my country have suffered enough of those oliberators. Believe me,Russia is the same USSR that she was 18 years ago. Those generals, and all other military stucktures are the same as in USSR, only they call them self diferent. FSB is the same KGB, the same personal, the same methods. And of course moust post Soviet countrys like mine will always choose oposite of Russia. And not because we so much like Western,but because we have seen what is Russia ans russians capable. This is teh reason why all ex-soviet country want to be in NATO and why they want missiles and foreign army in its own land!!!

reply to post by Daedalus24



Don't worry dude, these anti-US bashers always resort to the "bush loving" token when they lose all sense of an argument. It's the lowest form of intelligence, that they resort to such type-cast measures. The fact of the matter is, the world is more complex than to park yourself firmly on one side of an argument like these simple minded peeps. I myself too am very critical of the Bush administration, but i can see the difference between stationing anti-ICBM missiles (defensive) and Nuclear bombers (offensive).

How far have we come in debate when people will perpetuate ignorance to the extent of basically writing off absolutely every single decision and policy someone makes (Bush)... Even figures that i vehemently disagree with generally, make decisions and points that sometimes i can agree with.

Back to subject, Russia are exerting their military presence as a means to branch out their influence as they know they can't win the ideological battle with the former soviet states. The US has every right to defend its allies from Russian threats.

With Russias recent actions, even if they were designed to counter russias arsenal then i can see why they would want them. Russia has almost played into a trap here...


[edit on 15-8-2008 by theblunttruth]

Seems reasonable to me it's just common sense if Poland has the anti missile system when a launch started they would obviously have made themselves a top priority target.

I don't think Russia is threatening here they are just stating a military fact Poland is painting a bullseye on themselves.

I think this story's just media sensationalism its taking the only sensible strategy on the Russian part and twisting it into Russia threatening poland.

If America was surrounded by ant missile systems they would have to attack them first as well to achieve any success.

Russias leadership is full of nutcases...
They don't like these missile shields because it nullifies the MAD scenario, the only people that would be assured MAD would be the Russians in a nuclear war, they know very well that their nukes are now worthless and that their technology and equipment is inferior...

EDIT: I'd also like to point out Russia would use nukes if they had the chance, it's a part of their doctrine to use tactical nukes against armoured columns the way we would use prescision guided bombs...Infact it's Russias doctrine that if we used prescision weapons on them they would use Tactical nukes...

[edit on 15-8-2008 by SKUNK2]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by SKUNK2]

reply to post by Teknikal


It is common sense, but that's exactly why its something that's better left unsaid at a time like this. All it serves to do is heighten tensions.

Of course, that's Russia's intent. They're trying to threaten and bully Poland and their other former Soviet satellite states to tow the line. Lets not forget their earlier threat to make these same states pay for their support of Georgia. All of these threats are just making a bad situation worse.

OK. We're going to start addressing the issue of the thread which is the risk Poland may, or may not, face because of the anti missile defenses present...

You will stop attacking each other, and attack the issue.




[edit on 8/15/2008 by seagull]

This is only ok if you think "We own the world"

NPR then had a discussion -- it was like being at the Harvard faculty club -- serious people, educated, no grammatical errors, who know what they're talking about, usually polite. The discussion was about the so-called missile defense system that the U.S. is trying to place in Czechoslovakia and Poland -- and the Russian reaction.
The main issue was, "What is going on with the Russians? Why are they acting so hostile and irrational? Are they trying to start a new Cold War? There is something wrong with those guys. Can we calm them down and make them less paranoid?"
The main specialist they called in, I think from the Pentagon or somewhere, pointed out, accurately, that a missile defense system is essentially a first-strike weapon. That is well known by strategic analysts on all sides. If you think about it for a minute, it's obvious why. A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike.
If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It's known to every strategic analyst.
I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it. So on NPR it is agreed that a missile defense system is a first-strike weapon. But then comes the second part of the discussion. Well, say the pundits, the Russians should not be worried about this. For one thing because it's not enough of a system to stop their retaliation, so therefore it's not yet a first-strike weapon against them. Then they said it is kind of irrelevant anyway because it is directed against Iran, not against Russia.

Okay, that was the end of the discussion. So, point one, missile defense is a first-strike weapon; second, it's directed against Iran. Now, you can carry out a small exercise in logic. Does anything follow from those two assumptions? Yes, what follows is it's a first-strike weapon against Iran. Since the U.S. owns the world what could be wrong with having a first-strike weapon against Iran. So the conclusion is not mentioned. It is not necessary. It follows from the fact that we own the world.

www.chomsky.info...

[edit on 15-8-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

All this anti-american blahblah. Dudes you really dont get it.

Please tell me you know the different between a DEFENSE SYSTEM and a FIRST STRIKE ROCKETLAUNCHER. What is the problem with Russia? Are they afraid? Why? Thus rockets can only intercept other rockets. They cant be used to bomb Moscau. Its the same if you try to force your neigbour to cut down there garden fence. The fence it for their protection but you would argue that they could use it for barackation and to attack you on your garden soil?

come on...

reply to post by emergencyresponseteam


Because . It stops them from DEFENDING themselves .. Put up a ton of these . Launch an attack . And the country cant fight back . Hardly fair .

I think the article i posted before you did says it all. You obviously didn't read the thread tho ..

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
reply to post by emergencyresponseteam

 

Because . It stops them from DEFENDING themselves .. Put up a ton of these . Launch an attack . And the country cant fight back . Hardly fair .

I think the article i posted before you did says it all. You obviously didn't read the thread tho ..

Well, I live safer if Russia isnt able to launch any attack to europe or other countries. Georgia just proofed that Russia is the same war monger like the states and trying to re-establish the USSR.

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05


That's one key consideration here. The US isn't intending to put up a ton of them. It appears as though there will only be 10. Russia probably has over 1,000 ground-based ICBMs, let alone the number of nuclear warheads housed in ballistic missile subs or assigned to long-range bomber squadrons. In total, the numbers I've seen put it somewhere around 3,300 deployed warheads.

So at best, this system in Poland would be capable of nullifying something less than 1% of Russia's entire active ICBM-based nuclear arsenal (and probably closer to 0.1% in practice). Its not a threat to Russia in its current form. If we were talking about 100-200 interceptors, yeah, it might be different.



[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]

People really don't understand the gravity of the situation.

Some say Ok Russia feels threatened, I understand that.

Oh please, they feel threatened?
How about they don't want to be wiped off the map?
How about they don't want to be sitting ducks by a country trying to take over the planet.

You guys don't get the situation, it's much bigger than being a bully.

U.S. just trained Georgian troops, and now this?

What do you think americans would want their Govt. to do if they did this to them?

WWIII here we come!

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05

 

So at best, this system in Poland would be capable of nullifying something less than 1% of Russia's entire active ICBM-based nuclear arsenal (and probably closer to 0.1% in practice). Its not a threat to Russia in its current form.

Yeah in it's current form. but it's obviously going to get bigger and lead to more isn't it, otherwise what would be the point of putting it there in the first place.

Poor Poland, being used as a pawn in the Russia/US game. To be honest, Russia should just let Poland be so they don't have to worry about being invaded, and the USA should leave their 'missile defence systems' out of it so that Russia don't feel like they're being boxed in. But that's obviously never going to happen while there's 2 superpowers at each other's throats.

Like someone said before, sticking a load of missile batteries in Russia's backyard is obviously going to p*ss them off, because it means that the US can move it's imperial conquest on to Russian allies such as Iran, and Russia will have it's hands tied.

OMG!

The world is at a time of fast change,

Having digested within the last 30 minutes the main events since early this morning when I left,

Well if you guys have been watching it all day the "flavor" is very differant from both sides as going south Very quickly.

I believe this is very important, is not this the first time since 1968 that Russia has mentioned Nuclear Weapons and another European country in the same sentence, as in talking about types of military action there?

My history is not expert but pretty well rounded, I think im right and if so we are now since that moment we are in a full "cold war" situation, again, that seems to be getting hot very quick!

OMFG!

I have asked a favor elsewhere too, but please anyone watching things develop all day, ive been out no news for 12 hours, whats the main change since yesterday, or main events today, just breifly name and link ta ta ta.

Kind Regards,

Elf.