Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
Originally posted by Xcathdra
While I get what their problem is, I dont think they are taking into account just how inadequate our missile shield would be against their
I think they are perfectly aware that the missile defence system will be basically useless. They've been sending fleets of submarines armed with SLBMs
to the atlantic coast for ages.
They may be aware, and it could all be rhetoric just to annoy the plebs on all 'sides' but there is still the sticking point about the silos, also
they are aware of the given reasons for the deployments. This could be the original start of the debate from Russia's defense minister back in
August 1, 2006 :: RIA-Novosti :: News
General Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia’s Chief of Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister, published a lengthy and important article in the
Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier on July 26 criticizing steps by the U.S. to move toward a more defensive posture. Balueyvsky criticizes in particular
recent discussions about deploying missile defense assets in Eastern Europe. The Chief of Staff accuses Washington of attempting to achieve
“absolute supremacy in the military sphere” and condemns its “brute force in dealing with complicated international issues.” Baluyevsky notes
that while the U.S. might appear to be deploying missile defenses to protect against strikes from Iran and North Korea, its real enemies are Russia
and China, against whom the systems are allegedly designed to defend.
Baluyevsky writes that “the world is essentially back to square one—that latter being the situation of America’s nuclear monopoly of the
1940’s.” The U.S. plan to deploy interceptor missiles and early warning radars in Central and Eastern Europe would “disrupt the existing
Russian-American parity in strategic delivery means.” He lists three reasons for Russia’s concern:
First, silos of the ballistic missile defense system may be easily converted for ICBMs that will reach targets in European Russia wherever they are.
Effective control over the use of silos is a sheer impossibility. As a matter of fact, any such control is going to be impossible even for central
governments of the countries where the silos will be built.
Second, deployment of active components of the American national ballistic missile defense system in European countries may be interpreted as an
attempt on the part of the U.S. to leave Europe facing the music i.e. consequences of a conflict where ballistic missiles were used. Europe will
essentially become an advanced line of defense of US territory. From the military standpoint, the logic is impeccable—bring the troops (and
therefore the hostilities) as close as possible to the positions of the potential enemy and set up several more lines of defense. The world nowadays
is so complicated and interdependent, however, it is so exposed to terrorism as to make these advanced outposts or whatever you might want to call
them the prime targets for terrorist attacks. Russia cannot be blasé about it because it itself is a part of Europe.
Third, intercept of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, germ, chemical) will cause ecological catastrophes in the
European countries above whose territories the ICBMs will be killed. Fragments of the missiles and killer missiles may even fall on the territories of
neutral countries (or at least the regions that are not involved in the conflict under way). Russia is particularly concerned by vulnerability of the
Kaliningrad region to this threat.
Baluyevsky adds, menacingly, that such defensive deployments would “compel Moscow to revise its approach to reduction of these weapons.”
He warns that Russia will be ready with “the necessary academic and technological solutions that will at least minimize negative consequences of
these actions on Washington’s part.” He reminds his readers that Russia has tested new strategic arms capable of piercing the existing U.S.
missile defense systems as well as those other countries may come up with in the near future, a reference to the Topol-M (SS-27) intercontinental
Just to add my thoughts, Baluyevsky is no dozer. Be he sabre rattling or spinning, he does have valid points to make. We don't have any vocabulary on
how these silos are to be administrated in those countries, and by not knowing, a well armed terrorist attack from any source on those silos could
well be a possibility for instance, given the amount of contraband firepower there is floating around eastern europe, picture the result of that
scenario. So then you have to ask how many military is needed for these silos for starters? I would suggest more than a lot.
23-11-2011 by smurfy because: Text.