Medvedev: Russia may target US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington fails to address concer

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The US should remove all its bases and missiles and early warning Radar stations from Europe altogether.

Go home and look after your own land.

Europe has already endured two destructive engagements , and this missile defense system just sets us up for another.

It's so cynical of the US to be willing to sacrifice Europe to get 10 minutes warning, or does anybody seriously think those anti-missile sites won't become first strike targets themselves.

Russians are Europeans too, keep that in mind, i would much rather they provide these things as they have a more genuine interest in doing so.

Cosmic..




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Aww boo-hoo Russia!!!

They don't have state of the art missile defense system
so there going to posture and bark and whine LIKE a 5 year old girl..

I would be mad too if my countries nukes couldn't do a damn thing
anymore to my enemy..
edit on 24-11-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
the point is that we have to spend again a lot of money to equalize the situation after someone's idiotic decisions



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions


 

Mod note: Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** Continuing to post copypasta after receiving staff warnings not to may result in a permanent ban. We will discuss this via private message. -- Majic


edit on 11/24/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Russia is having it easy with other nations having to deal with protests, both civil and bloody in many parts of the world. It had nothing so far on the radar.

Thus their boldness to play dangerous games that will harm our fellow brothers and sisters worldwide, example - in Syria, accesory to the henious murders of many innocent and unarmed fellow humans whom only pleaded for succour from the sufferings with their supposed leaders.

Instead of all that expense in arming that despotic leader with better missiles and military support, Russian would have done better to spend it on socially alleviating the sufferings of our fellow human brothers and sisters in Russia whom had been suffering in silence out of fear, even in a supposed 'democracy' under the dictator Putin.

No human can live under tyranny, for sooner or later, it will only doom their next generations. Perhaps it is time to burn the twitter lines and other communication feeds to encourage our brothers and sisters there, to make a stand, to end tyranny, and an end to the despicable Russian hegemony of the Slavic People forced into a federation that does nothing but rob them of their wealth.

May Putin follow US example, and let freedom flourish, or if this despicable despot choose to be like Libya's tyrant, then no loss, sooner the better to set the next generations free.

May Putin take heed. The tide of change is unstoppable. It may be winter in the Kremlin, and winters often favoured the tyrants in office, but come spring, change will come. It is the only constant in life and civilisation.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Thus their boldness to play dangerous games that will harm our fellow brothers and sisters worldwide, example - in Syria, accesory to the henious murders of many innocent and unarmed fellow humans whom only pleaded for succour from the sufferings with their supposed leaders.


Why does suddenly everyone care so much about the civil strife in Syria. Where was the US and the righteous brigade when these was slaugher in Sudan, or countless conflicts in Africa, which were far bloodier than what is going on in Syria?



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Instead of all that expense in arming that despotic leader with better missiles and military support


Russia is not giving anything for free to Syria. All of the arms Syria acquired from Russia was purchased, at a nice profit to Russia. The US is no different, in supplying arms to countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, so quit this self-righteous BS.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Russian would have done better to spend it on socially alleviating the sufferings of our fellow human brothers and sisters in Russia whom had been suffering


And is US any different? You think Russia is considerably worse in regard to widespread poverty than the US? And look at the military budget of US vs Russia. So who should reallocate some money to help the people?



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
encourage our brothers and sisters there, to make a stand


Oh no - no one in Russia wants any "encouragement" from the US, not even the competition. America's encouragement very often comes in the form of bombs and airstrikes.



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
May Putin follow US example, and let freedom flourish


He may follow the US example, and invade an oil-rich country or two. Then freedom can really flourish.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
It is quite sad, the population of Russia is collapsing (in absolute numbers) , the life expectancy of the Russian people is as low as Africa's while they have the richest country in the world, yet the leaders of Russia care more about showing off and playing games. Second - the missiles of Russia can penetrate the "shield" , also the shield is not meat for offensive purpose, what is exactly the problem of dictator Putinvedev?

Just edited to add the evidence for my claims:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 24-11-2011 by Romanian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Putin is out of touch of the ordinary common people. He had led a charm and sheltered life for far too long to comprehend the suffering of his own citizens, let alone the thousands in the world that screams and cry for justice, equality, freedom, shared prosperity and progress.

He may put on a show or two, kiss a few babies, offer a few coins to the dispossed and presume he had achieved all that's necessary to leadership.

He is a fool and an idiot. Worse, play dangerous games with humanity seeking to be free to achieve common aims in life.

He is only a 'had been' and should have retired long ago instead of attempting to cling on to power, when that power had not HELPED his own people during his decade of dictatorial rule. Our Russian fellow brothers and sisters could have achieved and progress much, but thanks to his selfish lust for power, the true shared by humanity's destiny of the centuries old Slavic People had been put on hold.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


isnt this all the same information Robert Hanson gave to the Russians?, From what ive read and the assumptions are rampid but the Russians have known exactly what we have thanks to him for some time now.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Regardless of all the B.S. Obama should make a video response to Medvedev's concern's. If he really wanted to get re-ellected he'd be all over this matter to try and get some attention. Maybe 'cause it's Thanksgiving today? I just watched the 10 minute PSA from Medvedev and he seems dead serious, Barrack should try to be sincere 'cause all hell could break loose over this matter.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


Obama will respond to this only when told to, and with what exactly to say, when or IF that happens.

IMO.

This one is way above his office.




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Just thinking, Russia and Eastern Europe really got the biggest drop of population on global level (lowest fertility rate, high mortality, high migration and so on) . How in the world would a war help the future of Eastern Europe? I guess Russia has WAY bigger problems that the defence shield in Eastern Europe: a total demographic collapse while neighbouring the most populous country on Earth : China. If Russia would start a war while having the demographics id does, China will have to be stupid not to use the opportunity!



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


What is your obsession with Russia's demographics, and how is it relevent to this issue? Russia has more than enough people for the military, and the demographic trend has mostly been reversed. It is better to have more than enough space for everyone, than be burdened with overpopulation. And China can't do a damn thing as long as Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't mean to sound rude...

But why is it a bad thing that Russia and the US refuse to open up their bases to one another? Doing so in the first place doesn't seem too smart, even if it is for establishing more peaceful relations.

And really, why would Russia allow Americans to scout out their bases when the US has been deliberately planting "defensive" military systems around Russia? The Russians aren't stupid.


popsmayhem-
Aww boo-hoo Russia!!!

They don't have state of the art missile defense system
so there going to posture and bark and whine LIKE a 5 year old girl..

I would be mad too if my countries nukes couldn't do a damn thing
anymore to my enemy..


1) The US is the one that broke the ABM treaty limiting only one ABM system per signatory countries. The US broke the treaty so it could build more and more of them around Russia.

2) Russia has a superior ABM system, consisting of a S-400 network close to Moscow. They are testing the S-500 now which virtually doubles the S-400 capability.

3) Russian missiles can already defeat American ABM systems. This doesn't mean that it's perfectly ok for the US to deploy ABM shields around Russia. That's like saying that you feel comfortable hanging around a guy with a knife in his hands when you have a gun- point is, you're both armed.
edit on 24-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


What if the European countries we have the radars / missiles in are the ones who invited us in in the first place?

Why do you and others always assume a US military presence in a country is forced? Why do you and others not bother to check the entire reason our forces are statined abroad?

If Poland wants a US military presence in their country, and asks the US to station assets there is it still the fault of the US or is it Polands? Since Poland is a sovereign nation do they not have a right to run their affaitrs in a manner that best serves those national interests?

Or is it you just hate the US that much that you are unwilling to look at any information that would undermine your argument?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blu82
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


isnt this all the same information Robert Hanson gave to the Russians?, From what ive read and the assumptions are rampid but the Russians have known exactly what we have thanks to him for some time now.


I would say the info Hansen gave is out of date by now. It doesnt change the fact though that our shield is limited and not desinged for an incoming attack of the size Russia could deliver.

I still think Russias stance on all of this is nothing but a show. Saber rattling like what occured during the cold war, and nothing more.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Hardly "defensive"...



What part of "shield" is not defensive?

What part of "shield" do you see as offensive?

Since the missiles used are interceptors, please explain how they are offensive.

Thanks
edit on 25-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Im not saying its a bad thing. I would actually prefer the treaty stipulations rather than a step back into the cold war.

The point behind the article was to point out that the US is not the only country causing issues. Russias lapse of treaty obligations is grounds to reevaluate our force structure. REevaluation doesnt mean offensive or hostile, but it does ask the question on why the Russians stopped.

Personally speaking I could care less whatb reasons the Russians give since its there reasons and as any other country on this planet, have a right to run their affairs in their best interest.

However, so does the US.

As I stated before, the Us and Russia share a border so im not sure why there is any need for political jockeying by either side.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Hardly "defensive"...



What part of "shield" is not defensive?

What part of "shield" do you see as offensive?

Since the missiles used are interceptors, please explain how they are offensive.

Thanks
edit on 25-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


ABM systems are part of first strike capability. They factor into considering whether to launch the first strike or not because the ABM network will benefit the aggressor during retaliation.

It's already established that ABMs are offensive systems, hence the ABM Treaty that included Russia and the US. It was Bush who pulled out of it with plans to build ABM systems all over the world.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Ok....

ABM missiles are defensive, not offensive.

If an ABM is deployed, its because of an offensive move on the US / allies. The ABM function is to intercept incoming missiles.

If a police officer is dispatched to a call where there are reports of weapons, that officer will draw his weapon.
* - If he locates a person involved he will point the weapon at that person while giving commands for that person to show his hands while taking him into custody.

= Defensive action.



* - If he locates a person involved he will point the weapon at that person while giving commands for that person to show his hands. If the individual decides to pull a gun to kill the officer, the officer will respond.

= Offensive action.


Since ABMs are missile to missile and not ground to ground / ground to aircraft, its a defensive platform.


It was Russia who pulled out of the conventional arms treaty.
edit on 25-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join