Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert

page: 4
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




It's a defensive system.

It would only be fired if somebody else launches one first.

Right. Or if NATO launches a first strike and Russia fires back.



Explain who decides if it's legal or not? Why should Europe and or NATO care what Russia wants or demands? It's not their system to begin with. Russia has no say in European affairs.

Oh really? Last time I checked, Russia was in Europe, America was not?

So Slayer, why are you supporting the madmen running America?




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by rogerstigers
hmm.. would it be appropriate to roast Turkey on Thanksgiving?




Seriously, though, this is much more dangerous than the cold war ever was. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.


I take it you weren't around for the cold war. It was much more turbulent.


Born in 74.. lived through the 80s in fear of nuclear bombs... eventually realized it was bogus hogwash. So yeah, lived through it... Still of same opinion.. this is much more volatile than the cold war was in my time at least.


Born in 60, politically aware by 68.

This is like any other day during the Cold War, and if today's world environment is "bogus hogwash" then so was the Cold War; but otherwise, No.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
How do you spell terrorist? N-A-T-O

Alternatives... C-I-A, N-S-A, C-F-R, T-L-C, D-E-A, F-E-M-A... and my favorites... O-B-A-M-A, R-O-C-K-E-F-E-L-L-E-R and last but not least R-O-T-H-S-C-H-I-L-D

But what do I know...



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
Go ahead and deploy the missile defense platforms in the EU, because it is none of Russia's business! No one is threatening them, and these defense platforms are a "just in case," precaution.


Just in case what? Just in case Iran is ever capable of developing ICBM's? And even if it can, no less than 15 or 20 years from now, do you really think all Iran will care to do is launch them right away at Europe or US? Iran will never launch a nuclear strike. Not because of the missile defense shield, but because of something called the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.


The story that US and NATO have been feeding Russians and the world about this missile defense shield is hogwash. That is what pisses Russia off the most. It is blatantly obvious to Russians that the US is using Europe as its personal buffer, possibly anticipating another Cold War a few decades from now. The only thing is that actions like this are bringing the Cold War closer to reality. Keep in mind that the US's strategy for this is not short-term - it is long term. The currenct missile defense installations are just a first step. Sure they don't threaten Russia's nuclear capabilities right now - but 10 or 20 years from now the technology will evolve. Russia now has to ensure that its technology evolves as well to keep up with the nuclear parity.




Originally posted by Jakes51
Historical speaking, Russia has had a long history of invading and occupying Eastern European countries, and they cannot deny that.


It also had an equally long history of being invaded and occupied by Europeans. Don't try to make Russia out to be the big bully. Russia and the rest of the world has just as many reasons to fear US and its NATO allies.



Originally posted by Jakes51
Now, if the US/NATO was deploying state of the art tactical nukes on Russia's doorstep then they would have reason for concern.


Anti-Ballistic Missiles installations by themselves may be defensive in nature, but they are an integral part of the country's nuclear tactical strategy. You have to consider US's and NATO's offensive nuclear weapons, when assessing their ABM capabilities. A well developed and deployed ABM network can significantly increase the chances of survival for the side that launches the first strike. In fact the ABM system is most useful from a tactical perspective not in the case of defending from a first strike, but in a case of defending from an anticipated retaliation to a first strike. That was the primary reason that fueled the development of the ABM systems in the Cold War.



Originally posted by Jakes51
This is just the usual Russian saber rattling. They need to get on board with the program and use their influence in Iran and Syria to bring the situation under control before military action is taken. Have they done anything remotely like that recently?


Get on board with what "Program"? America's program? Why do they need to get on board with that? And please don't bring up the "human rights" and "big bad dictatorships" bullshat. US supports enough regimes that deserve to be taken down just as much as Iran and Syria.

Maybe the US should get on board with Russia's program, and stay the **** out of internal civil conflicts where they don't belong. Maybe the US and its allies should use their influence to first take care of their own mess, like Afghanistan for instance, or Iraq. Or maybe focus on getting their economies and budgets in order. Have they done anything remotely like that recently?




Originally posted by Jakes51
Not much, because Asad is still massacring his people and Iran is defiant as ever.


OH NO - there is a civil war and people are being killed. As if this is something new and ground breaking in the world. Why wasn't the US up at arms over Sudan, or countless massacres in Africa?



Originally posted by Jakes51
They have no problem asking for concessions from others, but when it is their turn to give in return it is usually little to nothing.


Nobody makes concessions in international politics. You barter and trade favors or threats. US seems to be more predisposed to making threats recently, so Russia and others will make threats in return.



Originally posted by Jakes51
Let them talk, and put their missiles where ever they want. Who can stop them. Let them live in some misplaced world of fear and paranoia.


US has been living in the world of fear and paranoia for the last 10 years, so why not Russia. Most Americans are assured that the big bad freedon-hating, human rights-violating, terrorists around the world are out to get them. Believe it or not most of the world is a little bit skeptical that this threat warrants the aggresiveness exhibited by the US lately.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I think you are all getting way ahead of yourselves.

Russia is not a problem, it's all PR and nothing else. If you people in all honesty think Russia is going to protect the likes of Syria and Iran, think again.

By the time the big plan for the Middle East is in it's final stage of being broken up in to smaller nations, Russia is in for a tremendous profit.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Shenon
 

If it walks like a, quacks like a and looks like a then it must be a.

Russia is playing its joker card.

I'm not worried. My guess is they're putting up a fake tough exterior for their military brass. In reality, they're in the jacuzzi with some women sipping fine wine and enjoying the view.

But if by chance they're serious then we get to see them trip over themselves. Be fun.

Besides, Syria and Iran are killing themselves. They hardly need us to finish em off. However, we may have to give em a nudge to make em topple over. If Russia wants to be our enemy, so be it. I mean, if you examine the past 30 years, it's not like Russia has been a friend. Far from it.
edit on 24-11-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
What he is saying is that russia understands the link between offensive and "defensive" systems. And because of that they deploy missiles that can shoot down the natos "defensive" missiles. In other words they cut the BS and sets up a full missile system in response to natos missile "defense" system.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I reckon, if the President pushes "the button" he will hear happy birthday in Chinese before his life flashes before him. USA has been hacked.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


You forgot to mention the smoked salmon and caviar



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by varikonniemi
 


You are exactly right. However Russia's ABM development has significantly stalled since the 80's, so it will take a lot of effort to create their own new system. Additionally Russia does not have military access to a lot of regions in the world outside of its territory to place the ABM installations there, like the US can. So as a stop-gap measure, Russia will now focus more on developing and improving their ICBM and SSBN technologies, specifically to ensure that they can overcome any defenses.

Russia sees it as a cheaper and more effective "answer" to US's ABM development. The opinion of Russia's strategists has been that it is more effective and efficient to develop offensive capabilities with Mutually Assured Destruction in mind, rather than defensive capabilities. It will always cost more to neutralize an ICBM than to launch a new one, so the idea is to keep well ahead of any ABM developments of the opposing side.

Since the late 70's Russia had a fairly well developed ABM shield around Moscow, but they found it too expensive and complex to extend its capabilities around Russia (barring the limitations of the now defunct ABM treaty of course).


In the next decade Russia is going to introduce a new heavy ICBM to replace the SS-18 (R-36), that will form a keystone of Russia's nuclear arsenal. This missile will supposedly step way ahead of US's ABM capabilities for a long time to come, and US will be forced to instead develop a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman.

Now who would like to be the defense contractor that makes a windfall profit off of this "mandatory rearmament"?



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
If any of this is staged high level political theatrics, staged wrestling, then there is a plan and if there is a plan there is a time line and if there is a planned time line, then what we are seeing is the gradual build up and the creation of the political situations needed to move to the next step of their plan.

Just remember that it is a plan and that nothing happens by accident nor can anyone logically state that it just happened.

Russia, China and others are preparing, moving and staging forces for what is coming. All we have to do is look around to see this fact.

Anyway, Russia and China should be watched closely because if you do, you will see that they are indeed preparing while calling it training exercises.

We are seeing a gradual build up and only those that have planned such activity know the timing of such a plan.

Thanks again.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Election year in Russia AND U.S AND Israel.................

Says it all for me.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Here's how that will play out.....

Russia: the President and PM will swap places

Israel: Netanyahu will get another term

USA: It would'nt surprise me Obama is re-elected, if not, it will be some other puppet idiot

There you go, easy!



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Russia is not going to do anything. I think they are calling NATO's bluff and hoping their tough talk will make them rethink the missile defense shield. I don't see what's the big deal anyway? The Russians have boomers (nuclear missile subs) that can launch just one ICBM that can possibly wipe out an entire continent if need be.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenon
Hit the CC Button to see the English Translation


... I have one simple
question;

1: Why is this on global sheeple world tv... If its 'allegedly' going to be WW3


Happy Holy Days with a WARNING

Stay away from the...
FEAR-BALL$
... YULE-LOG... get pyrosis
edit on 24-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Forgot to add emotion to my teXed words




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
First, the carrier group is standard procedure when conflict possibly involing U.S. embassies is involved. Has been since Iranian revolution and the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon. It is there with a Marine QRF and probably 1 or 2 SEAL teams just in case someone gets an idea to storm an embassy and take hostages. Nothing more. Russia has made it very clear that it still thinks all of it's ex-satellite countries are Russian property and NATO or the U.S. should not have any influence or contact. Kind of like China is with Taiwan. Putting NATO installations in those countries would effectively curtail some of the influence in those countries, and Russia cannot have that. It is kind of hard to rebuild the Soviet Union when you have a NATO missle defence facility and a treaty in said country.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In order for one to retaliate action must be taken against one first. In order for one to retaliate one must take action against the offending party. No action has been taken against Russia (or Syria for that matter). Russia is taking no action against anyone.

There is no retaliation. Just the expected sabre rattling. Not sure what short range missiles in Kaliningrad have to do with Syria though. Do you really think Russia would attack NATO countries over action in Syria? The speech has nothing to do with Syria.
edit on 11/24/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Huh? Where is your logic sir?
Action: USA said they will put offensive missiles in the european region, in regards to Iran and Syria. (I suspect that's already done, hence the Russian Response). The USA has not taken the Russian Interests seriously.
Retaliation: Russia threatened to step away from some treaties and threatened it would do what it could to protect it's interest, such as defending a nation their aligned with presumably. They have indicated they will step up their retaliatory actions as time goes on if the USA/European Union decide to take further measures to offensive capabilities in the region.

I don't understand why you debate that point: Action/Retaliation. This is very clearly actions and retaliation. You can debate this with me if you like, but it would be quite silly too. Especially given the meanings of those words, they pretty much describe the actions we are now seeing.

*sigh*

Anyways. It has everything to do with Syria as that was part of the catalyst for the USA to have offensive capabilities in the region, which made Russia angry and retaliate with action and speech. If you fail to see the action, please read the speech and information again.

Contorting a meaning to your views, does not make your view true, nor your meaning relevant.

This may be sabre rattling, but it's very serious. It's not just something you can footnote and forget, this could have very serious implication, your lack of insight on this subject makes you docile to the actions before you.

I am sure you will be back to correct me on my view, I won't be back to back and forth with you though so have fun dissecting my post to discredit the truth I've shown. I am moving on....



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
First, the carrier group is standard procedure when conflict possibly involing U.S. embassies is involved. Has been since Iranian revolution and the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon. It is there with a Marine QRF and probably 1 or 2 SEAL teams just in case someone gets an idea to storm an embassy and take hostages. Nothing more. Russia has made it very clear that it still thinks all of it's ex-satellite countries are Russian property and NATO or the U.S. should not have any influence or contact. Kind of like China is with Taiwan. Putting NATO installations in those countries would effectively curtail some of the influence in those countries, and Russia cannot have that. It is kind of hard to rebuild the Soviet Union when you have a NATO missle defence facility and a treaty in said country.


I don't agree with your assumptions. I don't think Russia wants another Union, I believe they are after peace and stability, they have seen more then their fair share of war.
Just because the USA is power hungry about ruling the world (I can't say that's true, but it does look that way), does not mean Russia is. Russia has done little to try and rule the world, whereas the USA has done much to influence many countries worldwide. Heck even the USA's bad banking practices were influential on what's happening today.

If you were to be unbiased and see the evidence you would say the USA is a war mongering country hellbent on ruling everyone in any way they can, regardless of what countries say to them.

The USA Response is "Don't worry it's not about you".



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Russia is like the big nerdy kid on the playground that nobody really ever plays with, but they ridicule and joke about all the time. The thing is that big nerdy kid will only take so much bs before he gets really pissed off and stands up and breaks your jaw. The problem is Russia is and has been that nerdy kid for some time, and the US is the ones poking.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EspyderMan

Action: USA said they will put offensive missiles in the european region, in regards to Iran and Syria.

No.
NATO has plans to deploy defensive missiles in Europe.
www.payvand.com...

I didn't say that Russia isn't serious.
edit on 11/24/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join