Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert

page: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Not sure we'd be very happy if Russia got cozy with Canada and Mexico, and those countries were coaxed into setting up missile defense systems along their sides of our borders. Wasn't Cuba also a sovereign nation that should have been able to do whatever they wanted in their borders? We didn't see it that way...




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Not sure we'd be very happy if Russia got cozy with Canada and Mexico, and those countries were coaxed into setting up missile defense systems along their sides of our borders. Wasn't Cuba also a sovereign nation that should have been able to do whatever they wanted in their borders? We didn't see it that way...



Fair enough but...

Little known fact: Part of the deal about the Cuban issue was that Kennedy and Kruschev had made an agreement about the US removing missiles that were deployed in Turkey in exchange for the removal of missiles in Cuba.

The removal of US missiles happened a few months later.

edit on 24-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: I wrote Greece it was actually Turkey



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xlb40
 


I was in the army during the height of the cold war, and looking back, I would be really worried with all the positioning the that is going on right now. I would hate to go back to the fear that people live under, and watching films like the bbc "Threads"film and that kind of conditioning. Looking at the current global situation I feel the pieces on the chess board are being positioned for something very sinister and unfortunately seem to be gaining momentum..we live in interesting times!!!!!



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
The point is pretty clear: if the missile shield is completed, Russia will use force to 'un-complete' it.


No. it isn't clear. You know that sounds scary and all. But no they wont.

They're moving what they want within their own borders. NATO is not deploying anything on their territory. So Russia has nothing to say about. They can express their displeasure, they can saber rattle, but unless they want to sign theirs and ours death warrants that's about all they'll do and they know it.


I'm not so sure it will come to that, though. If so, not for some time.


That's right. You're not sure, because if they did then it's game over for everybody. West & East and everybody else left will be breathing Nuclear fallout for the next couple of years or so which will make japan's fukushima seem like a firecracker.


Lol jeez, lighten up captain sandy vag.

That was clearly what they said. as i said, of course they aren't moving missiles around outside their boarder, because that is exactly what they're trying to prevent...

The idea is that if the US establishes a missile shield, which could be contingently deployed in the event of a confrontation with Russia, Russia is threatening to respond by force. And moving missiles into their western-most regions in order to "put all planned us instillations within striking range" is clearly a threat of force against those installations...

So, well you sound really angry and sure of yourself, your simply wrong.

As i said, nobody can be sure if any of this will actually culminate in a conflict, but the precautions are being taken... as they should be.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
Lol jeez, lighten up captain sandy vag.


Yes, let's keep the conversation on a mature level here.



The idea is that if the US establishes a missile shield, which could be contingently deployed in the event of a confrontation with Russia, Russia is threatening to respond by force. And moving missiles into their western-most regions in order to "put all planned us instillations within striking range" is clearly a threat of force against those installations...


Some say Nuclear weapons are defensive as well. Both sides have them. It all depends on ones perspective.


So, well you sound really angry and sure of yourself, your simply wrong.


I appreciate your opinion on the matter.


As i said, nobody can be sure if any of this will actually culminate in a conflict, but the precautions are being taken... as they should be.


Russia again, can do anything they please within their borders. The EU should be allowed to do the same and take those same allowed precautions.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheOracle
 

There is plenty of first strike capability in existence, moving around under the sea.
Please show evidence of Russia's concern over the defensive system being converted to an offensive system.


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





One of the arguments the Russian government holds against the shield is that defensive interceptors may be turned into offensive weapons.

Caucasian review of international affairs



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


hey man, if your gonna act like a kid who just had sand kicked in his face, and turn it against me, I wont hesitate to call you out. Kapeesh?



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

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.


There has not been much "saber rattling" from Russia in some time. This does not seem like idle threats or empty speech, this is a clear message that Russia has interests in Syria and Iran and considers those countries as assets on there side of the globe.

They are drawing a line in the sand for further military operations by NATO in Europe and the Middle East. Take it a bit more seriously because they have legitimate concerns.


Absolutely right,when Russia takes,(for them,in the post soviet era),the almost unprecedented step of issuing such a blatant "warning" it should be heeded.
Since the days of Kruschev,Brezhnev etc,Russia have tended not to issue the rhetoric so prevalent during the cold war era,plus with Iran being a traditional Ally of Russia and Syria having been "nurtured" by Russia both in the present day and during the soviet era,the US should take serious stock at this time and certainly desist from sending a carrier group to the region or it could end up as a knife fight in a telephone box.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 

Yep. When the first articles about missile shield in Poland came out there were a few following articles that Russia doesn't want something like that so close to their borders. One of the reasons given was that if need be the defence systems could be used for offensive purposes. The missile shield was mentioned in some of my local news sites through out the year. Russia was against this right from the start.
Since the missile bases are being built anyway they're taking action.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 

You left something out.

However, experts agree that Russian leaders use the argument as a propaganda tool, whereas, in fact, they are more concerned with the possible increase of the American missile defense shield in the future[16].

www.cria-online.org...

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



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Every country puffs out their chest and talks trash all the time, it doesn't really mean much yet so I'm not sure retaliation is quite the right word. Can't blame Russia at all though, our govt in the USA is full of the world's biggest hypocrites.

Does anyone here honestly think if China or Russia were building a "missile defense" system in Mexico that the USA would be fine with it or not take it as a threat? Hell no, I bet my life the USA would be throwing a much bigger fit than just using some strong words and expressing concern on a TV broadcast. The USA would be forming a coalition to destroy them or something like that.

Just imagine what some asshats like Rick Perry, who are apparently legit presidential candidates, or the like would be saying at these debates if Russia/China was building a missile defense in our backyard. "We have to nuke them now before it's too late, to protect our great nation from these terrorist communist nations who want to be immune to our nuclear deterrent so they can wipe us out whenever they please because they hate democracy and freedom" and all the brainwashed idiots watching would be cheering, USA #1 woohoo.

USA the great land of hypocrites, we can exert our military power across the world wherever we feel like, bomb or invade any country we think has some terrorists or naughty weapons (that we ourselves are the only country to have ever used...), build our bases and missile sites wherever we please, but hey no one else can, cause America is the "good guy" and we gotta "police and protect" the world and "spread democracy".
edit on 24-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Helious
 

The speech is not really about Syria. It is about Russia's concern over NATO's deployment of missiles in Europe. Russia's ongoing concern.
"Citizens of Russia, I address you today in connection with the situation concerning the NATO countries' missile defense system in Europe"
edit on 11/24/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


NATO missiles are defensive missiles with no offsensive capability.

The USA's only strategic nuclear missiles (Minuteman) are 30+ years old. Russia has very modern and effective missiles and have been modernizing theirs substantially; NATO has not. There has not been any production of nuclear warheads, reentry vehicles, or delivery systems in the USA for 20+ years, and no new designs (RRW was canceled).

The missile defense is wholly inadequate against Russian forces, and they know this. As far as I can tell, Russia wants NATO to be vulnerable to an Iranian nuclear attack.

How is this considered to be a NATO provocation instead of a Russian provocation?

Sometimes the USA-haters are just nuts.

The idea that the 'defensive' weapons can be turned into offensive weapons is pretty silly, because they're missing the re-entry guidance and hardware and would burn up in the atmosphere. Any development to change this would take years and there would be an enormous paper trail of contracts, and there is no appetite in Congress or DOD to do something like this. Russia is the one producing and deploying modern, offensive, nuclear missiles.

And, of course, Russia already has similar ABM systems in its territory, and has had them for decades.


Besides that, Russia have every right to be pi$$ed about the defense shield because it give advantage to the US, which is what the whole point in the agreement was supposed to prevent.


No it doesn't. Russian missiles heading towards the USA go in a different, polar, direction, mostly outside the range of the NATO system. They know this too.

An anti-missile defense against Russia would require hundreds of times as many, located in the Canadian North.

Today's Russian nuclear missiles are substantially more advanced than the USA's.


edit on 24-11-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
obviously russia and china aren't about to let the u.s. completely dominate the middle east.

what's left after that. iran is the last major oil field not under american influence. attacking syria sends a direct message to and is an act of war against russia, china and iran.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by annakin1
 


What scared me the most about Threads was the fact that Traffic Wardens became part of death squads!!!


Good film though - very graphic look at the horror of nuclear war.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Pro shield experts I'm certain

It doesn't make sense, propaganda towards who exactly? Everybody knows their fears are legitimate. This missile shield is directed at Russia; clearly they have been ignoring russian proposals.
And everybody knows a shield like that is a huge advantage in a first strike scenario, to either attack or neutralize a counter strike.
How would the US react if Russia was doing the same at their borders?
edit on 24-11-2011 by TheOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


US nukes are perfectly capable of striking anywhere in the world. 2nd, you must be crazy to think you actually know the full details of all new tech developed or being developed in the USA the most secretive nation out there with the biggest black budget. Military Spending of Nations Yes, so fair to paint Russia as some evil nation that is a threat by spending too much preparing for wars by updating their missiles when the USA spend 13+ times more than Russia on military, our black (secret) budget alone is as big as Russia's entire military budget... www.wired.com...

Fact is, a shield right in their backyard IS an offensive tool as it reduces or eliminates their nuclear deterrent in any nuclear showdown with the USA. If they were building it in mexico or canada you think the USA would be fine with that and do nothing? Would you be fine with that? USA is full of hypocrites, we'd nuke someone building a missile shield on our doorstep.
edit on 24-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by darkest4
 


The US spends more because mostly everything costs more. Take salaries for example, a US scientist will earn 20 times more than its russian counterpart. Contractors will charge 1000 dollars for a toilet seat in the US, in Russia he will probably end up in a body bag somewhere in the outskirts of Vladivostok.
Sure on paper Russia, China spend less but it doesn't mean they aren't achieving as much
edit on 24-11-2011 by TheOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Why can they not just all get along??

Answer that one slayer!!!!



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


The military is big business and creates jobs.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
reply to post by Phage
 


Pro shield experts I'm certain

It doesn't make sense, propaganda towards who exactly? Everybody knows their fears are legitimate. This missile shield is directed at Russia; clearly they have been ignoring russian proposals.
And everybody knows a shield like that is a huge advantage in a first strike scenario, to either attack or neutralize a counter strike.
How would the US react if Russia was doing the same at their borders?
edit on 24-11-2011 by TheOracle because: (no reason given)



You have to ask your self first

Why does NATO need a missile shield ?

Why does it have one in the first place,

The clue is in the name,

Russia is just crying because its own shield for is not as good as the allies shield, nothing more, none of the partys involved would ever use such missiles, just know that and you will see there is no issue here other then russia throwing its toys out the prame for yet again coming second





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join