Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert

The only thing I could think of this shield hurting is Russia's ability to sell their ICBMs and related tech to other countries. If Russia wanted to get past the NATO defense, it still has the numbers to overwhelm any existing defensive batteries. A country like Iran may at most only have a dozen or so missiles to spare with the reach to do anything destructive to Europe. A country like Russia could simply go nuts with 50 or more missiles, quickly exhausting the capability of any defensive battery involved. However such action would be an invitation for a MAD scenario. Now seriously? Who would want that?

Maybe NATO members and Russia should come to terms on this much more openly so we can figure out what is wanted on the bargaining table. If Russia doesn't like what's going on with Syria or Iran or interference with customers in what has been traditionally their arms and industrial markets (Africa & Middle East), maybe we should offer something that would sweeten the deal for them? I think they just want a good seat on the table if or when anything happens, and they're feeling left out at the moment. (Not that they particularly love the regimes in Iran or Syria, but that business has been good. Who would do the rebuilding and such if we messed all that up?)

Originally posted by Phage
NATO's planned missile defense system has been a great concern of Russia since its inception. They really, really don't like the idea that their missiles can get shot down by NATO.

Not to mention that these anti-missile missiles can be fitted with nuclear warheads and used as offensive weapons.

Situated in Eastern Europe, these missiles can become decapitation strike weapons capable of reaching Moscow in under 5 minutes of launch. Russia has good reason to be wary.

reply to post by nightbringr

So can a launch from any given SSBN in the Baltic, Barents, and/or North Sea.
The point is moot and Russia knows it. You don't hear them complaining about that. You hear them worrying about their own toys.

Seems to me that our great leader of change is putting us back into a cold war era. Well the friendly Russia and China was fun while it lasted. Good job Obama, hope I get the chance to vote you back out of office before you do anymore damage, and people thought Bush was bad

reply to post by Phantom28804

This isn't really anything like the Cold War. You don't seem to know what the Cold War was. There is now a dialog. In the Cold War there wasn't. Medvedev was in Hawaii for crying out loud. There are no threats of nuclear attacks by the West on Russia or vice versa.

reply to post by Shenon


So from that single article your predicting ww3 and you don't want to be called out as a fearmonger? You think Russia is ready for a nuclear holocaust over Syria? I think your taking it to seriously just calm down and take a couple deep breaths. Russia is'nt going to start ww3 over Syria, this is all diplomatic postering, it happens all the time it will all work itself out without a war.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by nightbringr

 

So can a launch from any given SSBN in the Baltic, Barents, and/or North Sea.
The point is moot and Russia knows it. You don't hear them complaining about that. You hear them worrying about their own toys.

Its not a moot point, and Russia has raised objections on that exact basis. Hunter-killer subs could potentially neutralize US subs deep in Russian waters in such a tense situation. Unlikely today, but Russia is undoubtedly thinking long term. These missile pose more than a defensive threat to Russia.

Originally posted by Epirus
reply to post by Shenon

 

Thousands of years and nothing has changed. All of our technological developments, all of our supposed moral developments through civilizations and here we are...still threatening each other with death. Still trying to controls things on a fraction of a dot in the vast emptiness of space. I don't care which side your on because the fact of the matter is there shouldn't be sides and this is primitive beyond belief.

^^^The most intelligent statement made in this ENTIRE THREAD.^^^

I am confounded at some of the comments in here. First we have someone stating that Russia's threats have nothing to do with Syria. Well, that's clearly incorrect. They'll use any amount of evidence to distract you from the truth, but, here's the truth in its entirety... There's more at stake going on there than many are aware of, and oil is only a small percentage of it.
Look at how quickly Syria's GDP rose?en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, Libya was also very successful with theirs...en.wikipedia.org...

Hugo Chavez just recently made a move that should make you understand what is REALLY occurring...www.ft.com...

The reason why we want to attack Syria so badly is because they have backed away from our Fractional Reserve game which has cost much of the world their wealth and influence.

Be careful what you believe. Some people will defend this system right to the point of their own demise. Its all falling down, and it should be obvious at this point as to why.


One last thing...always look at a situation in its entirety and remember that economics is always the primary reason for war. What is there to gain? What natural resources does the "transgressing enemy" have at its disposal? What type of monetary system are they currently on and is there a "democracy, or an authoritarian regime instilled? -Trust me when I say, there's a reason why they always target Authoritarians and it has NOTHING to do with human rights. If we were concerned about Human rights, we would have attacked Iraq back in 89 when they were gassing the Kurds and the Iranians with weapons we had sold them to do it. We've always been pretty sore at Iran after the Islamic Revolution, hence, our employment of Mr. Sadaam Hussein. (THINK). They didn't care about the genocides there anymore than they care about saving starving Ethiopians or stopping genocides in Rwanda. In fact, they waited 5 days before they even helped their OWN people in Katrina. And the only reason why that occurred was because Nagin finally sold away land rights to the Federal Govt. so they could auction it away to land contractors. Nonetheless, the TRUE reason why we invaded Kuwait was because of the very abundant natural resource of oil that we didn't want Sadaam to have control over.

It goes on and on and on. Its time to turn it around...

reply to post by Phage


I watched the wall come down on TV I do remember the Cold War and yes there is dialogue, but our fearless leader is doing a bang up job of displaying America as a over-zealous testosterone filled high school bully. I mean we are moving troops in Australia and our fearless leader is all "America does not fear China". We continue to implement a missile defense plan that Russia has been frankly against since it was first proposed by Bush. We are threatening Iran just because Israel wants too, and aside from America, Israel, and the UK it seems from my perspective that the we are the bullies in the yard this time around. Sure Russia is open to dialogue but based on comments like this.

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, said Wednesday that the United States “has been open and transparent with Russia on our plans for missile defense in Europe, which reflect a growing threat to our allies from Iran that we are committed to deterring.”

“In multiple channels, we have explained to Russian officials that the missile defense systems planned for deployment in Europe do not and cannot threaten Russia’s strategic deterrent," Vietor said. "Implementation of the New START Treaty is going well, and we see no basis for threats to withdraw from it.

“We continue to believe that cooperation with Russia on missile defense can enhance the security of the United States, our allies in Europe and Russia, and we will continue to work with Russia to define the parameters of possible cooperation. However, in pursuing this cooperation, we will not in any way limit or change our deployment plans in Europe.”

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Wednesday that the “suggestion that deployment of missiles in the areas neighboring the alliance is an appropriate response to NATO’s system is very disappointing.”

Source

Doesn't sound much like we are open to dialogue just pushing the missile plan will be implemented one way or the other.

All I have seen in recent weeks is more and more posturing by Obama and Clinton and less and less diplomacy. I mean first we demand the Egyptian Government step down, then we demand the ouster of Gaddafi, Followed by demands of Iran, finally we start getting stand-offish with Russia and China who just happen to be the Vetoer's against Iran. All the while Obama and the American government seems to conveniently ignore the demands of it's own people.

reply to post by nightbringr

How many Russian sub bases are in Scandinavia?

It doesn't sound too good to say "Well, US submarines may be within close striking distance of Moscow. We don't really know if they are or not though so we can't do much about it."

Russia wants assurance that NATO defenses will not be used against Russian missiles. The assurances which they have been given have not been satisfactory. Since the system would not be in place until 2020, this is Russia trying to get NATO to offer more than they have.

Originally posted by Phage
How many Russian sub bases are in Scandinavia?

Not sure it matters. Its war, so it advisable to consider every possibility, no matter how unlikely. If there is a tiny chance the Russians can neutralize US subs, those anti-missile missiles might start looking like very temping offensive weapons.

Originally posted by Phage
It doesn't sound too good to say "Well, US submarines may be within close striking distance of Moscow. We don't really know if they are or not though so we can't do much about it."

Not sure what your getting at there.

reply to post by nightbringr

It isn't war.

What I was getting at is that it sounds better to say "NATO can covert defensive missiles to offensive weapons" than to say "If NATO wants to hit Moscow we can't do anything about it".

The "threat" of conversion is propaganda aimed at the Russian populace to justify Moscow's reluctance to accept the ABM system. The "threat" of conversion is something that Moscow is not concerned about. The ability of NATO to knock down their missiles is.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think this has more to do with the european missile shield than syria......

... am i wrong?

... and all they are doing is putting there systems on alert and better guarding them.

I dont think this is as bad as some want it to be.

Wrong. He mentioned "disabling" our missile defense system if need be. He mentioned that "advanced missile defense penetrating missiles" will be equipped within proximity of the offending missile defense systems.

He stated their intentions very clearly. Honestly I don't blame Russia, we would be pissed off too if Russia built missile defense systems close to our borders. But unfortunately we are the big dogs on the block and we will do what we want.

Obviously we are building these to defend against missiles and the fact that we are building them says that we are confident that Russia's "missile defense penetrating missiles" pose no threat.

So whatever if they attack us then we will smash them. Also, their ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles) pose no threat to our advanced missile defense system on the mainland. HAARP anyone?

We aren't worried, Russia poses no threat. Let them cry all they want.

-Alien

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Have you ever heard of the adage MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? Just curious, you stated let them attack us we will smash them. Are you even aware that our military is not all the strong and I would say that it would be very unwise to assume that any war between Russia and America would be conventional.There is no way that a war with Russia would end in any favorable way for the US.

Strange how Russia did not mention how it has just been allowed to join the WTO. War is not a pondering seed of futurism for Russia, Bluff somehow is. It all takes our mind's, or so they hope, off the present twist and turns of Global Finances.

When they have all built a nice, fresh, personal guarantee, then all the clap-trap BS will be met with a smile, a handshake etc.

Bit like Africa and multiple Media reports spelling out African Droughts + Hunger. Africa, a country that so far has 40 Billionaires.

What a wonderful world
PS South Africa passed a law yesterday that means a journalist can be imprisoned for 25 years if He or She reports African Corruption.

Well due to the climate, politically, and economically, and all the unrest in the Middle East, I would not be surprised if some kind of accident happens in Syria, if we NATO, or the United states get involved.. I am no Military, or political scholar, I don't have time really, besides lurking around ATS to process and make my assumptions, but this missile defense crap has been going on for awhile, and Russia, is not happy with it. Now just saying hypothetically if a Accident did happen, in Syria, and oh say Russia and the USA get caught up in a skirmish eh, or a battle, it will BE the FIRST.. AHEM, let me make this one clear for the chest pounding brainwashed Americans, who think our Armed forces are full of Captain America's. It would be America's FIRST real conventional war since Vietnam...
You know with tanks air planes and infantry, and mechanized units.. Maybe even some naval battles.

I mean this is inevitable.. Especially when we continue to try to Colonize the Middle East.. I guess we just have to watch and wait, and see what happens.. I am not looking forward to WAR... Especially one that has the potential to drop bombs in my back yard or nukes man..

reply to post by Alien Abduct


What makes you think HAARP can destroy missiles? If that's the case, then wouldn't it be more convenient to give this to the Europeans instead?

I SAY THE UNITED STATES USES ITS SECRET WEAPONS AND REMOVE BOTH COUNTRIES OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH IN JUST A FEW MINUTES OF TIME.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


It seems that the "alien" carries the same retarded mentality, of American supremacy in the world, as something unchangeable. Arrogance will be the definitive defeat of US: this stupid pride in being the biggest terrorist nation in the world.

reply to post by lifeinthematrix


The United States does have too much pride and arrogance but the U.S does have the power and secret weapns and they are just waiting to use them. A nuclear weapon is old news to the United Staes. The things sold to Iran and other countries to make nuclear weapons was tampered with so that even if the countries did put together nuclear weapons they would not be worth anything. It would be just one big pile of metal that did nothing. The U.S has things to remove an entire country off the earth but they will only resort to the things at the last minute. Thats what happened with the atomic bomb, that was a long time ago. If people had that type of weapon in the old days just imagine what they have now. If i was the other countries i would listen and stop trying to put the U.S down because they will get whats coming. The U.S has become a bully but a bully with a kind heart. The bully will destroy others but also rebuiild what it destroyed. If the U.S was destroyed that would pretty much end the world. Most of the major inventions people use including the computer that people use when they get on ats was invented by someone in the United States.