Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

American missiles in Europe :

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 06:10 AM
link   
2106 GMT -

In an interview for an article slated to run Oct. 10,
U.S. officials told Germany's Sueddeutsche newspaper that they are considering stationing defensive missiles in various European countries.
Citing State Department sources, Sueddeutsche reports that Washington is concerned about a possible Iranian attack, due to its alleged development of a satellite program.

Noting that should Iran acquire the ability to send satellites into space would raise the chances of the country firing intercontinental missiles. The United States would like to develop a defensive missile network in response, a high-ranking official told the German paper, but he said he doubted that NATO approval would be forthcoming.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said there is no new information concerning Washington's discussions to develop an Allied missile shield. "Obviously, missile defense is important to us,"
Boucher said. "We've been working on it. We've been cooperating with other governments around the world: Russia, Europeans and others."

(Stratfor)




posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Yeah, brings back the whole Cuban Crisis memories, doesn't it? USSR Missiles in Cuba = Bad, US Missiles in Turkey = Good....

Which brings on the whole discussion of the NMD being in violation of the BM treaty (1972?) into a whole new perspective...

[Edited on 11-10-2003 by operatoreleven]



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 06:45 AM
link   
No, as a matter of fact, it does not bring the Cuban missile crisis to memory. And, yes, missiles in Cuba was bad and missiles in Turkey, Iran and Europe was good. It was the Soviet Empire that was spreading like a dark cloud, not democracy. Adefensive missile network; is that an anti-missile network, or merely defensive retaliation against the aggressor? Either way, it is not comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Thomas Crowne: Right, it's not the same thing. And I'm not the one to endorse the actions of those damn commies back then!


My point was merely that with all the things going on, (even with both the US and the Ruskies talking about utilizing nuclear weapons on a somewhat smaller scale!?) it seems to me, that there is basis for a genuine concern for an escalation, even arms race, all over again. Even terrorists are in on this one. I mean is it really what we want? Sounds like a possible new cold war (with the 3rd player virtually invisible) to me, that's all...



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 07:01 AM
link   
OK, call me sick if you'd like, but I never understood not using tactical nuclear weapons. I'm not talking lare weapons in large numbers, but field weapons, like 8" artillery, backpacks, etc.



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I must say the the missile shield is one republican idea i support, just as long as the shield covers europe and is at least 95% effective. Its not about common goods, it can be held as a bargaining tool over France and Germany for when they decide to play games on the security council. Leaving a country open to missile attacks is one hell of a bargaining chip, so this is just the USA being oppurtunistic.

Perhaps a free missile shield is why the UK participated in the Iraq war?



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
OK, call me sick if you'd like, but I never understood not using tactical nuclear weapons. I'm not talking lare weapons in large numbers, but field weapons, like 8" artillery, backpacks, etc.


Because if you use them then the other side will use them and it will kill many thousands, perhaps millions of people and will quickly escalate into a strategic exchange, if using against a non-nuclear nation it would enrage the world community as its seen as an enviromental/humanistic disaster.

They're just not worth it unless you've got the enemy in a tight marching formation.



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Yeah,

Lets shot down MIRV ICBM with ABM..



This is not a option..

Never was, never will be.



False sense of protection only.




posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM


Yeah,

Lets shot down MIRV ICBM with ABM..



This is not a option..

Never was, never will be.



False sense of protection only.



The only one reason for these missiles in Europe is to satisfy and protect israel for the arab league.



posted on Oct, 11 2003 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This isnt a really new idea isnt it? Didnt we station a number of Nike Ajax ABMs in Europe in the 1960s?





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join