Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert

Can anyone update me on the situation? Has obama came forward and replied to what was said??

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Oh really? Last time I checked, Russia was in Europe, America was not?

Russia is not part of NATO nor the EU. The European leaders have themselves decided in favor of it. So My original post still stands.

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

False assertion, but nice try.

Russia has every right to move whatever it wants within their border..

The question is why they dont include russia in part of their defence system . And apparently there is a dissarmement threaty going on. of course russia feel threatened and betrayed probably too.
eu include usa in the shield defense system but exclude russia, they cannot stay still get their weapon dissarmed and look other country arm themselve at the same time , and the same goes for iran i mean who are you to said to somebody no you can or cannot have nuclear weapon but i have the right to tell you because i have like one thousand nuclear warhead so stfu and we want to keep our advantage on you but everything is allright we wont use it against you ... we are making missile deffense system for the fun and against aliens.

Just pointless sabre rattling from Russia,


I hardly doubt a war with Europe/NATO is high on there list,

Originally posted by cyberether
The question is why they dont include russia in part of their defence system . And apparently there is a dissarmement threaty going on.

How far back does your understanding of the situation go?
I'm not trying to be snarky here...

Because, Russia has been part of the discussion going back years. They were first offered a full partnership in it's development, deployment and operations. They however, wanted to have a higher than other members input on how and when it would be used.

The partnership between Russia and the West broke down over details.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Russia has every right to move whatever it wants within their border..

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by cyberether
The question is why they dont include russia in part of their defence system . And apparently there is a dissarmement threaty going on.

How far back does you understanding of the situation go?
I'm not trying to be snarky here...

Because, Russia has been part of the discussion going back years. They were first offered a full partnership in it's development, deployment and operations. They however, wanted to have a higher than other members input on how and when it would be used.

edit on 24-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

that weird because i heard , that not the first time they are complaining about it few years ago, im not really sure they are part of it.
He didnt say it either in the video , he said that russia is willing to discuss the condition of the new defence system. But btw what does usa has to do with an european missile shield.
ok i get it funded by nato .

All of you armchair generals are dead wrong on one point:
What concerns Russia isn't the so called ability to shoot down russian ICBMs
Actually Russia has top notch counter measures, highly maneuvrable missiles and lots of decoys

What worries russia is that the missile shield could be easily turned into an offensive first strike station right at their borders. It's the cuban missile crisis again.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Because, Russia has been part of the discussion going back years. They were first offered a full partnership in it's development, deployment and operations.

When was that? They were never offered "full" partnership. It was always going to be a US system, operated by the US. When there were any negotiations, the US insured that the details in the proposals were not acceptable to Russia, so they always knew Russia would not go along with it.

Originally posted by cyberether ]eu include usa in the shield defense system but exclude russia,

I see you have edited your original reply...

They, the Russians [because of their overly demanding nature during the discussions] facilitated their own exclusion from the project. Not the other way around.

they cannot stay still get their weapon dissarmed and look other country arm themselve at the same time , and the same goes for iran i mean who are you to said to somebody no you can or cannot have nuclear weapon but i have the right to tell you because i have like one thousand nuclear warhead so stfu and we want to keep our advantage on you but everything is allright we wont use it against you ... we are making missile deffense system for the fun and against aliens

False argument. Nobody is demanding Russia disarm or not deploy their own system.

"stfu"

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.

apparently stuff already heated before i got that from wikipedia national missile defense program and explanations en.wikipedia.org...

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia’s border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.[33][34] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[35] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[36]

Missile defense sites in Eastern Europe
Previously, a controversial initiative existed for placing GMD missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, namely in Poland and Czech Republic. As a result of strong Russian opposition, the plan has been abandoned in favor of Aegis-class missile defense based in the Black Sea and eventually in Romania.
In February 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Poland[37] and Czech Republic concerning placement of a site of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.[38] The announced objective was to protect most of Europe from long-range missile strikes from Iran.[39] Public opinion in both countries opposed: 57% of Poles disagreed, while 21% supported the plans;[37] in Czech Republic it was 67% versus 15%.[40] More than 130,000 Czechs signed a petition for a referendum about the base, which is by far the largest citizen initiative (Ne základnám - No to Bases)[41] since the Velvet Revolution.[42]
The Ustka-Wicko base of the Polish Army was mentioned as a possible site of 10 American interceptor missiles. Russia objected; its suspension of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe may be related. Putin warned of a possible new Cold War.[35] Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on its border with NATO if the United States refused to abandon the plan.[33][34]
A radar and tracking system site placement was agreed with the Czech Republic. After long negotiations, on August 20 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski signed in Warsaw the "Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Poland Concerning the Deployment of Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in the Territory of the Republic of Poland",[43][44] a deal that would implement the missile defense system in Polish territory. Russia warned Poland that it is exposing itself to attack—even a nuclear one—by accepting U.S. missile interceptors on its soil. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces said "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent".[45]
In September 2009, President Barack Obama announced that plans for missile defense sites in East Europe would be scrapped in favor of systems located on US Navy warships.[12] On September 18, 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin decided to welcome Obama's plans for stationing American Aegis defense warships in the Black Sea.[13][14] The deployment occurred the same month, consisting of warships equipped with the Aegis RIM-161 SM-3 missile system, which complements the Patriot missile systems already deployed by American units.[15][16]
On February 4, 2010, Romania agreed to host the SM-3 missiles starting in 2015.[46]
However, once USS Monterey was actually deployed to the Black Sea the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement voicing concern about the deployment.[47]


from what i read they use missile named interceptor that intercept missile in the upper athmosphere or space , i thought they were using lasers.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by cyberether ]eu include usa in the shield defense system but exclude russia,

I see you have edited your original reply...

They, the Russians [because of their overly demanding nature during the discussions] facilitated their own exclusion from the project. Not the other way around.

they cannot stay still get their weapon dissarmed and look other country arm themselve at the same time , and the same goes for iran i mean who are you to said to somebody no you can or cannot have nuclear weapon but i have the right to tell you because i have like one thousand nuclear warhead so stfu and we want to keep our advantage on you but everything is allright we wont use it against you ... we are making missile deffense system for the fun and against aliens

False argument. Nobody is demanding Russia disarm or not deploy their own system.

"stfu"

Originally posted by maloy
When was that? They were never offered "full" partnership. It was always going to be a US system, operated by the US. When there were any negotiations, the US insured that the details in the proposals were not acceptable to Russia, so they always knew Russia would not go along with it.

maloy...

Come on man you know damn well what the whole The US, European and Russian Triangle was all about....


1/27/2003: RUSSIA REMAINS INTERESTED IN COOPERATION ON MISSILE DEFENSE WITH UNITED STATES, EUROPE, AND OTHER PARTNERS

Interfax reported on 27 January 2003 that Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov does not believe that US plans to develop a National Missile Defense (NMD) program should inhibit possible cooperation between the United States and Russia on missile defense.

Such cooperation is foreseen in the Joint Declaration on future US-Russia relations signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in May 2002 at the time of the conclusion of the Moscow Treaty. Foreign Minister Ivanov indicated, however, that collaboration on missile defense should proceed gradually as mutual trust builds between the states and said that the US decisions to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to deploy the first stage of NMD by 2004-2005

reply to post by cyberether

The tension over the missile defense plan has been there since it first came up. It seems that the address by Medvedev is in response to his frustration with discussions at the APEC meeting in Hawaii.

At issue is the Europe-based system being developed by the United States that it says would defend against a potential missile attack by Iran. The United States has reached agreements to place 24 interceptor missiles in Romania, as well as a sophisticated radar system in Turkey.

Russia believes that that system could be used against its intercontinental ballistic missiles and has demanded assurance in writing that this would not be the case. The United States has said it will not agree to any restrictions on its missile-defense efforts.

Mr. Medvedev raised the issue directly with President Obama this month at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hawaii. After those face-to-face talks, Mr. Medvedev said, “Our positions remain far apart.”

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Phage


One sides missile defenses are another's first strike weapon.

It's all a matter of perspective, and the Russians believe this "strategic missile defense" plan in Europe gives an unfair advantage to the USA.

From their perspective, its like having a loaded gun shoved in your face, while being told this is being done to protect your neighbor from someone down the street.



That said, you have to ask... is any of this really worth the risks?

Isn't it better to work with your adversaries than to continually provoke them?

maloy there is plenty out there showing that both sides were involved, However, many will argue over the split...


Europe's Missile Defense Options

Europe's Missile Defense Options
March 1, 2001

The Bush-Cheney victory in November 2000 strengthened domestic support for National Missile Defense (NMD) in the United States and moved the focus of the debate to Europe. The continent’s largest countries, long skeptical about the need for, and the effectiveness of, a NMD umbrella, are being wooed by Moscow and Washington, both of whom are trying to gain support for their competing points of view on missile defense. As a part of the charm offensive, Russia and the United States have presented the Europeans with offers of collaboration on missile protection. But while there is strong interest in Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems in Europe, a static, NMD-like system may prove to be a much harder sell.

that make me wonder if there is a kind of balance because of the armament or because they wanted to ?
Is this a manoeuver to relaunch the economy , because right know a wwIII tcould be the only to way to keep the tptb ?

All the time West wanted Russia and China to be capitalists and guess what? They loved being capitalists. China sells cheap goods, Russia sells energy. They are happy capitalist bros now. US and Europe facing bankruptcy and they want to control middle east's resources in a desperate attempt to slow down Chinese export. But boy you don't mess with oil too much or Russia will get angry.

Originally posted by maloy
Personally I am not worried about any nuclear war - the MAD concepts still applies by and large, and as long as it does calmer minds will prevail.

Neither am I

But some see doomsday around every turn apparently.

My concern is that the new armament race would see hundreds of billions of dollars going out the door - all just to return to status quo.

Military research and development has actually pushed technological development along for centuries. That's a shame though, that we can't have a Peace Race instead of an Arms race with equal vigor and results.