Washington plays Russian roulette with missile defense - Polidicks

[url]http://rt.com/op-edge/washington-russian-roulette-missile-defense-831/[/url] [IMG]http://cdn.rt.com/files/opinionpost/21/a6/70/00/12.si.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE][I]A US soldier stands in front of a Patriot missile system at a Turkish military base in Gaziantep on February 5, 2013.(AFP Photo / Bulent Kilic)[/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In his recent annual meeting with the media, Russian President Vladimir Putin replied to a question about the rumored placement of Russian Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad on Poland’s doorstep. He stated that US missile defense remains a threat to Russian national security and that Russia has the right to place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, but claimed that that step had not yet been taken. Putin added however that putting Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad would be a logical response to American plans to build a missile defense system in Europe. What few in the West, outside a handful of military experts grasp, however, is that the US project to install so-called Ballistic Missile Defense missiles and special radar in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Bulgaria is the highly provocative act by Washington against Russia and risks putting the world on a hair-trigger to a nuclear war. Putin’s remarks followed a report in the ardently-pro US German daily, Bild Zeitung. Several days before Putin’s remarks, Bild newspaper reported that secret satellite imagery showed Iskander-M missiles stationed near the Polish border. Both Bild and mainstream US and European media portrayed the Kaliningrad report as a confirmation of Russian aggression, and a return to the Cold War. In point of fact, for Washington and the US military, the Cold War never ended. Washington's Missile Defense is the most extreme provocation imaginable in a nuclear era. It is an atomic version of Russian Roulette that makes the likelihood of a preemptive reaction by Moscow against Polish missiles or Czech AMD radar highly logical. A bit of background is useful. [/QUOTE]

[quote] so-called Ballistic Missile Defense missiles and special radar in Poland[/quote] Thank you Putin for protecting us from these so called defenses.

[QUOTE]He stated that US missile defense remains a threat to Russian national security[/QUOTE] I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.

[QUOTE=darunner;43315227]I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.[/QUOTE] The size of the shitstorm, jesus christ.

Only RT would try to portray a defense system as a threat to anybodies security. Shit source.

I thought the US was initially justifying this as aimed at protecting from Iranian missiles and insisted that it was not intended to counter Russian missiles, keeping to that rationale could it be seen as not too provocative if the Russians did set up Iskandar systems in Kaliningrad? [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Oh dear, I missed the paragraph that mentioned that, sorry.

[QUOTE=darunner;43315227]I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.[/QUOTE] Because it removes the threat of a mutual deterrent if it actually works. US could fuck around all they want and Russia's nuclear deterrent will be useless.

[QUOTE=darunner;43315227]I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken it's because it upsets the balance. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is that both sides are equally as capable of annihilating each other. If one side can protect itself, there's no deterrence. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Shit. Late. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Shit. Late.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;43315426]If I'm not mistaken it's because it upsets the balance. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is that both sides are equally as capable of annihilating each other. If one side can protect itself, there's no deterrence. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Shit. Late. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Shit. Late.[/QUOTE] so it's a bad thing that in case of a nuclear apocalypse some people might not die?

[QUOTE=JXZ;43315483]so it's a bad thing that in case of a nuclear apocalypse some people might not die?[/QUOTE] No, but it's better still to avoid the apocalypse altogether.

[QUOTE=JXZ;43315483]so it's a bad thing that in case of a nuclear apocalypse some people might not die?[/QUOTE] Yep. Because it means there's no reason to not fire everything anymore. The only reason we haven't nuked Moscow into oblivion is because Moscow can and will nuke Washington into oblivion if we do that. Removing either side of that equation lets the remaining side do whatever the god damned fuck they want to do without fear of retaliation. This is the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction, and you can thank MAD for keeping the nuclear apocalypse from happening. Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.

[QUOTE=TestECull;43315626]Yep. Because it means there's no reason to not fire everything anymore. The only reason we haven't nuked Moscow into oblivion is because Moscow can and will nuke Washington into oblivion if we do that. Removing either side of that equation lets the remaining side do whatever the god damned fuck they want to do without fear of retaliation. This is the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction, and you can thank MAD for keeping the nuclear apocalypse from happening. Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.[/QUOTE] So we should expect Obama to nuke Russia in the coming months?

[QUOTE=TestECull;43315626]Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.[/QUOTE] Crude way of saying it, but that is pretty much it in a nutshell. As much as I hate to say it, I'm with Russia on this one. If you look at it from Russia's point of view, it seems silly for the U.S. to put a missile shield there. The whole premise of the missile shield is based around the belief that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We already know they don't have them, and it's shoddy at best if they are actually developing them. Even so, if Iran had the capability, and was stupid enough to launch a WMD, it would be their own suicide.

[QUOTE=TestECull;43315626]Yep. Because it means there's no reason to not fire everything anymore. The only reason we haven't nuked Moscow into oblivion is because Moscow can and will nuke Washington into oblivion if we do that. Removing either side of that equation lets the remaining side do whatever the god damned fuck they want to do without fear of retaliation. This is the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction, and you can thank MAD for keeping the nuclear apocalypse from happening. Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.[/QUOTE] Because ABMs are 100% accurate and will stop all missiles ever You're also forgetting all the subs and bombers that can completely ignore these defenses. Missile defenses definitely give the US an advantage, but it's not foolproof and would still result in great loss.

Because you're making it sound like the reason we don't indiscriminately kill millions just for fun is because Putin might get mad at us.

[QUOTE]What few in the West, outside a handful of military experts grasp, however, is that the US project to install so-called Ballistic Missile Defense missiles and special radar in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Bulgaria is the highly provocative act by Washington against Russia and risks putting the world on a hair-trigger to a nuclear war.[/QUOTE] Russia Today everyone. Let's forget about when Russia placed actual nuclear missiles at the US's doorstep. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Also didn't the US give Russia the specs for the shield missiles years ago?

[QUOTE=TestECull;43315626]Yep. Because it means there's no reason to not fire everything anymore. The only reason we haven't nuked Moscow into oblivion is because Moscow can and will nuke Washington into oblivion if we do that. Removing either side of that equation lets the remaining side do whatever the god damned fuck they want to do without fear of retaliation. This is the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction, and you can thank MAD for keeping the nuclear apocalypse from happening. Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.[/QUOTE] This is wrong, because Russia has allies and launch sites outside of the missile defence, remember how massive Russia is? And they have ICBMs that travel way out of range for ground SAMs. You can't protect against MAD because that's literally MAD's concept. That's basically why anyone saying this is a 'provocative act' that will 'lead to nuclear apocalypse' can shut up because in the event of a nuclear launch, everyone dies. It doesn't matter from who or where.

Hey guys, they are worried that the US would be given optimal interception capacity over Russian air space. This is a threat to Russia's nuclear deterrent. Sure, they could still nuke the rest of the world but not as well with current generation ICBM's, however they are developing next-gen ICBM's as a large portion of their military budget is for the Strategic Missile Troops. Yeah it's a provocative and shady act in Russia's POV. If you look at it from their perspective, as the editorial does. PS: Missiles intercepted from so called "Iranian targets" would be shot down near or over Russia and they dont want that.

What I don't get is why doesn't Russia develop anti-ballistic missile defenses that could do the exact same thing. Why the fuck not? I mean, the whole [i]point[/i] of ballistic missiles is to bomb the shit out of everyone or high-altitude EMP burst, beyond that they are fucking useless. Wouldn't that mean that logically, you'd develop the same thing that would also render their missiles obsolete as well? I don't get why Russia hasn't poured as much of their research budget into this field as the United States has, we've taken it very seriously because we were afraid the Soviets were actually crazy enough to strike first. Especially after the massive public shelter system (of which the Moscow underground is a part of) was built and all sources indicated the Soviet Union was sure they'd come out on top in the long run. Meanwhile the Soviet Union was terrified of some of our leaders, some high-ranking Soviet officials were fucking certain we'd be raining nukes on them the moment the Soviet Union appeared weak. So... why not follow our course of action? Hell, why didn't they develop them [i]first?[/i] I ask because the Soviet Union was ahead in a lot of things, especially aerospace and missile technology.

This seems stupid, I know, but when I saw this: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YQ9vKxs.png[/IMG] I immediately thought: "Washington plays Rust"

This article is biased, title sensationalist as fuck "Washington's Missile Defense is the most extreme provocation imaginable in a nuclear era." lol

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;43317467]This article is biased, title sensationalist as fuck "Washington's Missile Defense is the most extreme provocation imaginable in a nuclear era." lol[/QUOTE] It's an editorial. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;43317467]This article is biased, title sensationalist as fuck "Washington's Missile Defense is the most extreme provocation imaginable in a nuclear era." lol[/QUOTE] It's an editorial. Can you refute it?

[QUOTE=TestECull;43315626]Yep. Because it means there's no reason to not fire everything anymore. The only reason we haven't nuked Moscow into oblivion is because Moscow can and will nuke Washington into oblivion if we do that. Removing either side of that equation lets the remaining side do whatever the god damned fuck they want to do without fear of retaliation. This is the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction, and you can thank MAD for keeping the nuclear apocalypse from happening. Basically if we can stop Putin's missiles there's nothing keeping Congress from making Moscow a radioactive shithole anymore.[/QUOTE]The Russian military has never subscribed to the MAD theory, though.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;43315945]Russia Today everyone. Let's forget about when Russia placed actual nuclear missiles at the US's doorstep. [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] Also didn't the US give Russia the specs for the shield missiles years ago?[/QUOTE] Uh, I don't think the U.S. would give Russia complete access to their missile shields. Wouldn't it make sense to lie and play down their significance?

editorials aren't news RT is a bad source even when posting actual news articles

[QUOTE=darunner;43315227]I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.[/QUOTE] I honestly would not be surprised if Putin put Poland in it's long term goals after Ukraine. He's been on the march to rebuild the Soviet Empire ever since it collapsed.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;43315361]Because it removes the threat of a mutual deterrent if it actually works. US could fuck around all they want and Russia's nuclear deterrent will be useless.[/QUOTE] ICBMs and IRBMs go pretty fucking high - is the Patriot system really useful at those altitudes? Against a target flying at around >4.5km/s?

First of all it's from RT where any sensible person should stop reading at and also let's look at the person who wrote the article: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl[/url] Especially his Bibliography [quote] Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. Wiesbaden: Edition.Engdahl, 2012. ISBN 978-3981326369 Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century. edition.engdahl, 2010, ISBN 978-3-9813263-1-4 Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. Boxboro, MA: Third Millennium Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-9795608-6-6 Seeds of Destruction. The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Centre for Research on Globalization Publishing 2007, ISBN 0-9737147-2-7 A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto 2004, rev. ed., 303 p., ill., ISBN 0-7453-2309-X [/quote] It's very apparent that he's a conspiracy theorist which RT likes to employ to spew anything against the west and also CTs keep playing on Apocalyptic narratives as well which is a common pattern. In short stop wasting your time with fear mongering.

[QUOTE=Medevila;43320826]Where's the logic or purpose in playing down the significance of a defensive measure[/QUOTE] So they don't oppose it? [editline]26th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Medevila;43320826]Where's the logic or purpose in playing down the significance of a defensive measure[/QUOTE] So they don't oppose it or see it as a threat? No guys, don't worry, this totally won't be used against Russia in the event of war.

[QUOTE=darunner;43315227]I like how missiles that can only be used to shoot down an incoming missile threaten Russian national security. It basically implies that he intends to invade Poland.[/QUOTE] is invading poland part of a ritual for european based wars or something