US cancelling key part of European missile defence that had angered Russia due to lack of money - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has announced that it is abandoning a key part of its European missile defence plan: an interceptor that had been strongly opposed by Russia. It cited development problems and a lack of money. The cancellation of the interceptors, which were to be deployed in Poland and possibly Romania early next decade, offers a potential opening for new arms control talks. Russian officials suspect the interceptors were a counter to their missiles and had indicated that they would not consider further nuclear arms cuts unless their concerns were resolved. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.vancouversun.com/health/cancelling+part+European+missile+defence+that+angered+Russia/8106529/story.html#ixzz2NggXQijC[/url]

Good, Americas political influence in Europe needs to go away.

...Washington DC? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Link doesn't work.

Money is better spent within the US mainland.

So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] [quote]The restructuring includes spending $1 billion to add 14 new interceptors to the 26 that are in underground silos in Alaska to counter the threat from North Korea.[/quote] Oh really?

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Oh really?[/QUOTE] It would decrease their chances of destroying countries with nuclear missiles.

Good,Oirop countris need to re-learn how to tak care of themselves

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Oh really?[/QUOTE] Nah. It's because it takes away their ability to fire back if the US were to attack first. It breaks the idea of MAD and nuclear deterrents. I think it's pretty obvious the US sent going to nuke Russia anytime soon, but that's the concern.

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon?[/QUOTE] I'd imagine it's more the fact that the US is likely planning on using it to help assert it's power in Europe (hey guys, we have this missile defence system we're funding, you owe us!), and the fact that if Russia was to build a missile defence system near America, the US'd throw a total bitchfit. Not to mention that it reduces the chance of mutually assured destruction in the (next to impossible) chance of a nuclear strike. (let's face it, it will never happen)

I don't believe the "no money" thingy. Russia have been against the missile defense for years, sees it as a thread and I guess they have given an ultimatum to USA and EU. If we view it from the Russian's side, I can see why they're scared. USA's influence have moved closer to Russia (Look at Iran) and now planning a missile deference along EU borders to Turkey? (The image below show a ballistic missile launch from Iran .. but try look at the line crossing over Russia) [img_thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irDto_EGDxg/UDjmpskM44I/AAAAAAAAebw/tluPdnprGAs/s1600/infographic-usa-europe-anti-missile-defense-system-742432.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [/QUOTE] It would offset the balance of MAD (mutually assured destruction). You see, it's ironic, but what saved us all from World War 3 between the west and the Soviet bloc was the fact that both sides knew well that if they try anything, millions will die on both side. The balance right now is "we won't shoot you because you won't shoot us". It's a paradox, but building a shield is basically an act of aggression, as it would offset the balance of power. All this is one thing, but keep on mind that the shield, in all and every so far proposed form, would be very very ineffective if USA and Russia went all out bazoonga endgame. Nobody presented really convincing evidence any of the American developments can intercept real up to date ICBMs, and another problem is that as the article states, for example the whole Alaska has 26 interceptors. Meanwhile, Russia could probably launch hundreads of warheads in a timeframe of days. It perhaps does make sense to deploy similar defence against North Korea, whose rockets are much less advanced and probably much more likely to be interceptable, as well as them having few at best, but it should be understood that America is making everyone uneasy with it.

[QUOTE=Nak;39931498]I don't believe the "no money" thingy. Russia have been against the missile defense for years, sees it as a thread and I guess they have given an ultimatum to USA and EU. If we view it from the Russian's side, I can see why they're scared. USA's influence have moved closer to Russia (Look at Iran) and now planning a missile deference along EU borders to Turkey? (The image below show a ballistic missile launch from Iran .. but try look at the line crossing over Russia) [img_thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irDto_EGDxg/UDjmpskM44I/AAAAAAAAebw/tluPdnprGAs/s1600/infographic-usa-europe-anti-missile-defense-system-742432.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] So basically they don't want any missile trash falling on them?

[QUOTE=Nak;39931498]I don't believe the "no money" thingy. Russia have been against the missile defense for years, sees it as a thread and I guess they have given an ultimatum to USA and EU. If we view it from the Russian's side, I can see why they're scared. USA's influence have moved closer to Russia (Look at Iran) and now planning a missile deference along EU borders to Turkey? (The image below show a ballistic missile launch from Iran .. but try look at the line crossing over Russia) [img_thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irDto_EGDxg/UDjmpskM44I/AAAAAAAAebw/tluPdnprGAs/s1600/infographic-usa-europe-anti-missile-defense-system-742432.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Why the fuck is that missile going to Finland? What have we done to you Iran!?

[QUOTE=Careld;39931700]Why the fuck is that missile going to Finland? What have we done to you Iran!?[/QUOTE] I think that missile is going for USA. Silly ICBM trajectories and stuff. At least DEFCON taught me so.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39931761]I think that missile is going for USA. Silly ICBM trajectories and stuff. At least DEFCON taught me so.[/QUOTE] Well can't we all agree that all missiles launch from Iran will fly along EU border, make a 45dec turn, fly for about 7000km and head for the white house?

[QUOTE=Careld;39931700]Why the fuck is that missile going to Finland? What have we done to you Iran!?[/QUOTE] Iran vs. Finland I like Finland's odds

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [/QUOTE] The world is the most destabilized when there is one major power and several lesser powers, because they don't keep each other in check. It's important to maintain some balance, and forcing nations to an asymmetrical point is a formula for war. If the US now has the ability to attack Russia without the Russians able to attack back, then what do you think the Russians are going to think? In the game of nuclear war, the answer is strike first or arms race.

They added the whole bullshit about lack of money because they didn't want to look like bending to the Russia's demands.

Poland strong.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39931509]It would offset the balance of MAD (mutually assured destruction). You see, it's ironic, but what saved us all from World War 3 between the west and the Soviet bloc was the fact that both sides knew well that if they try anything, millions will die on both side. The balance right now is "we won't shoot you because you won't shoot us". It's a paradox, but building a shield is basically an act of aggression, as it would offset the balance of power. All this is one thing, but keep on mind that the shield, in all and every so far proposed form, would be very very ineffective if USA and Russia went all out bazoonga endgame. Nobody presented really convincing evidence any of the American developments can intercept real up to date ICBMs, and another problem is that as the article states, for example the whole Alaska has 26 interceptors. Meanwhile, Russia could probably launch hundreads of warheads in a timeframe of days. It perhaps does make sense to deploy similar defence against North Korea, whose rockets are much less advanced and probably much more likely to be interceptable, as well as them having few at best, but it should be understood that America is making everyone uneasy with it.[/QUOTE] Well why doesn't Russia also deploy a missile shield? Now both sides have a missile shield, the balance is restored.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39932858]They added the whole bullshit about lack of money because they didn't want to look like bending to the Russia's demands.[/QUOTE] Russia is not as high and mighty as you like to believe, ABM costs too much Also Russia likes to complain about ABM even though they have a bunch surrounding Moscow,

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39932833']The world is the most destabilized when there is one major power and several lesser powers, because they don't keep each other in check. It's important to maintain some balance, and forcing nations to an asymmetrical point is a formula for war. If the US now has the ability to attack Russia without the Russians able to attack back, then what do you think the Russians are going to think? In the game of nuclear war, the answer is strike first or arms race.[/QUOTE] Except no one is retarded enough to let nukes fly over that. Do you wanna know why? Because as a species we're no longer knuckle dragging apes.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;39934484]Well why doesn't Russia also deploy a missile shield? Now both sides have a missile shield, the balance is restored.[/QUOTE] Balance which would sorta mean "nukes are useless, but we can start doing conventional warfare again without getting nuked". Is that what we want?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;39934746]Balance which would sorta mean "nukes are useless, but we can start doing conventional warfare again without getting nuked". Is that what we want?[/QUOTE] I really wish people wouldn't use this retarded argument. Have you forgot the part where no one is every going to fire nukes ever anyway because a fair amount will still manage to hit something important somewhere? Cause they will.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39934763]I really wish people wouldn't use this retarded argument. Have you forgot the part where no one is every going to fire nukes ever anyway because a fair amount will still manage to hit something important somewhere? Cause they will.[/QUOTE] ...excuse me? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] If you mean the fact that the shield is only so effective anyway, I [B]did[/B] mention that earlier. The shield still means loss of balance and is practically an act of aggression, in terms of MAD.

If Russia wanted to nuke the US surely they could just launch missiles over the Arctic? (got that from some CNN report)

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;39934484]Well why doesn't Russia also deploy a missile shield? Now both sides have a missile shield, the balance is restored.[/QUOTE] Because the "no money" part is an even bigger issue to Russia, which isn't exactly on the best of terms economically (compared to the western world) or infrastructure wise. They can't afford it.

[QUOTE=Careld;39931700]Why the fuck is that missile going to Finland? What have we done to you Iran!?[/QUOTE] the quickest way to get around the globe is around the poles. Planes typically do it too. Going from New York to London they arch way up north because its a shorter distance.

[QUOTE=Nak;39931498]I don't believe the "no money" thingy. Russia have been against the missile defense for years, sees it as a thread and I guess they have given an ultimatum to USA and EU. If we view it from the Russian's side, I can see why they're scared. USA's influence have moved closer to Russia (Look at Iran) and now planning a missile deference along EU borders to Turkey? (The image below show a ballistic missile launch from Iran .. but try look at the line crossing over Russia) [img_thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irDto_EGDxg/UDjmpskM44I/AAAAAAAAebw/tluPdnprGAs/s1600/infographic-usa-europe-anti-missile-defense-system-742432.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] This, this, this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxEDomUlXw[/media] Saying "we canceled it for fiscal responsibility" sounds a lot better than "we canceled it because we made a deal with the Russians".

[QUOTE=Del91;39931389]So, why did Russia oppose missile interceptor missiles? Do they plan on firing off any missiles that might get shot down any time soon? [/QUOTE] It seems like they take it as a sign of mistrust.