AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: How likely is this Russian threat to occur?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:Russia’s most senior military officer said Thursday that Moscow would pre-emptively strike and destroy U.S.-led NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe if talks with Washington about the developing system continue to stall.

“A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

Is this possible? In what time span?

How would the US counter?

Is this a result of Obama's weakness and inability to make a decision?

Russia threatens to strike NATO missile defense sites
These American things are a threat to Russian security. We don't place anything close to your borders, right?
So it is natural that Russia must defend herself.
Like I said before, I think Russia is doing this so that we will take out Irans ability to make nuclear weapons. The talks on the polish and Turkish weapons are still going well, it they've hit a snag on the defense of Europe from Iran. I think Russia wants to leave no other option but to attack Iran directly.
(05-03-2012, 04:43 PM)Green Wrote: [ -> ]These American things are a threat to Russian security. We don't place anything close to your borders, right?
So it is natural that Russia must defend herself.

Right because planting several communist dictatorships in our back yard doesn't in any way threaten our borders...
By communist dictatorship do you mean Cuba?
I'm trying to use reason and see the logic of equating a purely defensive system as being a dangerous offensive one. Someone please show me where I am not thinking correctly.

Personally I wouldn't care one bit if a neighbor had all sorts of defensive ability................unless I was contemplating the use of aggression on them in the future. What am I overlooking?
A nation should never overlook the possibility of future aggression. Everyone went ape shit during the bush years when e pentagon was revealed to have had attack plans on several countries, this is the way it should be. We should be prepared to attack every single inch of this rotten stinking planet.

Removing ones offensive capabilities removes much of their bluster when it comes to negotiating. If they aren't the big bad wolf they will have to negotiate on different terms.
I think that defensive system with radars and whole infrastructure of one state being placed in a proximity to another always shift the balance. If your system is purely defensive why don't you let in Euros?
(05-03-2012, 06:20 PM)Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think that defensive system with radars and whole infrastructure of one state being placed in a proximity to another always shift the balance. If your system is purely defensive why don't you let in Euros?

Come again?

John,

Nothing is purely defensive. If I could equip US soldiers with an invulnerability suit, we'd always win wars, right? Wouldn't that make us more likely to invade?

Missile defense negates offensive missiles.

Changes the strategic balance.

If we want to protect the USA, we can put them in Canada and the USA, these are not for protection of the USA , wrong continent.

John, you are not supposed to share the knowledge and the data with Europeans in new American bases in E. Europe.
A defensive radar system in south-east Europe is useless today due to lack of ennemies with long range missiles.

I don't understand why Nato is publicizing the missile defense project. They should develop a semi-mobile technology. Not on wheels but easily transportable and mountable in a matter of days when tension heats up.

Ghouillio, it would be logical for the Russians to prevent Iran to get nukes, but your theory doesn't hold: The Russians and the Chinese block every sanction and every move which could hinder the Irania program.
They even support Syria as if it was their own territory.

IMO the missile defense system is an attempt to force Russia to apply sanction on Iran. It doesn't work.

It seems that Russia realy want Iran to become a second superpower. This is against all logic thought.

Maybe because they fear the wahhabits in Dagestan and Chechenya, they support the rival clan. But allowing them to have nukes is overkill IMO.

Old habits are indeed hard to break, aren't they Fred?
As far as I know Iran doesn't send money to Chechen suicides...The others do.


BTW, why did you decieved Gorby? He was promised that NATO wouldn't expand...
As for NATO, I's just as soon have it officially dismantled. It's no longer necessary, at least right now anyway. And as for Gorby, I didn't deceive him, so you must mean some other Mother, right?
Chechen suicide bombers are supported by Saudis whahhabits, traditionaly Iran/shiite foes.

That doesn't mean Russia should give nukes or allow them to build nukes to counter Saudis Arabia.

But if Russians want, the US will make once again a demonstration of its military superiority.
Huh, so NATO is not that nice as your PR campaigners wish to present?
Russia doesn't give nukes to anybody. And you have to turn on brains in case of Pakistan who already have them.
Let the Euros shoulder their own means of defending themselves. Just one more reason to abandon the Collectivist Welfare State.
So far the conversation has been about whether Ru has some psychologically valid point to oppose US ABMs in E Europe. One can argue this forever.

Two questions:
1. Is the treat just part of a maneuver in diplomacy? For example BHO was overheard saying he would have more latitude after elected. How likely is the Ru to follow through on it? And, in what circumstances would that occur?

2. What if some such preemptive strike did occur? What would (or should) the US response be?
Green, Pakistan, or at least one Pakistanese engineer is responsible for transfering the technology to Iran.
Without Pakistan Iran would probably never be a treath, that's why Pakistan is so silent about that case. They are ill placed to talk about it.

But! It's thanks to Russia and China that Iran is able to dodge sanctions and legitimate its nuclear program through the laissez-faire by these two powers. Especialy Russia which is not an importer of Iranian oil, therefore has only a geopolitical interrest there.
Russia doesn't need to transfer technology as it's already done by the Pakis, but she helps Iran much more effectively with protection, diplomacy, arm sales etc...

John, the Iranian problem is not an european one. Europe is too far from Iran to be concerned.
Pages: 1 2