Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Missle Defense
#41
mr_yak Wrote:My mistake bh, Gabala is on 'rented' Russian soil. :lol: Explain again to me how partnering with an Iranian ally is such a great idea.

... on second thought it might be worth considering after your lease runs out. Wink1
Azerbaijan isn't ally of Iran. Quiet the contrary they dream to join territories of Iran populated by Azeries.
Azerbaijan is ally of Turkey, is enough pro-West and is very important source of oil for West. Do you remember oil pipe-line Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan? Baku is a capital of Azerbaijan and is playing pro-West game in oil games.
Reply
#42
bh Wrote:Azerbaijan isn't ally of Iran.

I was referring to the proposed U.S./Russian franchise. Azerbaijan is just the wouldbe landlord.
Reply
#43
imho the whole idea of a nuclear shield is FUBAR because it undermines the concept of nuclear deterrence which has kept the world from slipping into a third global war since the end of WWII. The thing is that if the US successfully deploys a full blown ABM system, which imho is the long term goal, with the current anti Iran and anti NK elements being just a field test thing, then your self rightious creationist armageddonist leaders will think they can dictate their terms to the rest of the world, and let's admit it in today's world the US is the most potent agressor currentl involved in a number of local wars across the world, notably in the middle east. Once that happens the world will be pushed to the threshold of a new global war in no time because US leaders will be relying on their ABM defense and will be much more likely to authorize military action against any old country that happens to disagree with the interests of the corporations that are running the US, including countries like China or Russia that have nukes and before we know it we'll be shooting nuclear missiles at each other. Now somebody mentioned american lives here, think about it no defence system can ever work 100% of the time and we're talking nukes here, I read on another site that in theory a preemptive strike by the US could wipe out 99% of Russsia's nuclear arsenal, that's total bullshit because any such preemptive strike would be detected at least 15 minutes before the warheads arrived at their destination and the Russian RVSN would be on red alert by that time meaning 15 minutes would be plenty of time for them to launch their missiles so that by the time the Russian launch pads were wiped out all of their missiles would already be en route to the US. Some of these would be caught by the ABM defense but quite a few would get through. The morale is your politicians would still be paying with American lives to help their paymasters achieve their ends, it's just that after 9/11 they obviously believe that anything under 50% of the US population would be acceptable casualties in the event of a major global showdown, provided, of course, that at least 90% of those 50% are poor blacks and hispanics.
Reply
#44
US missiles hit Russia where it hurts

Quote:A new cold war is building up. The US Congress' House Committee on International Affairs ominously titled its hearing on May 17 as "Russia: Rebuilding the Iron Curtain". The rhetoric of US-Russian relations has become distinctly sharp and vicious. It slipped by unobtrusively for months, and took a sudden leap in the recent weeks.

A determined effort is on by Washington to eliminate Russia's strategic parity with the US. Washington regards this as the first essential step toward getting "unipolarity" and the New American Century project going again. The outcome is uncertain. Moscow is firmly resisting, no matter what it takes. But it is also a complex struggle. Despite Washington's attempts to portray it as a morality play of democracy and freedom versus authoritarianism, the heart of the matter is that the struggle also enables the US to consolidate its trans-Atlantic leadership over Europe in the post-Soviet era...


Chinese criticism of the US deployment has since become strident, underlining that the US action will produce a "profound effect on the global strategic layout at present"; that it undermines regional security; that it will have a negative impact on the "internal stability" of the affected countries; and that it will make US foreign policy even more belligerent.

China identifies four factors guiding Washington's decision on the deployment of the missile defense: a search for "absolute security"; blind faith in technological supremacy; US ambition of global hegemony; the United States' keenness to retain leadership of the Euro-Atlantic alliance.

Progressively, the Chinese stance has come to put the blame squarely on the US for ratcheting up tensions with Russia. The causes of the present tensions, in the Chinese view, are manifold. They lie in Washington's strategy of pushing for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) eastward expansion; making further inroads into Russia's strategic space by deciding to deploy the defense system in Central Europe; the US "frequently poking its nose" into Russia's domestic affairs, such as openly funding political forces in Russia that oppose the Kremlin; fomenting "color revolutions" in the former Soviet republics; "brushing aside Russian opinions in the handling of global issues"; and generally resorting to "unilateralism in international affairs".

China says the US actions in this respect remind one of the "law of the jungle", where with the "biggest power and the sharpest claws" at its command, Washington is bullying the weak; fighting for spheres of influence; interfering with impunity in the internal affairs of other countries; and resorting to unilateralism. And it is doing all this while complacent in its belief that "one can do just about anything one wants so long as one is strong enough, whatever one does is rational and compatible with rules, whereas if the other side struggles or opposes, that only means they don't understand, and the only thing one needs to do is to explain".

China has carefully sized up Moscow's "grit" in resisting the US pressure. It seems to have assessed that President Vladimir Putin is indeed serious when he says Russia is determined to ensure the global strategic balance. With this assessment of the Kremlin's seriousness, China has begun raising its head above the parapet.

A Chinese expert at Kanwa, a Hong Kong-based think-tank, was quoted by the Russian official news agency in an interview on Monday as saying that the planned US deployments in Japan and Australia of anti-missile installations and the powerful XBR radars (with an estimated range of 4,000 kilometers) would allow the Americans to follow the launches of missiles from China's main testing range in Shanxi province. Therefore, he said, "Russia is worried about the US plans in East Europe - and China in East Asia. And the two countries can evidently decide to pursue a coordinated policy on this account."
Reply
#45
henrylee, i see much wrong with your conjecture. First off, MAD does not work with states like Iran, which is likely to offload a nuke to third party agents to smuggle into its target, thereby reducing immediate retaliation. Iran would bask in the demise of Israel should it be removed from the map, but probably not declare direct responsibility for it.

The anti-nuclear shield we discuss also includes satellite and Earth-based radioactivity detectors to prevent such clandestine plans. Since the U.S. is the only remaining super power (China is big, but not in the same league yet), MAD is already outdated. If the U.S. wanted to, there are war gaming plans ready to ensure annihilation of whoever is targeted without appreciable backlash. ...If the U.S. wanted to.

Of course since the U.S. is the de Facto only parent in charge, anything which endorses that authority just makes it more effective for keeping the Human species alive and healthy. If a defensive missile shield helps to reduce the threat of an all-out nuclear launch, then it is positive - not negative.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  German FM Likes Missle Defense Suddenly Palladin 3 1,470 04-13-2007, 06:41 PM
Last Post: jt
  Will Europe See Need For Missle Defense? Palladin 42 9,677 05-19-2006, 10:18 AM
Last Post: John L
  Japan and Missle Defense Palladin 2 1,510 05-06-2006, 03:15 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)