Russia threatens Poland with nukes.

[rn79870]

(Newser) – A top Russian general warned yesterday that Poland would be "100% exposed" to nuclear attack if it follows through with plans to host a US missile defense system, reports the Times of London. The agreement "cannot go unpunished," the general warned in the first direct threat from the Kremlin since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russian military doctrine allows nuclear weapons to be used "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them" as Poland plans to do, the general said. Poland agreed Thursday to host the missile shield system. The move, widely seen as a response to Russian military action in Georgia, has infuriated Moscow

http://www.newser.com/story/35....html

Kind of makes you hope we don't get a hot headed President next time around doesn't it?

[Marenta]

Either way, we're screwed. Doesn't matter which president we elect. Unless somebody decides to back down. This is just going all sorts of wrong.

We need a pandemic. Yes.. we do.

[skylndrftr]

OOOOOH boy here we go.

Gotta love this missile shield, it doesnt protect us from terrorists and pisses of both our allies, trade partners AND old (soon to be new) enemies.

primo bushdawg! primo

[Soravia]

What's wrong with the missile shield?

Russia has Nukes, US has Nukes, Iran will have Nukes.

If US wants to have a strong military ally, US better has ways to prevent them from becoming someone else's bithces.

I would even suggest Star War SDI satellites up in the sky to shoot down stuff mid-flight right when they go up the sky.

What good is the Army, Navy and Air Force if a single missile could destroy an entire city?

Tell the Russian to go piss-off. They could have had Poland on their side but they didn't. Poland has the right to choose who ever they want to ally with. No like they're having US Nuke missiles pointed at Russia. Russia did that with Cuba.

Poland MUST have Patriots and MORE. Every nation has the right to defend itself. Anti-nuke is what everyone should have.

[skylndrftr]

What's wrong with the missile shield?

Russia has Nukes, US has Nukes, Iran will have Nukes.

France...Israel...UK...China...Pakistan...India...South Africa...North Korea your confusing HAVING them with being a threat to us. We're not at war with Russia we're at war with terrorism. So despite Russia not being able to afford to safely contain/secure their nuclear arsenal (and asking us to help them...) We're pissing them off?

[Soravia]

Only a FOOL would think Russians are no threat to US.

What do you think those CIA reports to the Oval Office contains of? Pictures of Osama Bin Ladin having picnic in Pakistan?

Russians we greatly humbled by US less than 20 years ago. Putin wasn't in Kindergarden like most Obamites were. Old KGB guards put him into power for a very good reason, he's their leader. Putin still IS the Russia's leader. Only someone so stupid would think otherwise.

[AZhitman]

They need to step lightly. Putin has gotten the former Soviet republic thinking it's still a superpower...

If they have an issue with Poland because Poland lets us put some missiles there, piss on them. We cn put our stuff wherever we want, and if they're not strong enough diplomatically to develop a rapport with Poland, well then TOO DAMN BAD.

I do NOT want a pansy in the White House. Not now.

Let's wait and hear what BO would do about this. I'm sure he's got some brilliant "plan".

[skylndrftr]

I do NOT want a pansy in the White House. Not now.

There seems to be this confusion between a pansy and somebody who gives the necessary thought to an issue...that would include discussing these things (possibly with people we dont like)

We have no military left. We're not budget limited (Bush made sure of that) but we are people limited unless we're going to allow Blackwater to start their own draft. I guess McCains parents never taught him about using his words not his fists in the big boy world. He needs to pull up his big boy pants (I mean depends... ) and stop trying to pick fights. We have had 8 years of that and its bee na disaster

[rn79870]

Only a FOOL would think Russians are no threat to US.

What do you think those CIA reports to the Oval Office contains of? Pictures of Osama Bin Ladin having picnic in Pakistan?

Why don't you tell us. Most of us don't have access to that information.

Russians we greatly humbled by US less than 20 years ago. Putin wasn't in Kindergarden like most Obamites were. Old KGB guards put him into power for a very good reason, he's their leader. Putin still IS the Russia's leader. Only someone so stupid would think otherwise.

I doubt Russia was humbled by the US. And Russia isn't an enemy of the US. We may well earn that privilege again by some of our activities in that area, but then the republolicans like flexing muscles and oiling the big war machine.

[AZhitman]

He needs to pull up his big boy pants (I mean depends... ) and stop trying to pick fights. We have had 8 years of that and its bee na disaster

"Big boy pants"?

I'll pretend you didn't type that... when BO (Ivy League-r) exhibits the physical and mental toughness that JM has (combat veteran, POW), I'll re-read it.

And who's picking a fight? What are you talking about?

[skylndrftr]

Obama wants to sit down and talk with cotnuries to stop problems from becoming military. This is a signifigant difference from the childish ways in which Bush and McCain (or so he says) work. They seem to think that threatening actions are a neccesary precursor to any discussion which is insane and gangerous. Military experience or not, its immature and wrong. If McCain wants my wearing his big boy pants seal of approval...he can act like it.

His military record is what it is because of his father, just like this president.

[rn79870]

"Big boy pants"?

I'll pretend you didn't type that... when BO (Ivy League-r) exhibits the physical and mental toughness that JM has (combat veteran, POW), I'll re-read it.

And who's picking a fight? What are you talking about?

Sky is reflecting what many of us are seeing as a major fault with the republican administration. They are too eager to use the military when a little polite negotiation might better serve our interest.

Also, McCain's temperament leaves some with questions about how wise it is for him to have his finger on the button. Frankly that fact alone scares me the most about McCain winning.

As I've said before, McCain was a great man.

[96Qowner]

I don't recall polite negotiating working. It didn't work for Saddam. It didn't work for the USSR.

When/where did it ever work? Israel/Palestine? Serbia/Bosnia? Maybe North Korea?

[rn79870]

The problem is with the polite part. Our country doesn't understand the art of negotiating - at least not until we try hard to get our self out of a military involvement that just might have been prevented in the first place.

Perhaps I can offer this as my first example...http://www.brill.nl/default.as...27842(you need to buy it and read it, then pass it on to me )

A country that's been involves in at least 10 conflicts (wars) in the last 100 years probably isn't a good example for polite negotiating.

[Soravia]

The move Russians made was very calcualting and smart. Rattle their sabers to the whole of EU and see what the world reacts to.

Do you think someone like that can be talked to? Did you think they would have said, 'Oops, my bad. I didn't know Georgia wasn't in USSR anymore.'Putin has been building up his country until now all for this, making Russia as strong as USSR once was. He didn't spend billions to just draw back from Georgia and do nothing more. Bush probably got the missiles there to pre-empt Russia in the first place. President Bush may be dim wit, but Pentagon command is still smart and can anticipate moves by Russia.

As for N. Korea, starvation works the best. The guy is getting caught up on age anyway. He probably wants an exist of some sort for his children, since they're likely to be slaughtered in any power struggle after he dies.

[96Qowner]

I simply asked where it ever worked.

[skylndrftr]

The move Russians made was very calcualting and smart. Rattle their sabers to the whole of EU and see what the world reacts to.

Do you think someone like that can be talked to? Did you think they would have said, 'Oops, my bad. I didn't know Georgia wasn't in USSR anymore.'Putin has been building up his country until now all for this, making Russia as strong as USSR once was. He didn't spend billions to just draw back from Georgia and do nothing more.

Notice that early part of yoru psot where you call them calculating? That means they understand exactly what they are doign and know the risks and benefits on the world stage. They know what they want and exactly how to get it. These are EXACTLY the type of people we should be talking to.

Quote »Bush probably got the missiles there to pre-empt Russia in the first place. President Bush may be dim wit, but Pentagon command is still smart and can anticipate moves by Russia.[/quote] Unfortunately, Bush has replaced much of the military command and military planners and policy makers with political toadies who have done uncalcuable damage to the US military.

Quote »As for N. Korea, starvation works the best. The guy is getting caught up on age anyway. He probably wants an exist of some sort for his children, since they're likely to be slaughtered in any power struggle after he dies.[/quote] Yea absolutely...its nto like talking to them got them to abandon their nuclear plans or anything

[Cold_Zero]

I look at this in a different way. If China signed a treaty with Mexico to put Hongqi HQ-18 missile systems on the border. AAW Missiles pointed at the US within range of major international airports or military installations, do you think that the US would get pissed? I have seen this before with Armenia and Turkey. People really get bent out of shape about AAW systems being pointed at them.

[rn79870]

One needs to look no further than October of 1962 to see what happened when Russia put offensive missiles in Cuba. But there is a difference between offensive and defensive missiles. I don't know if Russia knows something we don't about those missiles, but if they truly are defensive, it kind of kills the MAD philosophy they employed during the cold war.

Maybe some one with more knowledge could explain what would happen if a nuke missile was destroyed 50 miles up in the air. Would it become a dirty bomb so to speak?

[AZhitman]

First of all, the only difference between an offensive and a defensive missile is the order in which it's fired... so leave that whole line of thought at the door.

Second, there's a REASON we've been involved in more conflicts than Luxembourg, Jamaica and Ghana . If you can't figure it out, there's really no point in me explaining, but I'll try: We're involved wherever there's a threat to democracy OR there's a threat to human rights. We're always a "target", by virtue of our position in the grand sceme, and just like on the schoolyard, everyone wants to take a shot at the "Big Guy"... if you win, you're "The Man". If you lose, we're picking on a weakling... it's a win-win for the smaller opponent.

"Negotiations" are ill-advised when dealing with those who would wish us harm.

You ever work with the criminally insane? How about the mentally ill? How about someone facing a lengthy prison term? No? I have. They underatand one thing, and it ain't "negotiations".

So you go "negotiate" with the "leaders" of Venezuela and N. Korea and Russia... lemme know how that works out for ya.

[themadscientist]

What would Neville Chamberlain do?

The Russians understand power. The choice people make in November will decide how ballsy they feel. I beleive McCain is a hothead but when dealing with a predator like Putin it is that very trait that would give the rooskie bastard some pause.

Maybe Bill Ayres can advise Obama; he seems to think that sometimes you need to bomb things.

[rn79870]

First of all, the only difference between an offensive and a defensive missile is the order in which it's fired... so leave that whole line of thought at the door.

True, those "defensive" missiles are fired second, otherwise there would ber no threat, no target for them to destroy.

Second, there's a REASON we've been involved in more conflicts than Luxembourg, Jamaica and Ghana . If you can't figure it out, there's really no point in me explaining, but I'll try: We're involved wherever there's a threat to democracy OR there's a threat to human rights. We're always a "target", by virtue of our position in the grand sceme, and just like on the schoolyard, everyone wants to take a shot at the "Big Guy"... if you win, you're "The Man". If you lose, we're picking on a weakling... it's a win-win for the smaller opponent.

There's another reason too. Seriously, we need to look at that reason.

"Negotiations" are ill-advised when dealing with those who would wish us harm.

I still say, sit down and talk, then bomb. In that order, not the other way around.

You ever work with the criminally insane? How about the mentally ill? How about someone facing a lengthy prison term? No? I have. They underatand one thing, and it ain't "negotiations".

I was thinking the Nico staff until you said prison terms, then you lost me.

So you go "negotiate" with the "leaders" of Venezuela and N. Korea and Russia... lemme know how that works out for ya.

What if it worked? What if N. Korea dumped their nuke program. Then we could accuse them of having secret facilities, and demand to come snoop through their country. When they refused, McWar could send the troops in. Deja vu.

[Cold_Zero]

Let's remember folks, that the west (specifically the US) is trying to base Anti Ballistic Missile Surface to Air Missiles, not Theater Level nuclear or conventional (LAM) Missiles. I kind of sense a bit of confusion with the whole offensive and defensive weapons speak. The Cuban Missile Crisis is different in that the Russians attempted to park Theater Level Nuclear Missile batteries in Cuba thus reducing the US's response time to a Nuclear first strike attack. This was most likely to counteract the US's deployment of Nuclear Missiles in Turkey. While there are similarities, in this case we are talking about the United States trying to install an Anti Ballistic Missile Defense System, close to the heart of Russia. Think about this folks:1. Currently there exists no active or de facto (as in the Cold War) act of war between the US and Russia. 2. Russia has ceased its operations to undermind the security of the United States in the western hemisphere for some time now.3. During the Cold War the closest our missiles got to the heart and soul of Russia was West Germany, Turkey and the British Isles. There had always been a buffer zone in Europe and the North West Asia that gave the Russians a sense of security.

Let's look at this from the stand point of the Russians. Now, instead of central Europe being the buffer zone where Western backed weapons are deployed (and they still are), we are talking Eastern Europe with the likes of Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The further intent of the west is to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO fold further reducing the buffer from western backed weapons. Sure right now we are talking about Anti Ballistic SAM sites in Poland. But I am sure what is going through the average Russian's mind is, "If something ever goes down, with the US launching a Nuclear first strike, our counter attack of ICBMs will be shot out of the sky by this Missile Defense System that is being setup in Eastern Europe and the Pacific." I am sure this makes Russia feel very uncomfortable and vulnerable. Especially since an act of war does not exist between these two nations.

I dont condone the way the Russians are going about this whole thing. But I can understand why they are a bit pissed off at the West for pulling this stuff. And if the Russians were doing the same thing to us, parking AAW SAM Missiles in Canada or Mexico, I think we would be a bit pissed off as well. Especially when an act of war currently does not exist.bud

[Soravia]

Just because US has Patriot Anti-Nuke defence doesn't mean US is in any wrong.

If the Russians are worried about US Nukes coming their way, they can have their own Anit-Nuke systems as well. US already has ability to defend from ICBM. Extending it to allies gives them protection from Russian nukes.

It would be US at fault if US put their Nuke Missiles near Russian border and point them to where Putin is. But that is NOT the case. Obamites would make you think otherwise and get some 'Liberal Guilt' out of it. 'Oh, we're at fault being a big brother nation.' If US wasn't a big brother, it would have been Soviet's B'atch along with the rest of the world.

If every nation has rapid response anti-nuke missile system. There would be no need to fear nukes anymore. People would have to rely on conventional warfare where if someone wants to kill another, they have to prepare to take losses as well.

[rn79870]

Soravia, there was in effect during the cold war a policy called MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD involved both sides realizing that pushing the button would result in a nuclear holocaust like the world had never imagined. Both sides possessed enough nuke weapons to destroy the earth many times over, and both new the other side would not hesitate to use them in defense if one attacked the other.

Russia lived for decades under the protection of the MAD system. They had a sense of safety knowing that the US wasn't about to attack them because they would retaliate with a barrage of Nuke weapons. Lose/lose.

Now, with anti-missiles, the safety Russia gained from MAD is gone. They are in essence exposed to an attack from the US (however unlikely) and their counter attack would be greatly reduced by the anti-missiles.

They feel exposed, and coupled with their desire to reestablish themselves as a super power, they need to do a little saber rattling.

[rn79870]

I simply asked where it ever worked.

I'd say it worked in most of the other nations that don't have a century of conflicts under their belt. The list is probably too long to post.

[Soravia]

They just need their own anti-ICBM system. No one would blame them for spending money of developing and deploying one.If the Russians copied the US system (like they did a lot of things) and sell them cheap, the other nations would have followed Russia.

Of course, you can't forget that no matter how bad-arse big brother US maybe, people still despite Russians a lot more because the Russians killed more of their own people than US killed other people. So that might not sell well.

[Cold_Zero]

So then you would have no problem with Russia attempting to cozy up to Mexico and Canada and chipping away at the United States' sphere of influence, so that they can stage S-300 and the new S-400 SAMs with in range of the United State's ICBMs and Bombers. Especially when no act of war exists between the two countries. But I guess if we are not going to respect the sovereignty and the wishes of other countries, then we can do whatever the hell we want in the interest of National Security.

The Russians are working on an anti nuclear ballistic system in the Pacific headed by the S-400.

I just think we need to be careful as not to escalate this to a conflict by staging THAAD, RIM-161 (Standard Missile-3) or MIM-104 (Patriot) systems too close to Russia.

[96Qowner]

I'd say it worked in most of the other nations that don't have a century of conflicts under their belt. The list is probably too long to post.

Ok, Bob. I'd just like to hear about the successes of negotiating. I seem to only recall inane failures. I suppose one could argue that negotiating always works until it doesn't, and that we only really remember the times it doesn't, but that still raises the question of how you know when negotiating isn't working. If you never stop negotiating, you never get what you need.

And negotiations that aren't backed by a threat of "dire consequences" are simply empty words, to be ignored.

[AZhitman]

I think there's a wholesale misperception on the part of the Obamallamas that we "shoot first, ask questions later".

Not true, and a dangerous (and dumb) assumption.

There's a lot of discussion that goes on behind the scenes. Those in power HAVE spoken, they're NOT "strangers", and communication DOES occur...

As with all human encounters where there are tensions, a perceptive person can assess (usually fairly quickly) where the interaction is headed. It's a basic tenet of martial arts, debate, counseling, and other intellectually-driven interpersonal matters.