PDA

View Full Version : Russia Wants 'Red Button' Rights for US Missile Defence System



megimoo
04-08-2011, 01:40 PM
"We insist on only one thing," he said of the nascent US-backed missile defence shield. "That we are an equal part of it." ..."In practical terms, that means that our office will sit for example in Brussels and agree on a red-button push to launch an interceptor missile, regardless of whether the missile is launched from Poland, Russia or the UK."...

Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, made the controversial demand during a visit to the United States where he met with top officials including Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State....Robert Gates tried to pacify the Kremlin last month by offering to share information about the new system and by offering to build a joint data centre

..Russia has been pushing hard for a prominent role in the new missile shield for months but with little noticeable success as Washington and its allies remain deeply sceptical of Russia's reliability as a political and military partner.

The United States has said the new shield is needed to protect Europe and itself from long-range missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran. But Russia has argued that the new system will blunt its own nuclear deterrent. It has threatened to beef up its own nuclear

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8438045/Russia-wants-red-button-rights-for-US-missile-defence-system.html

KhrushchevsShoe
04-09-2011, 06:56 AM
Russia is not the boogeyman. They've learned to like their distinctly Russian brand of capitalism and democracy and seem pretty OK with the existence of the Baltic States and Ukraine. They just aren't going to be politically or militarily aggressive in Eastern Europe like they used to, and they honestly could use the missile shield more than most states in Europe could.

fettpett
04-09-2011, 07:02 AM
Russia is not the boogeyman. They've learned to like their distinctly Russian brand of capitalism and democracy and seem pretty OK with the existence of the Baltic States and Ukraine. They just aren't going to be politically or militarily aggressive in Eastern Europe like they used to, and they honestly could use the missile shield more than most states in Europe could.

whats your point? why the hell should we let any other country have control of a system we built. go kick yourself in the ass with that stupid shoe

KhrushchevsShoe
04-09-2011, 07:05 AM
Its a nice gesture.

fettpett
04-09-2011, 08:48 AM
if the Russians were smart they would build their own, which they probably have. The US should not give them any say in when the deployment of the shield nor whether or not the thing can be used.

nice gesture my ass

KhrushchevsShoe
04-09-2011, 10:52 AM
Who cares? The missile shield is just a stimulus check for weapons manufacturers, hell if the Russians get their hands on 'em you jingoists might be able to convince congress to approve a newer, better, missile defense system to stay ahead of the Russians.

megimoo
04-09-2011, 01:07 PM
Who cares? The missile shield is just a stimulus check for weapons manufacturers, hell if the Russians get their hands on 'em you jingoists might be able to convince congress to approve a newer, better, missile defense system to stay ahead of the Russians.
Russia doesn't have the ability or funding to build a real missile shield.They have a small system protecting Moscow that uses Nuclear warheads to create a huge high altitude burst to destroy the incoming warheads that leaves large clouds on radioactive debris to fall on Moscow almost as bad as a successful strike.

As of now Russia has lost whatever technological edge it ever had.They had to abandon their Bulava SLBM after six test launch failures and rely instead on SLCM's of much shorter range and lower warhead capacity's ..

They are frightened of Americas ballistic missile shield as it neutralizes what ever strategic nuclear deterrent they had in the past so they negotiate whatever they can get away with from this weak Obama administration .Russia has fallen by the wayside as a major Nuclear power and it limps along in the shadow of its past glory .

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 09:24 AM
Who cares? The missile shield is just a stimulus check for weapons manufacturers, hell if the Russians get their hands on 'em you jingoists might be able to convince congress to approve a newer, better, missile defense system to stay ahead of the Russians.
The Soviet Union is gone, KS, you don't need to shill for them.
The missile shield is more than a "stimulus check". It's meant to protect Europe from Iranian missiles (that is, Russian missiles sold to Iran), which will be able to reach targets throughout the continents. The negation of that threat means that Russia will lose a market for weapons, Iran will lose leverage over Europe, and NATO members will have stronger ties to the US security aparatus. In other words, it's a win/win/win for us, which is why you oppose it.

Its a nice gesture.
Here's another nice gesture. Unfortunately, it's to our allies.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i0r7Ox3cp9Q/TZy653JysUI/AAAAAAAACzk/kD9hELlrioI/s1600/obama-middle-finger1.jpg

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 10:23 AM
The Soviet Union is gone, KS, you don't need to shill for them.
The missile shield is more than a "stimulus check". It's meant to protect Europe from Iranian missiles (that is, Russian missiles sold to Iran), which will be able to reach targets throughout the continents. The negation of that threat means that Russia will lose a market for weapons, Iran will lose leverage over Europe, and NATO members will have stronger ties to the US security aparatus. In other words, it's a win/win/win for us, which is why you oppose it.

Here's another nice gesture. Unfortunately, it's to our allies.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i0r7Ox3cp9Q/TZy653JysUI/AAAAAAAACzk/kD9hELlrioI/s1600/obama-middle-finger1.jpg

A win/win/win... lol. How much did that fucking thing cost again?

AmPat
04-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Russia is not the boogeyman. They've learned to like their distinctly Russian brand of capitalism and democracy and seem pretty OK with the existence of the Baltic States and Ukraine. They just aren't going to be politically or militarily aggressive in Eastern Europe like they used to, and they honestly could use the missile shield more than most states in Europe could.

I guess that clears it right up.

Obama Calling Russia: Hello, Sergei?
Sergei: Yes

Obama Put your request in to the White House.
Sergei: You mean?

Obama Yep, done deal
We feel this is the right course of action since our national defense plan should be transparent to all.

:rolleyes:

fettpett
04-11-2011, 11:31 AM
I guess that clears it right up.

Obama Calling Russia: Hello, Putin?
Putin: Yes

Obama Put your request in to the White House.
Putin: You mean?

Obama Yep, done deal
We feel this is the right course of action since our national defense plan should be transparent to all.

:rolleyes:

fixed that for you

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 12:21 PM
A win/win/win... lol. How much did that fucking thing cost again?

Doesn't matter. You would object to spending a penny on anything that defended us or our allies.

Besides, a missile shield is cheap compared to the damage from a nuclear strike.

Madisonian
04-11-2011, 02:17 PM
Doesn't matter. You would object to spending a penny on anything that defended us or our allies.

Besides, a missile shield is cheap compared to the damage from a nuclear strike.

All depends on where it lands, doesn't it?
It would be cheaper than "urban renewal" for far too many areas of the country.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 02:54 PM
Doesn't matter. You would object to spending a penny on anything that defended us or our allies.

Besides, a missile shield is cheap compared to the damage from a nuclear strike.

A nuclear strike from where? France? The Russians?

There are more targets Iran is much more eager to bomb (and they can hit them with greater ease) that are closer to home. Protecting our allies... what a crock. Take a look at the defense budget for those countries'... I think they'll do just fine. Subsidizing foreign countries' defense is a colossal waste of money especially when they have absolutely zero use for it.

If you wanna cut down the defecit shit like this should be the first to go.

AmPat
04-11-2011, 03:01 PM
A nuclear strike from where? France? The Russians?

There are more targets Iran is much more eager to bomb (and they can hit them with greater ease) that are closer to home. Protecting our allies... what a crock. Take a look at the defense budget for those countries'... I think they'll do just fine. Subsidizing foreign countries' defense is a colossal waste of money especially when they have absolutely zero use for it.

If you wanna cut down the defecit shit like this should be the first to go.

Wrong, the three trillion in IOU's stolen from the social Insecurity "trust fund" should go. How do you poo flinging DIMWITS plan to fix that? How about defunding all the things that DIMWITS love that are not legitimate expenses of government like ALL entitlement programs?
Why do you Poo flinging DIMWITS always object to any military spending? Do you believe we can have Ponies and Unicorns for long without the means to protect those valued assets?:rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 03:05 PM
Wrong, the three trillion in IOU's stolen from the social Insecurity "trust fund" should go. How do you poo flinging DIMWITS plan to fix that? How about defunding all the things that DIMWITS love that are not legitimate expenses of government like ALL entitlement programs?
Why do you Poo flinging DIMWITS always object to any military spending? Do you believe we can have Ponies and Unicorns for long without the means to protect those valued assets?:rolleyes:

Because defense spending accounts for an insanely massive chunk of our federal budget. Trimming the fat on all the wasteful spending that goes in the military will cut down the debt significantly, even some Republicans (Rand Paul comes to mind) acknowledge this.

Im not saying cut the pay for servicemen and woman or hamper our methods of getting supplies to the battlefield. I am saying lavish defense systems that will never be used and dont even serve as a deterrent (because there is nobody to deter) are wasteful.

AmPat
04-11-2011, 03:09 PM
Because defense spending accounts for an insanely massive chunk of our federal budget. Trimming the fat on all the wasteful spending that goes in the military will cut down the debt significantly, even some Republicans (Rand Paul comes to mind) acknowledge this.

Im not saying cut the pay for servicemen and woman or hamper our methods of getting supplies to the battlefield. I am saying lavish defense systems that will never be used and dont even serve as a deterrent (because there is nobody to deter) are wasteful.

You mean like those NUKES!:eek: Yeah, never used (don't be stupid, I know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki), yet were a positive deterrent against nuclear superpowers?:rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 03:17 PM
You mean like those NUKES!:eek: Yeah, never used (don't be stupid, I know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki), yet were a positive deterrent against nuclear superpowers?:rolleyes:

Nukes are the best deterrent you can get. They are credible, frightening and game-enders.. I am in no way opposed to us keeping our stockpile.

Now, nuclear defense shields that protect people from an enemy that doesn't exist (or doesn't even care about them)? Those aren't deterring anything.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 03:18 PM
A nuclear strike from where? France? The Russians?
Russia is one. Iran is another. Pakistan, a distant third, although given the increasingly strident craziness coming from there, that distance is closing rapidly.


There are more targets Iran is much more eager to bomb (and they can hit them with greater ease) that are closer to home. Protecting our allies... what a crock. Take a look at the defense budget for those countries'... I think they'll do just fine. Subsidizing foreign countries' defense is a colossal waste of money especially when they have absolutely zero use for it.
Then why is Iran purchasing missiles that can hit Europe, when the ones that they have now are already capable of hitting Israel, Saudi Arabia and every other country in the immediate region? What do they need the extra range for?

Do you know what "Twelver" means in relation to Shia Islam? Twelvers are people who believe that the Twelfth Imam has been in hiding since his disappearance, sometime during the Ummayad Caliphate, and will return to usher in a glorious Islamic future when the world has been engulfed in a cataclysm. Ahmedinejad is a devout Twelver, and believes that it is his duty to usher in the cataclysm. Unlike the Soviets, who didn't try to initiate a nuclear war in this world so that they would have paradise in the next, the Iranians are completely besotted with the idea.


If you wanna cut down the defecit shit like this should be the first to go.

You've never cared a whit about the defecit before, so why should we take you seriously now? The fact is that if this were free, you'd still oppose it, while you'd vociferously support the most wasteful, inefficient and tyrranical government programs. Don't even try to pretend that you're anything but a totalitarian tool.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 03:23 PM
Haha if it were free I just wouldn't care! What a ridiculous thing to say.

The Russians arent nuking anyone, they have absolutely no reason to do so.
Iran cant nuke anyone because they dont have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan will nuke India eons before they mess with Europe.

The rest of your post is Ody patented fear mongering bullshit.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 05:05 PM
Haha if it were free I just wouldn't care! What a ridiculous thing to say.
And yet, I stand by it. You would oppose anything that enhanced the security of the United States or our allies.


The Russians arent nuking anyone, they have absolutely no reason to do so.
Because the threat of nukes is enough. That's why Poland and the rest of the former Warsaw Pact countries want the shield.


Iran cant nuke anyone because they dont have nuclear weapons.
Yet.

They have the centrifuges, uranium and missiles. They are working on the nukes, with help from Pakistan, China and Russia.


Pakistan will nuke India eons before they mess with Europe.
They may do both. Or, they may simply provide a warhead.


The rest of your post is Ody patented fear mongering bullshit.
Translation: "I don't know enough to even begin to address this, so I'm going to resort to derisive insults and hope that nobody notices my ignorance." Typical, Shoeboy, but not effective.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 07:36 PM
No Ody, its not that I am incapable of refuting your ridiculous garbage. It's just impossible to actually get through to you. Basically everything I could possibly say is simply reflected back on me with some crazed tirade on Islam. Would I actually enjoy arguing you if you weren't so pretentious and willfully ignorant? Maybe, but as you are now its downright impossible.

Learn the difference between exasperation and not having a response.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 10:56 PM
No Ody, its not that I am incapable of refuting your ridiculous garbage. It's just impossible to actually get through to you. Basically everything I could possibly say is simply reflected back on me with some crazed tirade on Islam. Would I actually enjoy arguing you if you weren't so pretentious and willfully ignorant? Maybe, but as you are now its downright impossible.

Learn the difference between exasperation and not having a response.

I'm ignorant? Hmmm.. Let's see... Which of us is an Army Command and General Staff School Graduate? Which of us has done tours in Iraq and Kuwait? Which of us has actually done threat analysis in a combat theater, faced our nation's enemies and actually studied the history of Islam and Islamic imperialism? Hint: Not you, Shoeboy. What you know about our strategic capabilities and limitations and the nature of the threat would fill a flea's navel and leave room for lint.

AmPat
04-12-2011, 09:40 AM
I'm ignorant? Hmmm.. Let's see... Which of us is an Army Command and General Staff School Graduate? Which of us has done tours in Iraq and Kuwait? Which of us has actually done threat analysis in a combat theater, faced our nation's enemies and actually studied the history of Islam and Islamic imperialism? Hint: Not you, Shoeboy. What you know about our strategic capabilities and limitations and the nature of the threat would fill a flea's navel and leave room for lint.

Ouch.

Stinky Shoe response:
Right. I know you are but what am I?

Wei Widdle Boot Licker response:

LOL

:rolleyes:

Bailey
04-12-2011, 09:55 AM
I'm ignorant? Hmmm.. Let's see... Which of us is an Army Command and General Staff School Graduate? Which of us has done tours in Iraq and Kuwait? Which of us has actually done threat analysis in a combat theater, faced our nation's enemies and actually studied the history of Islam and Islamic imperialism? Hint: Not you, Shoeboy. What you know about our strategic capabilities and limitations and the nature of the threat would fill a flea's navel and leave room for lint.

I am pretty sure that was an asskicking KS, doubt your education on the matter at hand is no where near as vast.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 10:07 AM
I'm ignorant? Hmmm.. Let's see... Which of us is an Army Command and General Staff School Graduate? Which of us has done tours in Iraq and Kuwait? Which of us has actually done threat analysis in a combat theater, faced our nation's enemies and actually studied the history of Islam and Islamic imperialism? Hint: Not you, Shoeboy. What you know about our strategic capabilities and limitations and the nature of the threat would fill a flea's navel and leave room for lint.

You're an ideologue. You try and dress it up as something more, but you're still a partisan hack who never strays from your set of political beliefs no matter what the situation.

Your groupies love you for it though, you're CU's shining example of distinguished conservatism. Military background, you do read books and you aren't afraid to write a 2000 word expository on anything. However I know I'm not the only one who sees through it and is kinda horrified by the fact that you are a person in a position of power who has not matured politically past an Us vs. Them philosophy.

Bailey
04-12-2011, 10:18 AM
You're an ideologue. You try and dress it up as something more, but you're still a partisan hack who never strays from your set of political beliefs no matter what the situation.

Your groupies love you for it though, you're CU's shining example of distinguished conservatism. Military background, you do read books and you aren't afraid to write a 2000 word expository on anything. However I know I'm not the only one who sees through it and is kinda horrified by the fact that you are a person in a position of power who has not matured politically past an Us vs. Them philosophy.

And you're are not an ideologue? I hope you didnt get struck by lighting when you said that.:rolleyes:


I've seen the Major stray off his own path more then I've ever seen you do, that makes you a hypocrite oh and FOAD.

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 10:41 AM
You're an ideologue. You try and dress it up as something more, but you're still a partisan hack who never strays from your set of political beliefs no matter what the situation.

This is what psychiatrists call projection. If anyone here is an ideologue, it's you. You have no knowledge of the subject, but like Wei, you think that a prism of Marxist-Leninist dogma gives you a grasp of the issues. It doesn't. On the other hand, in this area, I am what is usually referred to as a Subject Matter Expert, because it's my job.


Your groupies love you for it though, you're CU's shining example of distinguished conservatism. Military background, you do read books and you aren't afraid to write a 2000 word expository on anything. However I know I'm not the only one who sees through it and is kinda horrified by the fact that you are a person in a position of power who has not matured politically past an Us vs. Them philosophy.

I have groupies? Cool. Send the hot ones up to my dressing room and tell the stage manager that I don't want any brown M&Ms in the candy dish.

I think that I'm through taking you remotely seriously. I've tried, because on occasion, you've displayed some lucidity, but the ideological blinders have made you tedious, especially when it comes to national defense. As for "not being the only one who sees through [me]." I'm perfectly willing to provide you, Wilbur and Wei with some nice cheese to go with that whine.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MNx7LdLMWLE/TaOx8O5tkQI/AAAAAAAAC1s/YY4CC4ebdmU/s640/Out%2BTo%2BLaunch2.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XSSgfxur5CI/TaN-YOYiltI/AAAAAAAAC1k/YQ0T5lo8gGU/s1600/On%2Bthe%2Bbutton.jpg