×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russia To Help NATO Build Anti-Missile Network

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-reagan-was-a-fool dept.

The Military 175

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Russia has agreed to cooperate with NATO on erecting a US-planned anti-missile network in Europe protecting the continent against possible ballistic missile attacks from Iran or elsewhere. The anti-missile coverage would be anchored by a US land- and sea-based deployment, reconfigured by Obama from earlier plans devised under the Bush administration. The new idea would be to link individual national missile defenses into the US network and place them all under a NATO command and control center with authority to respond to an attack. 'We see Russia as a partner, not an adversary,' says President Obama, hailing the NATO-Russian accord. President Dmitri Medvedev warned that Russia's cooperation must be 'a full-fledged strategic partnership between Russia and NATO' and not just a nod in Moscow's direction to spare Russian feelings while Europe tends to its own defenses in tandem with the United States."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

Against who? (1, Troll)

faragon (789704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297550)

Quite ironic to help against themselves. If there was no actual "enemy" no missile barrier should be needed at all.

Re:Against who? (1, Insightful)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297590)

go back to sleep there are no threats - it is so great living in this Utopian world where everyone loves each other :-)

Re:Against who? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297756)

> go back to sleep there are no threats - it is so great living in this Utopian world where everyone loves each other :-)

go back to sleep there is no debt - it is so great living in this Utopian world where missing money can be printed without any consequences for people that matter :-)

Re:Against who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297604)

I guess there is a connection with the rising tensions against China. CW2 (Cold War 2), here we come...

Re:Against who? (2, Interesting)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297658)

Sounds like a good PR move to me.

"What's that? If Help the West invest time and money into a overly-complex and bureaucratic system that will never work, I can look like I'm cooperating and moving forward? Sounds like a deal to me!"

There doesn't need to be a Cold War, but Russia doesn't exactly want a Western hegemony.

Re:Against who? (4, Interesting)

TCPhotography (1245814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297906)

You do realize that the agreement that was just signed simply ties the current and future European systems (Dutch, German, and Spanish SM-3; German-US-Italian MEADS; French SAMP/T; and US SM-3s in Eastern Europe) to the current and future US sensor network? And you realize that the current network already ties in mobile THAAD batteries, SM-3 equipped AEGIS Cruisers and Destroyers (US and Japanese), and the GBI bases in Alaska and California?

And that the whole thing is in it's simplest form a giant systems integration problem, one similar to what the US has already done?

Re:Against who? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299236)

As I said, overly-complex and bureaucratic.

The total cost of linking national systems into a shared network would rise well above $100 million, he predicted, without counting the tens of millions more necessary for individual nations to invest in their national defense systems. In an era of budget cutbacks across Europe, he acknowledged, the idea of universal anti-missile coverage may still end up falling victim to deficit reduction.

Re:Against who? (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298064)

The "actual enemy" is the potential "Caliphate" opposite the proposed arc of missile defense.

Mentioning it exists is Trollish thoughtcrime, but strategic planners have a duty beyond PC emotionalism.

There is clearly a need to bring Russia into the NATO sphere of influence in a "good way" useful to Russians. We face a mutual Jihadist enemy and wars that may take a century.

We need Russia, China, and India on the same page to contain Pakistan (especially after it falls to its own Taliban and the tiny minority of officials living on US money are lynched) and Iran.

Are you kidding? (2, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298380)

More likely we need Russia on line to defend against the only country likely to be a powerful near future military adversary.... China (and possibly North Korea). Iran doesn't have what it takes.

Pakistan will be running on US funds for the foreseeable future and will be no threat to anyone but itself.

Terrorists use bombs, not intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299002)

More likely we need Russia on line to defend against the only country likely to be a powerful near future military adversary.... China (and possibly North Korea). Iran doesn't have what it takes.

Pakistan will be running on US funds for the foreseeable future and will be no threat to anyone but itself.

Terrorists use bombs, not intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I tend to agree. If there's a World War III, and it is fought with nuclear missiles of one kind or another, there's a possibility it will start between Russia and China. They share a huge border, and they go back a ways. It wouldn't hurt Russia to be on-board with us so far as deterrent and mutual defense are concerned. Russia may eventually end up becoming an ally. How does the old saw go? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Of course, it would probably be cheaper just to smuggle a few hundred tactical nukes into the enemy's territory and set them off when you need to. Anti-missile shields don't work well if the explosives are already in place. The U.S. and China, given the amount of material shipped in and out of each country, would make the easiest targets for such a plan.

Re:Are you kidding? (4, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299172)

I believe, China won't try to start a war.
1. they are not fundamentalists
2. they already built their economy to work with the western economies.

They cannot afford a war and they know it. Only "small" fundamentalist states not integrated into the world would try to start something. North Korea, Iran and possibly Pakistan if taken over by the Taliban.

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299614)

Yes, they're smarter then that. Personally I see them purchasing a large swath of Eastern Russia instead of fighting for it.

Re:Are you kidding? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299970)

The Chinese aren't *religious* fundamentalists. But they do have an ideological thing going, (and for some, also a combination racial superiority/persecution complex). This doesn't mean they will or won't fight, but it changes the timing and targets if they do fight.

It's a tricky thing to be one of China's geographical neighbors or near-neighbors, now and for the forseeable future. Which means that if we're talking about China, it's actually a case of Russia needing the US as allies, not the other way around. There are vast regions north of present day China that are now nominally independent or part of Russia, all of which China has at one point insinuated that it has owned before and should own again. (It's a tenuous connection for a lot of it; a lot of it was only Chinese in the sense that it was Mongolian at a time where the Mongols had conquered China...).

Likewise South Korea, southeast Asia in general, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan... these places are all understandably edgy about China's growth. They're all either physically close or economic competitors or both. Many of them, China could indeed "afford" a war against if that war was only the two of them fighting. Remember from how China did (and still does) handle its western and southern borders; the Han don't do the bomb/rebuild/leave thing the US does. The Han invade, conquer, settle their entire army there (as done in their western region), and then ship in as many more Han are necessary to make the place majority Han (as they're doing to Tibet). If they were to end up in a war against, say, North Korea, you can be assured that the same general approach would be used; large numbers of North Koreans would die in the war, and the survivors would completely displaced by Han settlers.

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300116)

I believe, China won't try to start a war.
1. they are not fundamentalists
2. they already built their economy to work with the western economies.

If by chance those in power are threatened with an internal democratic movement, similar to the Tienanmen Square incident, which could put them out of power, they may be tempted to start a fake or forced war as a distraction. Fundie or not, people in power will often do anything to keep that power.

   

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300208)

I believe, China won't try to start a war.
1. they are not fundamentalists
2. they already built their economy to work with the western economies.

They cannot afford a war and they know it. Only "small" fundamentalist states not integrated into the world would try to start something. North Korea, Iran and possibly Pakistan if taken over by the Taliban.

They can't afford it right now, and that is the main thing. Eventually (soon possibly) China will have reached the maximum potential it can reach with it's current natural resources, as will Europe, the US and Russian (and likely India).

When that happens the current equilibrium will be broken and "stuff" will start happening.
Admittedly it might not be a world war or even a small war, but history has shown that when the balance of power amongst nations changes, war is the usual outcome.

As I see it, the threat of nuclear warfare does not originate with Pakistan or North Korea or some other rogue state; it makes little sense for a small state to initiate a nuclear war because they have first strike capability ONLY, and moreover they do not have an arsenal big or developed enough to do any significant damage to the superpowers. If Pakistan or DPRK decided to start a nuclear war (for ideological reasons, since there would exist no strategic reasons for them to do so) they would cause widespread chaos in their target, and then they would be wiped from the map by whoever they had nuked.

The only states for whom it would make any kind of strategic sense to start a nuclear war would be China and possibly India, of the current superpowers those two are the only ones who are not sufficiently "Westenized" and who have the manpower (and possibly infrastructure) to survive beyond the initial exchange of blows.

Re:Against who? (1, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298848)

not thought crime, just silly. Muslim world is too diverse and with too many large groups that have nothing but contempt for each other. The major divisions of islam even disagree on what a legitimate "caliph" would be. That "caliphate" based in Turkey, the fag end of the Ottoman empire, just used the word as rallying point, not a "caliph" by the old definitions.

The threats to world peace right now are made by war-mongering "christian" nations, starting unnecessary wars of choice and then deliberately prolonging them for defense contractor coin, power, political coin. e.g., Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, and yes even war in Afghanistan as those who attacked the U.S. aren't there and the label "Taliban" is given to every disgruntled Afghan who picks up a rifle.

So your fear of "Caliphate" is nothing more than anti-islamic racist hate mongering against groups of people who are "different than you"

Re:Against who? (-1, Troll)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298990)

Islam is a religion of war, a political ideology. Don't underestimate it. Missionaries are cheaper than missiles.

"An estimated US$45 billion has been spent by the Saudi Arabian government financing mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries. Ain al-Yaqeen, a Saudi newspaper, reported in 2002 that Saudi funds may have contributed to building as many as 1,500 mosques and 2,000 other Islamic centers."

That is the real reason behind the islamic renaissance.

Re:Against who? (2, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299442)

Nope, that's our doing. We line the Saudis pockets, because that family is, and has been for generations the friends of our petro-dollar cartel.

The religion of the Saudis is Saudi-ism. They use Islam to manipulate.

what a laughable example. Yet another proof the problem is us.

The Saudis are Sunnis, by the way. The Shiites hate their guts.

Re:Against who? (-1, Troll)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299678)

You haven't understood the economics of Islam. Any muslim believer should pilgrim to mecca and medina once in his life time ("hadsch"). In which nation are these cities? Saudi Arabia. In which direction do muslims pray? They pray towards a black stone in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. You can imagine the business value of being in the center of a religion with a billion believers

Saudi Arabia also own Fox news. The Saudi Arabian funding of islamic mission led to the conservative renaissance in many oriental states. After 9/11, attributed to a Saudi terrorists, they used the USA as a tool to eliminate their longterm enemy Saddam Hussein.

Re:Against who? (1)

Amigan (25469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299024)

Ironic though. Here we have the one country that was supplying the Islamic Republic with missile technologies and nuclear capability, and now it is going to join NATO in defending against the same? Must truly be nice to be able to play both sides of the fence and "win" on each ($$$ from Iran and defense from NATO)... jerry

We can help you, comrades (1, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297552)

Russia just wants to know the implementation details so they can determine the vulnerabilities of the system.

If Russia develops a missile shield, what is to stop them from attacking with impunity? We must act first!

Re:We can help you, comrades (1)

gest.hds (1934474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297596)

If USA develops a missile shield, what is to stop them from attacking with impunity? We must act first!

Re:We can help you, comrades (3, Insightful)

flyingkillerrobots (1865630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297630)

Don't question this. Very strong arguments can be made that this might actually be the first thing the current administration has done that can even remotely qualify as a foreign policy achievement.

Re:We can help you, comrades (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297640)

The Nobel Peace Prize is a pretty big achievement, you know.

Re:We can help you, comrades (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297684)

You need to achieve something to qualify for the status of having made an achievement.

The Nobel is a prize, and that particular Nobel is arbitrarily awarded.

Re:We can help you, comrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297690)

how do you figure?

Re:We can help you, comrades (2, Informative)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297900)

Yeah you don't get something like that just for being elected ya'know.

Re:We can help you, comrades (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297938)

Or for not being George Bush.

Re:We can help you, comrades (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298498)

Please. McCain wouldn't have gotten it. It's for not being a cowboy Republican.

Re:We can help you, comrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34298610)

True, we all know that it was just for being a black guy and living in the White House. That's it.

Re:We can help you, comrades (2, Insightful)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297922)

It apparently can be achieved by promising rather than delivering on those promises. Still think it's a big achievement?

Re:We can help you, comrades (2, Interesting)

junner518 (1235322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297696)

It is good to see such international cooperation on a global issue. Russia's foreign policy positions seem to contrast with what was accomplished at the summit; I wonder what the sentiment about this settlement is in Russia. The next question is if this network can be expanded beyond NATO. Imagine a network which protected Asia, Oceania, and Africa as well. Whether that is politically possible or not is in question, but I believe with enough time we could see the day. Or everyone could nuke each other with their counter-counter-nuke tech.

Re:We can help you, comrades (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297878)

The only global cooperation here is the willingness for the global military industrial complex to bleed the taxpayer dry. The 'ballistic' missile shield is completely useless against cruise missiles. Now you have stealth cruise missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, long range cruise missiles, their now planning long range hypersonic cruise missles, so really who is kidding who here.

Russia is only willing to play the game for the opportunity to start selling it's technology into Europe, likely that is part of the behind the scenes bargain struck with the western military industrial complex.

Why spend billions on a 'ballistic' missles shield that is completely useless against ground hugging cruise missiles, especially when every country is in the process of shifting technology that way. What is this, some kind of lying bullshit way to squeeze profits out of what is rapidly becoming pointless technology, can't afford social welfare but can afford a broken multi billion dollar missile shield.

Re:We can help you, comrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34298100)

It's kind of pointless for it to protect against cruise missiles when anything capable of hitting American shores with one is already within US airspace. Then you consider the relative payloads and it moves from being pointless to ridiculous.

Re:We can help you, comrades (1)

junner518 (1235322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298326)

I agree Russia is positioning itself, yet I still believe at some level this is a genuine effort at global cooperation *ducks*. And there is already defense against cruise missiles (Patriot missiles, etc.), so is it not plausible that cooperation can protect the involved nations from cruise missiles as well? It would be trickier because of range issues, but still plausible.

And yes, one of the motivations is definitely the lucrative contracts. However, Russia would not agree to this unless some political gain is won. A couple multimillion dollar contracts are not enough to sway the foreign policy of such a large nation.

Re:We can help you, comrade (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298482)

because the world has a population problem. Somehow, by some evil logic, it makes way more sense to create weapons than to save the poor and starving only to have twice their numbers needing to be saved in 20 years time.

Re:We can help you, comrade (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298940)

wrong, no population problem but we only have resource distribution problem, which would mostly have been solved by investing the trillion or ten trillion we spend on war and war-mongering.

No shortage of energy on this world, nor sufficient land to grow food. No shortage of water that can be turned to fresh water by the simplest application of the abundant energy this world receives.

  We have shortage of will to get off petro-dollar cartel and shortage of will to invest in condition of humans that would have wealth-growing benefits to all.

Just bailing out our failed finance/banking cartel took the amount of wealth that could have paved the deserts over with existing solar tech sufficient to power the north and central americas.

Re:We can help you, comrades (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298898)

Why spend billions on a 'ballistic' missles shield that is completely useless against ground hugging cruise missiles, especially when every country is in the process of shifting technology that way.

Having a unified ballistic missile defense system does not preclude having defenses against cruise missiles.

And why pray-tell is "every country" shifting away from ballistic missiles? Ahh... yes, because it is possible to detect and defend against them with some kind of ballistic missile defense that has been developed and implemented across much of the world.

As for why Russia is "playing the game', it is because they are no longer the great enemy - the Soviet Union. They are now a country that wishes to cooperate and grow, Russia sees this as an opportunity to be included. It's politics, and politics is about making gestures.

Re:We can help you, comrades (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300160)

And why pray-tell is "every country" shifting away from ballistic missiles? Ahh... yes, because it is possible to detect and defend against them with some kind of ballistic missile defense that has been developed and implemented across much of the world.

Huh? Defend against ballistic missiles? Current state of the art might manage to intercept a couple of missiles.

If a major player gets majorly mad and launches a major attack with ballistic missiles forget any idea that you can intercept more than a handful. For now that's impossible. It is why SDI was unable to be implemented a quarter century ago, and insufficient progress has been made since then for such an overarching missile shield to be implemented today.

Re:We can help you, comrades (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299042)

The only global cooperation here is the willingness for the global military industrial complex to bleed the taxpayer dry. The 'ballistic' missile shield is completely useless against cruise missiles. Now you have stealth cruise missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, long range cruise missiles, their now planning long range hypersonic cruise missles, so really who is kidding who here.

Not to mention orbital weapons platforms, thermonuclear or even just inertial (put a guidance system on a rock and drop it from high orbit.) It's a hell of a lot harder to hit an object that's coming from space. Are such already in place? I have no idea, but I do know that a lot of Shuttle missions were black. Probably just surveillance or communications equipment, but who knows.

Re:We can help you, comrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300060)

Things in space are sitting ducks. We do not have even close to the capability of making mass drivers (it's not like there's an asteroid field in earth orbit to get stuff either, you'd have to launch your rocks up too). And the big gun needed would have to be far larger than the ISS. As for nukes in space, if they're in orbit, you'd have to put heat shielding so it can enter the atmosphere without disintegrating, and you'd need specific trajectories and angles, unless you blanket the sky with orbital nukes it would take a long time for a nuke to be in place for proper de-orbit onto a target.

Re:We can help you, comrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297886)

You haven't been paying attention if you think this is the first positive negotiation between U.S. and Russia under the current administration. Bush would have lead you guys to utter catastrophe.

Re:We can help you, comrades (3, Informative)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298012)

I fail to see how it's a foreign policy achievement. I see it more as a "He was against it before he was for it!" .

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/obamas-missile-defense-plan-sm.php [nationaljournal.com]

A little over a year after telling Poland "No", and it seems like that people forgot it ever happened. Googling "Obama stops missile shield" on the news search came up with no articles at all.

Re:We can help you, comrades (5, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298072)

Russia has a missile shield you dolt.

Always had one.

The missile interceptors around and inside Moscow have been since the 70-es. The first missile defence treaty specified that existing systems are to stay. While USA have barely managed to get theirs working for a couple of months in 1975, the Russians have managed to deploy, improve and maintain theirs ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system [wikipedia.org]

Re:We can help you, comrades (2, Insightful)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299382)

Except that system is not as rosy as you make it.
The thing used(may still use them) nuclear warheads and one of the layer was a total saturation of the area where the missile is calculated to be in.
This is far from what the USA has been attempting to do with small explosion next to the incoming attack.

Re:We can help you, comrades (3, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299824)

Well, it uses fairly low yield warheads and at 20km+ intercept altitude. While not elegant it is a typical russian engineering solution: "Do not force it, use a LARGER hammer".
Do not forget - it was designed for WW3. At a moment when EMP has broken all lose from USA and USSR nuking each other into a glass lake who cares about a couple of extra sub-10K nukes.
Also, the newer interceptors are not nuclear armed and they are also supplemented by S300 at a lower altitude which can also intercept warheads (or at least is rumoured to) at least on par with Aegis and Patriot if not even better.
All in all, compared to what US has got it is probably by up to 10 years ahead.

seems like a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297622)

This seems like an extremely expensive Maginot line to me. It seems far more cost effective to develop a concealable weapon to sneak into the country. Or what would stop a nation from firing 1000 dummy missiles and exhausting the defense.

What NATO really means (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297634)

Not At The Office
Needs Americans To Operate
Not After Two O’clock
No Action Talk Only

No thanks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297654)

I'm more afraid of the US blasting Europe than of China. Please go away, crazy christian fanatics.

Re:No thanks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297752)

We couldn't blast Europe; we can't find it on a map.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34298508)

No worries; our missiles have GPS...

Re:No thanks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297770)

yes, well, that's because you're retarded.

Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (2, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297686)

A report [theaustralian.com.au] by an Australian news organization notes, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed yesterday to involve technicians in development plans, but did not make a commitment if it became operational and warned that Russia might decide against joining the US-led effort if it were not treated as an equal partner." Though Russia is assisting NATO, Russia is not necessarily committing to using the system.

That response by Russia should have raised suspicions about the Kremlin's actually sabotaging the design of the missile system. After all, if the Kremlin is not committed to using the system, why would the Kremlin bother to ensure that the system can actually work?

Worse, "President" Medvedev has accused the Europeans of using the shield to neutralize Russian nuclear missiles. If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297768)

Why do you quote the word "president"? If that should express your doubt in the legitimacy of his rule, perhaps Medvedev is quite smart to sabotage the NATO anti-missile program. You know, just in case someone in Washington D.C. suddenly agrees with your doubts.

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (4, Insightful)

sadler121 (735320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297980)

Because everybody knows it is really Vladmir Putin who runs Russia, and is Prime Minister to get around the consecutive term limits, and will run again for the Presidency, and win after Medvedev's term is up...

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (1)

kmike (31752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298034)

Check his other comments and submissions, he appears to be on a mission.

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34300342)

Check comrade kmike's other comments and submissions, he also appears to be on a mission. ;)

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (2, Interesting)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297934)

"If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?"

Precisely, the Kremlin believes that they need a credible foreign threat to keep themselves in power. Truly cooperating with the West would remove that and they'd be left with defending their regime using the same yardsticks as democratic regimes.

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (1)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298444)

They could like, try to claim that the separatist Chechens have nukes

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (1, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298294)

and because they want to know how it works and make sure the US system is connected so when they send a worm down the line, it takes everyone out of the loop. Putin still scares me and seems like he's too much like a James Bond villain than anyone out to do his people any good.

LoB

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298418)

Worse, "President" Medvedev has accused the Europeans of using the shield to neutralize Russian nuclear missiles. If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?

Why not? They benefit from having it both ways. By contributing to the system, they gain access to valuable technology. And by being very standoffish about it, they'll be in a position to leverage bribes and other income off of even a basic working missile defense system.

Re:Russian Game: Assistance but Not Participation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299686)

A report [theaustralian.com.au] by an Australian news organization notes, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed yesterday to involve technicians in development plans, but did not make a commitment if it became operational and warned that Russia might decide against joining the US-led effort if it were not treated as an equal partner." Though Russia is assisting NATO, Russia is not necessarily committing to using the system.

That response by Russia should have raised suspicions about the Kremlin's actually sabotaging the design of the missile system. After all, if the Kremlin is not committed to using the system, why would the Kremlin bother to ensure that the system can actually work?

Worse, "President" Medvedev has accused the Europeans of using the shield to neutralize Russian nuclear missiles. If the Kremlin were a true supporter of NATO, why would the Russian "president" still present Russia as an adversary of the West?

WE MUST NOT ALLOW A MINE-SHAFT GAP!

Seriously - quit fapping to Red Dawn and realize that the Cold War is over.

fox in charge of the henhouse (1, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297754)

Finally Russia is getting this capitalism thing. They just need to step it up.
  1. find a person who likely will go insane with power
  2. fly that person to the US and train them
  3. after training, send them back with $$$
  4. help them win a coup
  5. send in reporters to scare up the world (and profit from the ad revenue)
  6. wait for fear to brew
  7. piss them off
  8. claim they're insane to the world and everyone is at risk
  9. send troups, bombs, etc and blow shit up
  10. profit profit profit

Eventually you'll own the land, thin your own herd, scare Europe into thinking you're the good guy and let you take over. You won't be able to handle all the logistics so you'll need to deputize a huge amount of private corporations to "act" as the gov't. They can do your bidding and take the fall. You just sit back and enjoy. If you're lucky Rupurt Murdock will cut you in for a slice of the Newscorp profits too!

Re:fox in charge of the henhouse (2, Funny)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297940)

Wow, stop putting alum on your cereal or stop starching your shorts.

Re:fox in charge of the henhouse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299120)

It's not a "capitalist" thing. It's a centuries old strategy for subjugating newly acquired territories.

From Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapter VII:

Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d'Orco, a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success. Afterwards the duke considered that it was not advisable to confer such excessive authority, for he had no doubt but that he would become odious, so he set up a court of judgment in the country, under a most excellent president, wherein all cities had their advocates. And because he knew that the past severity had caused some hatred against himself, so, to clear himself in the minds of the people, and gain them entirely to himself, he desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practised, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister. Under this pretence he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed.

Well (2, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297758)

I hope the designers of this system know what they are doing. A very obvious design goal would be to make it so that a computer virus loaded in one country couldn't shut down the ballistic missile defenses of another. After all, if one country writes most of the software they could easily insert back doors to allow them to shut down any node of the system at will.

Heck, this system will uses lots of RF antennas for input (such as the tracking radars)...a good back door could be triggered remotely, so long as you were running the same firmware revision as before. So even if you cut the cables linking the control centers together, one country could still remotely disable the defenses of another.

Re:Well (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299066)

Heck, this system will uses lots of RF antennas for input (such as the tracking radars)...a good back door could be triggered remotely, so long as you were running the same firmware revision as before. So even if you cut the cables linking the control centers together, one country could still remotely disable the defenses of another.

Joachim: "Our shields are dropping!"

Kahn: "Hit the override. The override!"

Cyber Attacks? (3, Insightful)

iinventstuff (1888700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297780)

So, all the individual nations' missile defense systems will now be linked into a single network? Have these leaders read the news about 'cyber' warfare and how it's starting to pick up? It would seem that creating an electronic pathway from other nations should raise concern for the security of one's own defenses. Prior to a physical attack, it would be convenient to knock out the missile defenses of your adversary and this network now provides that conduit...

Obligitory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297792)

In Soviet Russia, missiles shield YOU.

typo in tfa (1, Funny)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297802)

they spelled China as 'elsewhere'.

Re:typo in tfa (1)

Ed Peepers (1051144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298650)

I get the joke and I laughed, but it's interesting to note that one of Turkey's conditions of cooperation was that additional nations (beyond Iran) shouldn't be singled out. So "Iran and elsewhere" is actually technically correct!

Curious about other considerations. (1)

jack_n_jill (642554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298068)

Will such a missile shield protect Israel from the extremely unlikely event of a missile attack from Iran? Will the missile shield protect Iran from the much more likely event of an attack by Israel?

never trust the Russians (0)

bball99 (232214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298102)

never

Re:never trust the Russians (1)

Futile Rhetoric (1105323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298198)

'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs?

Re:never trust the Russians (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299076)

'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs?

Simple. Not all Russians are evil. But some are.

Of course, you can say that about anyone.

yes, comrade (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298640)

You push button and missile goes correctly. If some missile don't go correctly you shoot more missile.

What a load (5, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298658)

There are no missile threats from Iran or any where else, this is military contractors making deals and the rest of the humans being to stupid to care or notice.

Russia helps who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34298720)

You mean Russia doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, but will once we hand over our nuclear missile defense plans. Fucking utopian communists are going to get us all killed.

Earth to Obama (0, Flamebait)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298742)

Earth to Obama. Russia occupies US allies Georgia, Japan, Modova. It aggressively meddles in Ukraine, Estonia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. It proliferates nuclear technology to Iran, Venezuela, and Syria. They arm adversaries of the US all over the planet. They are an enemy of the US by any rational definition. Obama is an appeaser in the Neville Chamberlain mold.

Re:Earth to Obama (3, Interesting)

nycguy (892403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298926)

Obama is an appeaser in the Neville Chamberlain mold.

There's an important distinction: Chamberlain loved his country. Obama loves the world.

Re:Earth to Obama (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299092)

Obama is an appeaser in the Neville Chamberlain mold.

There's an important distinction: Chamberlain loved his country. Obama loves the world.

Obama has one thing in common with all megalomaniacs: he loves himself. But that's no surprise: it's a requirement for anyone seeking that particular position.

Re:Earth to Obama (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34298974)

Earth to you, it the U.S. that is the biggest occupier and war-monger-for profit on the planet. It is the U.S. who occupies Japan and many other nations we use as bases to project power globally (which neither Russia nor China do)

Re:Earth to Obama (3, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299102)

Earth back to you. The U.S. is losing money from fighting these wars, not making it. And we inject a massive amount of money into the local economies wherever we have a base, and happily restrict the military members stationed on the base from leaving their barracks the second the locals want us to. (Source for that last point: I wasn't allowed off base in Spain because some moron fought a local months before I got there.)

Re:Earth to Obama (4, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299392)

We the people of the U.S. are losing money, yes. However, the banking cartel and military-industrial complex, with our lawmakers in their pockets, are not losing money.

Re:Earth to Obama (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34300184)

A useful idiot. Do you think Japan chaffs about Okinawa with Russia occupying the Kurils and China encroaching the the S. China Sea?

Re:Earth to Obama (2, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299160)

You are totally correct. If the Russians actually get any technical access to this missile-defense system, its value drops tremendously.

The President needs to ask himself, what actually changed in 1991? The Russians lost a little territory on the western frontier and some allies in the same area. They were temporarily weakened a bit. As far as I can tell, nothing else actually changed, except the intelligence services replaced the CPSU as the governing instrument.

Re:Earth to Obama (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299358)

Well, Russia still occupies parts of East Prussia and japanese islands. The Russians are fine.

US corporate communism means the corporations steal from the people and control both parties.

Will Orbital Sciences gets contracts this time? (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34299078)

Because since they cut the old program Orbital Sciences has had to lay off something like a third of its employees, and the layoffs continue just about every week.

Wasn't it to be defend from Russian missiles, too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34299450)

Against whom? You know, us here in Poland think of the missile shield mostly as one against Russia. Regardless how warm are the ties between our countries these years it pays to be paranoid...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...