Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Threatens Pre-emptive, Destructive Force On US Missile Defense

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

The Military 675

suraj.sun sends this quote from an article at the BBC: "Russia says it is prepared to use 'destructive force pre-emptively' if the U.S. goes ahead with controversial plans for a missile defense system based in Central Europe. The warning came after the Russian defense minister said talks on missile defense were nearing a dead end. Moscow fears that missile interceptors would be a threat to Russia's security. But the U.S. and NATO say they are intended to protect against attacks from Iran or North Korea. 'A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,' chief of the Russian defense staff Gen Nikolai Makarov said. President Barack Obama ... scrapped plans for a network of bases spread across Poland and the Czech Republic with the capacity to intercept long-range missiles. But in 2010, the U.S. signed an agreement with Poland to use an old airstrip at Redzikowo, near the Baltic coast, as a missile defense base."

cancel ×

675 comments

Frak (5, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888963)

There goes the planet.

Re:Frak (5, Funny)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889043)

On the bright side, at least I'll finally be able to make use of that pocket survival kit I got for Christmas and show my Doomsday scenario skills acquired from countless hours in post-apocalyptic video games.

Re:Frak (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889169)

Meh. What do we care, we are in the US!!!!!!

Re:Frak (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889179)

Where did this come from, Russia is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system? I thought the cold war was over? Its a bit more serious than sabre rattling!

Re:Frak (5, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889263)

What do you think the USA would do if Russia began installing a "Missile Defense System" in Cuba and Venezuela?

Re:Frak (5, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889273)

Where did this come from, Russia is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system? I thought the cold war was over? Its a bit more serious than sabre rattling!

Rather, US is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system.

See what I did there?

Re:Frak (0, Troll)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889373)

See what I did there?

Bought into anti-US propaganda?

Seriously - you can't see the difference between provoking someone and actually attacking them?

Re:Frak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889377)

Where did this come from, Russia is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system? I thought the cold war was over? Its a bit more serious than sabre rattling!

Rather, US is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system.

See what I did there?

+1 !!!

Re:Frak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889387)

Consider the proportions, then... The missiles in Cuba were first-strike capable whereas the defense systems' are not. But if you're going to say (or assume) that those in this defense system might be, too--because we love playing tit-for-tat around here--then we might as well just agree to disagree because nobody on this entire website has any irrefutable proof or hard experience in knowing what's really inside the canisters of each defense systems' launchers...

Re:Frak (-1, Troll)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889291)

No, it's just bullshit on the part of the Russian government. They'll posture and threaten, we'll do what we want, and in response, they'll sell a couple extra obsolete diesel subs to the Iranians. They know that we've got the military to beat, and while they might outnumber our tanks, we've got far superior aircraft and tactical weapons, not to mention a superior training program for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen. They wouldn't risk all out war over this, and they know it.

Re:Frak (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889459)

You're also overextended and weakened financially from a protracted war in the Middle East. Yes, Russia is a poor nation, but China is their next door neighbour, holder of significant amounts of US debt, and also not so happy about your decadent western ideals.

This might not be just willy-waving.

Re:Frak (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889467)

The old lose-lose scenario remains, Russia has lots of nukes. Which is why Russia considers a missile defence system in europe intolerable as it would be conceivable to use a european based system to nail ICBMs during boost phase and might render them incapable of retailation against a possible US strike.

So I wouldn't be so sure they won't actually strike. The US has a bad tendency to attack those it percieves as largely defenseless, and should something like the Georgian war be repeated the Russian options would be much more limited if they actually risked a significant engagement with US forces, something which is unlikely to happen as long as MAD stands.

Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (2, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888981)

Between all the arrogant saber-rattling over Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and China, you would think the U.S. not only thinks it can go it alone on everything, but may just stumble like a blind fool right into a world war.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889007)

That would be weird wouldn't it? Everyone has become worried about terrorists, Iran and North Korea, only for Russia to enact MAD over something everyone thought was over 20 years ago.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889019)

Don't worry about being left out. Everyone will get the chance to be involved!

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889045)

Let me guess: you were one of the dickheads who angrily resented Western saber-rattling against Germany right up until mid-1941. At which point you suddenly and unaccountably became angrily resentful of Western inaction on Germany. (Remember, 420,000 dead Americans is a "noble sacrifice", or something like that.)

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889183)

And he was dumb enough to pay money to this joke of a site.

WWIII (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889135)

I remember reading an insightful remark, years ago, on CNN.com from some high-ranking DoD official. He said the Cold War was World War 3. He went on to say the fight against Islamic extremism is World War 4, which is more questionable (the scope and scale of the conflict is much less than any other World War).

So the U.S. has already stumbled into World Wars III and IV, and is now going for WWV! I guess WWII turned out so well for us, our leaders are eager to repeat the experience.

Re:WWIII (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889353)

insightful

No, it was more of a flamebait remark.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889221)

I don't think it's stumbling like a blind fool - these military ventures are very much in line with the plans of some evil bastards [slashdot.org] who think that because the US (with help of some European allies) is capable of completely taking over the world militarily, it has a moral responsibility to do so. Never mind the millions of people that might get killed in the process.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889257)

No this is the normal squabbling that goes on all the time. I don't see it as a precursor to a world war. Iran, North Korea: They are basically loose cannons placed in locations where we have a lot of interests. They have different agendas. Pakistan, Russia and China: We are not enemies with those countries. But we don't fully trust them and they don't fully trust them. Russia and China are big players in their area and really don't want the US in their face. Pakistan, is a mixed bag, they know they need us, they just don't like how we do it. I don't see a World War III coming from this. They are not united against us and our allies, They have very different agenda and don't really want to work with each other.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (4, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889469)

China certainly wouldn't join in on a war between the US and Russia because that would automatically catapult them to THE world superpower. If the 2 went to war, in all likelihood most of the ground combat would take place in or near Russia. The US might get hit by a few missiles, but Russia really doesn't have the ability to do a bombing campaign or launch an invasion. The US would probably win unless Russia went full-on nuclear. Russia would be shattered, and the US would have lost a sizable portion of its military and it's economy would be wrecked. This would leave China with the strongest military in the world, and boost their economy even more as they can sell to all the countries trying to rebuild, further entrenching themselves into the economies of the US and others. This also doesn't take into account that there is no love lost between China and Russia, and they've been somewhat at odds for decades.

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889275)

The only time we should fear something like that is if communication stops... It's hard to gauge the seriousness of things like this then when media outlets are involved. I know the BBC has a much more respectable reputation than the likes of say Yahoo or MSNBC, but still, it's a media outlet: it's still the words of another person you're trusting...

Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (0)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889447)

Of course the US can "go it alone" on everything. It's simple economics, we in the USA have no healthcare because our government siphons off our tax revenue for insane military spending so big oil, big pharma, big banking, big entertainment can have their will around the world.

We spend more than the rest of the world combined on military, so our big corporations don't have to worry about borders.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Pot, kettle (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888997)

Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.

Signed,
The world

Re:Pot, kettle (4, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889081)

Signed,
An American

It's about time a major power steps up. It had to take Russia to do it. Shame on your Europe.

Re:Pot, kettle (4, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889203)

Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.

Signed,
The world

A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.

Signed,
An American Soldier

Re:Pot, kettle (4, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889317)

A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.

Signed,
An American Soldier

I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.

Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?

How can you be stupid is beyond me.

Re:Pot, kettle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889409)

I'm sorry, because you can't speak English, I get to berate you. Berate, berate. Try again in your own country.

Re:Pot, kettle (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889451)

I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize that Afghanistan or Iraq were part of Russia's sovereign territory.

Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?

If the missile is designed to shoot down attacking missiles or airplanes and has no offensive capability, it is defensive in nature. If it can drop a nuclear warhead on Moscow, it's pretty clearly offensive.

How can you be stupid is beyond me.

I just realized that I felt the need to respond to another comment of yours in this thread. It is pretty clear that you are just full of blind hatred for the US, which probably makes you think that other people can't possibly have valid opinions that might paint the US in a more benign light.

Re:Pot, kettle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889355)

The American War Machine is tired after 2 long wars... I'll still put it against the Russian war machine in a heart-beat.

Signed,
An American Marine

Re:Pot, kettle (1)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889361)

Also, I'm not sure what they hope to hit this base with as a pre-emptive strike. I can almost guarantee that they'll have SAM and Patriot PAC-3 emplacements surrounding the facility while it's being built, plus they'll likely have a couple Burke and Tico ships with Aegis BMD sitting in the Baltic or the North Sea, just in case. So, unless they're going to risk an all-out ground assault, or try to bomb this with conventional aircraft, I think they're SOL. Our military is too good to allow them to do anything material, and our defensive systems would be able to repel a pretty good amount of anything they'd be able to fire at us. Plus, the Aegis Ashore program that's slated to go here is built extremely quickly, once the vertical launch system (VLS) is installed. They wouldn't have much time to act.

Re:Pot, kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889441)

Again as some1 already said .... how woud the US react to Russian missle defence system in Cuba ?
We all (the non US part of the world) are getting tired of all the BS comming constantly from there... who the frick do US think they are ? U r doing good for the world? U r helping ppl ..... like Sudan , right ? Ahhh......so u're not rly helping where help is needed...ur doing what's good for u , dosnt matter if u fuck others....
Please take our missales and stick it right in ur black/white president's ass ...right next to ACTA, SOPA and all the other BS that originated from u.

Re:Pot, kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889319)

I guess that sheepish comment is supposed to make everyone reading all this suddenly realize how wretched the U.S. is? I mean, seriously? Get something more substantial going before you bend over for popular belief usually garnered through the likes of Yahoo comment collectives... Moron.

* Rolls Eyes *

Re:Pot, kettle (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889349)

Yea, the world isn't fare is it. The United States has the Worlds Largest Military. So you need to tread lightly when attacking the US. Not that I am supporting the idea to pre-emptive attack Iraq (and I am quite angry how loose the information on the WMD was). However you don't mess with the USA. And they are not going to just take it and go "Well I Guess we had it coming"

Mayan Promise (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889005)

Please let it happen before the end of 2012, otherwise all those Mayan calculations that the world will end in this year will go to waste... :p

Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889009)

Moscow fears that missile interceptors would be a threat to Russia's security

Neutralising Russia's offensive capability is a "threat" to Russia. Stopping them from harming other people is a "threat" now.

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Informative)

artfulshrapnel (1893096) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889071)

They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.

The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889177)

True, but there's nothing stopping Russia from having an identical missile defence. Why don't they just build their own equivalent?

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889227)

True, but there's nothing stopping Russia from having an identical missile defence. Why don't they just build their own equivalent?

because it cost too much for the ussr to wage star wars.
it's not a real defence anyways if the russians have still working subs.

+ it's about europe. mainly. not about us vs. russian mutual destruction. and the shield would be useful only for attacks done mainly for shits'n'giggles so...

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889399)

What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses. Yeah, they might be able to snap fire a couple long range ICBMs from their missile subs, but that's what we've got BMD for, and that's why it's multi-layered. I'd like to see what source you have that backs up your assertion that this missile defense shield will only be useful against "attacks done mainly for shits'n'giggles". As someone who has worked on this program, and the programs leading up to it, this is prime time. Nothing is being done for show, and this system is capable of some pretty spectacular stuff.

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889251)

They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.

The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...

See, that's the problem. Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe, and even then its debatable. Of course, let's not even start on submarine and mobile launchers.

This system is no threat to Russia or MAD.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889427)

Correct. The SM-3 interceptor missile only has a range of about 270 nautical miles (according to the Wikipedia). It's likely got more range than that, but that information would be classified. For this system to be effective against Russia, we'd need to place defensive sites throughout the Russian homeland, or put an Aegis BMD ship every 500 miles along its coast.

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889157)

The other meanings of "MAD" are not lost on anybody; but it isn't really a new concept.

Theory goes that, in the presence of multiple nuclear powers with overwhelming destructive capability, only the ability to launch a second-strike of sufficient magnitude to dissuade anybody from launching a first-strike against you is a viable defense.

If one party obtains an actually functional anti-missile system, they neutralize everybody else's second-strike capacity, and thus enjoy the ability to launch first-strikes at their pleasure.

Unfortunately, most of this stuff was hammered out under the cold war logic of an environment with ~2 main actors, both presumed to be rationally self-interested, with easy attribution of nuclear strikes, and other favorable conditions. It doesn't work nearly as nicely if you go to N actors, introduce actors who are either irrational or interested in various apocalypses, or dream up delivery mechanisms that make attribution hard...

(The cynics might also argue that both the US and Russia aren't entirely uninterested in playing at cold war, since they both have decades of experience with it, a glut of high-level policy types who were trained under the assumption that that would be their job, and both have discovered that 'dialog with North Korea' and 'Fundamentalist Sandbox Meatgrinder' are lousy games. Plus, the cold war was probably the historical high water mark for buying awesome toys from defense contractors without actually having to learn their weaknesses the hard way all that often...)

refresh my memory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889013)

Why are we spending our money and resources defending Europe, again?

Isn't Europe all grown up now? It can take care of itself, and install its own missile defence systems if it wants them.

Re:refresh my memory... (2)

artfulshrapnel (1893096) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889103)

My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)

It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.

Re:refresh my memory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889301)

My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)

It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.

yeah :) CZ and Poland are right between USA and Iran.... oh wait ...they arent ...so .... maybe North Korea will go this way ...hm..no , its easyer to go over the Pasific ....so..... this system will protect against Russia i guess :) At least is looks that why ..... btw i support the Russians 1000% this time .... USA keeps doing stupid stuff and will 'touch the sword' 'cose of it ...but who cares , they deserve it anyway ..

Re:refresh my memory... (2)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889313)

My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)

It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.

Why not adapt a missle defense system to our current fleet of submarines...or if not feasible, create a new class of submarines to meet the requirements. As long as we aren't using kinetic energy weapons or lasers, it should be do-able.

Re:refresh my memory... (1)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889475)

Right. The system that they're putting in place, Aegis Ashore, is based on Aegis BMD, a Naval Ballistic Missile Defense system. It's a hit-to-kill system that targets warheads in their exo-atmospheric phase. We would want them to be downrange of any location that would be launching the missiles, because it's not a boost-phase interceptor. You need to wait for the warheads to go outside the atmosphere before you can knock them down.

Re:refresh my memory... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889201)

In this particular case, we are putting the missile-defense systems there because that is the convenient place for them(if they could be sited elsewhere, that would actually be more sensible. Anti-missile installations aren't especially robust against anything but(possibly, if you believe the vendor) the task of shooting down ICBMs, so you really want them as far away from the ground and air forces of potentially hostile powers as you can get them.)

In the general case, um, probably inertia? And our airbase in Germany is pretty convenient for medvac stuff?

Re:refresh my memory... (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889321)

Europe is the good conscience of Western Ideology. If it goes, there will be nothing left but christian fundamentalism, plutocracy and Rush Limbaugh.

I do not want to live in that world.

Re:refresh my memory... (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889385)

Europe just acts like they are grown up and can create a liberal organization, then they have the US fight for them, so the US takes all the heat they get all the benefits.

Is it just me... (0)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889015)

... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older? Is he heading down the mad old dictator route of many past soviet general secretaries?

Perhaps the west should carry out a pre-emptive strike on all those russian arms shipments to various unpleasent regimes around the planet (yes I know the west is hardly squeeky clean in that regard too but the russians well sell to pretty much anyone with a big enough wallet).

Re:Is it just me... (2, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889151)

... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older? Is he heading down the mad old dictator route of many past soviet general secretaries?

Perhaps the west should carry out a pre-emptive strike on all those russian arms shipments to various unpleasent regimes around the planet (yes I know the west is hardly squeeky clean in that regard too but the russians well sell to pretty much anyone with a big enough wallet).

Yeah, it is just you.

If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889401)

Yeah... American defending itself. What arrogance. How dare they?

Re:Is it just me... (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889421)

... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older?

Yeah, it is just you.

If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.

I know everything big, bad America does is evil and all, but threatening a pre-emptive attack against a defensive installation is pretty crazy. Especially when this is a NATO deal, and Poland doesn't seem to have any problem with letting the US build a base in their country.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889243)

I think he's not crazy - he just wants Russia to seem aggressive and the biggest bully in the playground. Such statements, and there were many of them in the past, should not be taken seriously. Russia has always threatened Poland and other countries of the former soviet block ever since they lost control over them in '89. And believe me, they're playing this game for their benefit - it creates the illusion of a strong and united country for Russian citizens. But in truth, it's not the case. If Putin didn't hold on to power as he does, it would be difficult to keep the Russia united.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889381)

...but the russians well sell to pretty much anyone with a big enough wallet

Damn Capitalists!

Thank God for Smart Diplomacy! (3, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889021)

Not sure what we'd do without it....

Why wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889031)

They could just invoke a Russian equivalent of the Bush doctrine and attack now.

Completely unnecessary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889041)

Why can't europe protect itself? It's not like they're ALL French. Instead of building a multi-country missle defense system to protect a whole freaking continent, how about we rebuild our water/sewar/bridges/roads infrastructure?

Re:Completely unnecessary (3, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889131)

Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?

Re:Completely unnecessary (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889285)

Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?

And of course the French showed they were a bunch of pacifist pansies when it came to toppling Gaddafi.

Weird (5, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889061)

This is weird on so many levels.

  • First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres? As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.
  • Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre. MAD was exactly that: "mad". Governments agreeing to *not* defend their respective citizens: truly mad.
  • Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself (I say this as a European). Stay home, America, stop spending money you don't have.

So - what's really going on here?

Re:Weird (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889101)

America, stop spending money you don't have
Unless it's welfare spending on she-boons.

Gorsh, isn't Ogabe's "smart diplomacy" great?

Re:Weird (2, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889137)

Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.

Re:Weird (4, Insightful)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889445)

Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.

I'm not convinced it is necessarily Russia's fault. Every American president since the wall came down (Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, Obama) has at best ignored Russia and at worse treated them as children to be chided or acted as if the cold war was on going.

None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down; none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage; none of them have acted like they are potential friends; none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion. Hell, that they might be useful allies. The Russian experience and insight with Islamic countries could have proved useful over the last 10 years.

Treat anyone as poorly as we've treated Russia and eventually they'll get belligerent as well.

Is it too late to change the relationship? Who knows. Lost opportunities are always easier to spot than emerging ones.

Re:Weird (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889455)

Putin wants to be reelected. He's a bully, so he needs to threaten. Once he's safely in office eating caviar and fucking icelandic whores, he'll be fine.

Re:Weird (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889161)

How would the US react if Russia installed missile defense in South America to protect Chavez and their other allies?

That's why they're sabre-rattling. It would diminish Russia's ability to strike westward, and Russia plans to be a superpower again.

Re:Weird (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889173)

the cold war might be over but the russian military needs money more than ever, especially because the cold war is over.

m.a.d just provided a way for the militaries to not do anything, as long as you had some nukes or someone thought you had nukes ready to go it was all you needed. much easier than actually providing a missile defense which is friggin hard and expensive and impossible to prove to work anyways. which is why bullshitting about star wars was such genius.

what the devil is the us doing? exporting weapons and jobs - isn't that basically all what they do.

Re:Weird (2)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889233)

It seems to me that this is an attempt by two world powers to go back to a time when the climate of mutually assured destruction helped fuel innovations in science and technology. I know that the US could use a little innovation, I assume the same about Russia (but I'm not sure that fear and the threat of war are the best way to go about it).

I'm with you - I wonder what the ulterior motives are. . . .

Re:Weird (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889239)

First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres?

For various reasons that can be and have been debated at length, Russia really feels threatened by the West and doesn't like NATO accepting new members in its former buffer zone of Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics.

As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.

Tank rush to the English Channel? Not so much, no. But whether or not they want to establish/maintain hegemony over Eastern Europe is another matter.

Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre. MAD was exactly that: "mad". Governments agreeing to *not* defend their respective citizens: truly mad.

A perfect defense means you have no reason not to launch an offense. A first strike becomes all reward with no risk.

The policy is nothing if not rational.

Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself

I as an American agree wholeheartedly, but Europe has a longstanding postwar habit of not spending more than €0.17 on defense and relying on the US to cover the rest (witness the Yugoslav Wars).

In any event, it's technically "NATO" we're talking about here. The balance of influence and responsibility within NATO can be treated as a separate matter.

Re:Weird (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889359)

I as an American agree wholeheartedly, but Europe has a longstanding postwar habit of not spending more than â0.17 on defense and relying on the US to cover the rest (witness the Yugoslav Wars).

So, you seem to know everything about everything.

Tell me, which country was supplying most weapons and breaking UN imposed sanctions, during "Yugoslav Wars"?

No idea where you got that name, though, noone who lives here (or was involved in it) ever called it that way.

Re:Weird (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889289)

The geopolitical subtext is a Russian and Iranian strategic partnership that would control natural gas supplies in eastern and central Europe.
A missle shield would interfere with Iranian Nuclear intimidation of Europe, The Mideast and the 'Stans and remove a component of Russian Iranian hegenomy

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889325)

I agree. The US should pull all troops from Europe and Japan. It's time to end that nonsense.

Re:Weird (1)

cryptolemur (1247988) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889331)

So - what's really going on here?

It's about Polish and Czech not wanting to deal with their eastern neighbours in a neighbourly manner -- and they may have good reasons not wanting to -- so they are looking for a powerful ally to guarantee their security.
Nobody seriously believes NATO is really worth anything in solving problems or confrontations (there's historical precedents of Western Europe being both unwilling and uncapable of dealing with any Eastern Europe security issue -- why would they give a crap today?).
So you make a direct deal to have so important military installation on your own ground that you actually become somebody's bitch in exhange for some level of security. Wich means you don't have to deal with your suspectible neighbour by yourself.

The fact that you also become the ground zero of the WW3 is just a "security" bonus!

Re:Weird (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889333)

First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres? As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.

Understand that they react to the opening of a new US missile base near their border. This reaction may seem out-dated, but if you think so, there are things happening in the US's zone of influence, like the quasi-embargo on Cuba. How would US react if Russia was making (again) a missile base there ?

Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre.

The main objection is that nothing is more similar to a missile than an anti-missile.

Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself (I say this as a European). Stay home, America, stop spending money you don't have.

That's exactly the point.

Actually, here is the thing : Russia will never make a raid on a US base in Poland, they are not crazy, but making a few aggressive headlines during a presidential campaign is a good way of saying "LOOK HERE! GIVE ME SOMETHING!". This missile defense is a remnant from the Bush era. I think it just needs this kind of pressure to be totally abandoned.

No it's not. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889357)

It has nothing to do with the USSR.

Russia has a history of being invaded and the paranoia is deeply embedded in the psyche of her peoples and leaders. They've had a very long history long before the USSR existed.

Secondly, it's about power and her leaders wanting to continue to appear to be a World military power - not only to the rest of the World but also for her peoples.

If Europe and the US were smart, they'd would include Russia in on the defense. After all it is in their interests too to defend against N. Korea and any Middle Eastern threats - even the broken states that they back themselves (Syria). If Europe is attacked, Russia's very lucrative gas and other energy franchises would go down in flames.

Russia should be on board with this. Europe's security is their's also and they need to realize that this isn't the 18th or 19th or even early 20th century. They can be a valuable force in World peace and stability if they (and the US for that matter) would give up this illusionary dichotomy of World power structure.

Cooperation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889073)

If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.

Re:Cooperation? (4, Informative)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889479)

If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.

Cooperation was actually proposed by the Russians. IIRC, the Russians wanted to have their finger on a "kill" switch for the system. There is also concern about sharing sensitive military technology with them.

BBC news (1)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889077)

oh, BBC news ...

Russia? Really? (1, Flamebait)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889079)

Is this 1980? What the hell does Russia care about...anything?

Re:Russia? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889199)

1) Russia sees Poland as their backyard. Kind of like what we'd do if Russia set up anti-missal tech in Cuba, or Canada.
2) No one really buys the Iran and North Korea BS. This is against Russia and everyone knows it.
3) Putin remains in power because he echoes the old guard of the USSR. The power elite in Russia understand that, they know how to deal with it. This is part of the echo. He knows we would never use it unless Russia launched an attack against one of the old Warsaw Pact nations, but with the whole militaristic bent of Putin's regime turning hard-core, that is always a possibility.
4) Treaties to protect one nation (in this case Poland) by another (the US) usually mean the protected nation (Poland again) won't sign such a treaty with another country (Russia).

TL;DR - if Poland signs a protective treaty with the US, Poland is saying it is no longer Russia's ally.

NEWS FOR NERDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889083)

FFS. I realize this is 'stuff that matters', but the ratio of News for Nerds to Stuff that Matters has gone from about 90:10 to 10:90

Suggestion for the next slashdot poll: Should CmdrTaco be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to resume his editorship of Slashdot?

l2history (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889089)

This is a repost of the beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just with Poland and the Czech Republic instead of Turkey.

Re:l2history (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889265)

The missiles in Cuba were offensive, these are defensive --- big difference.

This is nothing more than an admission on the part of the Russians that their economy isn't able to build enough missiles to off-set these defenses, which pains them, since arguably it was an inability of their economy to build enough war materiel to provide sufficient targets for the U.S. to blow up on the Ho Chi Minh trail _and_ sufficient military exports for other countries _and_ build enough missiles to counter their perception of the Strategic Defense Initiative _and_ keep their people feed and happy.

As one teacher of mine opined, a country whose government can't supply their people w/ toilet paper will eventually have a change of government.

Re:l2history (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889299)

This is a repost of the beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just with Poland and the Czech Republic instead of Turkey.

I think I'd be OK if Russia put a defensive missile installation in Cuba. The key word here is DEFENSIVE.

Just sell the Russians the tech already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889099)

If we are serious about using this system to stop nuclear war through ballistic missiles, then let them have it. Sure, the info will trickle down to the secondary and tertiary nuclear powers, but it will have created another design hurtle.

Unless it's trivial to trick the system. In which case, our government should have cut its losses a long time ago but, like the idiot humans who comprise the system, are suckers for the sunk cost fallacy.

Re:Just sell the Russians the tech already. (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889211)

If we are serious about using this system to stop nuclear war through ballistic missiles, then let them have it. Sure, the info will trickle down to the secondary and tertiary nuclear powers, but it will have created another design hurtle.

Unless it's trivial to trick the system. In which case, our government should have cut its losses a long time ago but, like the idiot humans who comprise the system, are suckers for the sunk cost fallacy.

Very much this, giving everyone missile defense tech not only ensures good will ("Look we aren't planning on shooting missiles at you, and just in case you think we would, now you can defend against them too") but makes the populaces safer world-wide.

So.... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889147)

let's not piss off the ruskies... I mean... the entire world doesn't like us already, and threatening someone's military in any way could be construed as an (pre-emptive) act of war.

Can't we get some people in office who will straighten things out by giving answers and not politician rhetoric?

âoeThose who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.â â George Gordon Byron

So the Russians think this thing actually works? (4, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889165)

They must know more than everyone else.

look out europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889187)

russia must have plans to attack europe and the proposed polish base would mess them up.

russian missles to parts of europe would travel over poland.... but russian ICBMs aimed at north america would go NORTH over great circle routes (shortest distance), NOT over europe.

___

a polish base could protect the US from future ICBM attacks from the middle east (read: iran)... but not from north korea or china... it would, however, help protect parts of europe from missiles originating from those two countries.

and, finally the typical anti-ballistic surface-to-air missile won't have the range to hit much of anything important in russia (if it had ground attack capabilities and if it could even get that far in the first place)

Well, well . . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889191)

We have now received the first open promise of a military strike against a US military base by our former cold war opponent and current occasional ally as a result of a military doctrine pushed by Obama and Clinton. This is not only unprecedented, but a gross mis-interpretation on foreign policy by this administration. Please wait. Iran is another red herring among many red herrings in the fields of military, economics, jobs, stimulus by this administration. Zero focus on proven traditional ways to improve all those things., Private investment volume. Lower deficits, lower tax rates (whatever the net revenue).

JJ

Short memory, eh? (0)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889207)

You yanks keep ignoring the fact that people in those countries actually don't want your missiles stationed there.

It took many years and many threats (some of which were documented fairly well) to other *friendly nations* in order to finally get "approval" from corrupt governments, to place missiles in their countries. And people don't want that.

For example, since 2007 (earlier, actually), there have been promises and calls for referendum in Poland.

It still didn't happen.

Are you still going to pretend how US government are the "good guys"?

In Russia, Defense is Offensive (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889249)

and an offensive strike is simply defensive.

1962 in reverse (3, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889389)

This is kind of like the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.

now that Obama is president... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889395)

It's "the US" this and that. Before, it was "Bush" who got all the negative comments. Nobody wants to blame warmongering on Obama.

Nuclear War is inevitable (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889417)

It may not happen today, or this year, but it will happen some day. As crazy as the world is today, and knowing the nature of humans, world destruction is coming.

Doomsday clock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889423)

Will it advance another minute due to this?

In before... (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889461)

the Doomsday Clock is incremented. Since of course if Russia does this it will probably involve nukes.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...