NATO - The ‘New Arms Trafficking Organization’
NATO. It’s an outdated organization that has become nothing more than a vehicle with which to exploit lucrative new arms markets, apply political pressure to new member states to support the foreign policy initiatives of its foremost members, and diminish Russian influence in Eastern Europe while claiming that that isn’t an objective. The Eastern European missile defense shield proposed by the United States, and backed by NATO members at the recent summit, is utterly pointless, and will, without question, dangerously heighten tensions between Moscow and Washington, which is just what the world needs right now. Because as we’re all aware, the Iranians, for example, who don’t even possess the ability to actually target Eastern Europe, and who also don’t possess a nuclear weapons capability, would automatically target Eastern Europe because someone at Langley dropped some acid and came up with a theory that, at some point in the not too distant past, the Iranians decided that striking Eastern European targets would be the logical first step in their diabolical plan for world domination.
Seriously, it’s like fucking five year olds are running the world.
As an aside, what if Russia was to now back the implementation of a missile defense shield in, for example, Venezuela and Cuba? How do you think that would go over?
One thing I will say – it’ll be interesting to see how quickly new member states Albania and Croatia will be asked to have combat contingents deployed in Afghanistan.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
“The communiqué on missile defence, circulated by US officials, acknowledges ballistic missile proliferation as “an increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations”.
It says the US-led system will make a “substantial contribution to the protection of allies”. BBC
Has it honestly been Bush’s plan to go down in history as not only the worst American president, but also the worst leader ever to have power, period? With that out of the way, I don’t really understand the above quote. Can anyone pinpoint the “increasing threat to allied forces, territory, and populations?” Sounds like fucking World War Two talk, quite honestly. I’m pretty sure allied forces (if we should even distinguish them as allied forces anymore, I’m not so sure) can avoid conflict on their own, and don’t need a ridiculous missile defence system. One more thing to add to the popular book series: How To Run The World For Dummies.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
Just to add one more thing, Bush could really use a handful of those “Dummies” books.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Hang on – won’t he be the (expert) author?
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Five year olds indeed. The whole world - it’s a big game of Risk!
It is troubling how childish the language is which is used to talk about nuclear warfare - read ‘missile defense’.
The term ‘Star Wars’ for instance infantilizes the subject. As do apt names for weapons platforms like ‘peacekeeper’, ’smart bomb’.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
overheard in the Oval Office
“we need to counter the influence of those Warsaw Pact bastards!”
“uh, sir”
“don’t bother me now Condi, O’Reily’s coming on!”
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Excellent use of run-on sentence as literary device. Seriously.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
[quote comment="48724"]overheard in the Oval Office
“we need to counter the influence of those Warsaw Pact bastards!”
“uh, sir”
“don’t bother me now Condi, O’Reily’s coming on!”[/quote]
Now are you referring to the man leading america though the war on terror or george w bush?
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
…and Ukraine and Georgia get thrown under the bus, even after their respective color and/or fabric material democratic revolutions and will probably remain ‘buffer’ states between a rock and a hard place for many years to come just because they happen to directly border Russia. And Macedonia gets cut out of the loop because of geographical nomenclature, gotta love intl. diplomacy.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
[quote comment="48726"][quote comment="48724"]overheard in the Oval Office
“we need to counter the influence of those Warsaw Pact bastards!”
“uh, sir”
“don’t bother me now Condi, O’Reily’s coming on!”[/quote]
Now are you referring to the man leading america though the war on terror or george w bush?[/quote]
Good point. They’re both as stupid, dangerous, guilty….
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I finally know what NATO stands for!!!
But, Russia will now be stock piling short range missiles - it is not always just up to the U.S. to break the deals. In the future we will still have a bunch a five year olds playing - “stop hitting me” and saying “well you started it” And the run on begins … the short range missiles will be able to target the defense shields in Poland and Czech Republic if need be of course. And, Russia by no means will ever use gas supplies to pressure countries into any agreement deals. By the way, apparently Russia has 1 radio transmission spy satellite and U.S. has 12.
I just got proof that Bush gets extra help during his speeches: spelled out phonetically - Kyrgyzstan (”Keyr-geez-stan”), Mauritania (”moor-eh-tain-ee-a”) and Nicolas Sarkozy (”sar-ko-zee”). Sorry can’t link you up, all articles are in Russian.
Stormydog - do you still think he can write? Or, once he’s out he can collect all those phonetically spelled words and come out with a book for “How to succeed during 2 terms in the office for dummies”
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I think that someone forget to tell Bush and NATO that the Cold War ended in 1989. They likely still view the Russians as “the evil communists.”
I will never understand how the US can attempt to dictate international arms regulations when they themselves have far and away the largest stockpile of nuclear arms ever seen, and can put more missiles wherever they see fit. What gives them the right to demand anyone to dismantle “weapons of mass destruction” when they have at least hundreds of times as many, and likely supplied them in the first place?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
conversation I had with an ex-Navy Seal:
“people miss detente. it was all easier back during the Cold War: you were either with the US or with the Soviets and everyone knew what to do. now its just too damn confusing. they want to go back to the good ol’ days…”
the hubris of US leadership is mind-boggling, smells like de-evolution…
{John Lennon: “Imagine”}
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Giant: stop making sense :)
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
[quote comment="48734"]I think that someone forget to tell Bush and NATO that the Cold War ended in 1989. They likely still view the Russians as “the evil communists.”
[/quote]
Absolutely agree. I’m curious to see what will happen to this project with new administration. Even more curious that about Iraq. Why? Because the wheels are already turning - Boeing will most likely be the biggest contractor for the project, in view of the economy, that is good. On a sadder note, when Clinton was still in power (2000), Russia was proposing to work on European missile defense together, alas Russians cannot sell packaged goods as well as U.S.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
When ever I read of the US and their plans for a missle defense system in Europe to act as a bulwark against potential threats I find myself being reminded of Louis XIV. This king of France spent the early years of his reign invading his neighbours and waging wars so as to ‘better defend France’. To keep this history lesson simple, what resulted in the end was that French military dominance in Europe was smashed by a coalition of its neighbours (after numerous attempts) who correctly saw this agenda as little more then a pretext for invasion and occupation.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
ezz: this is where you go back to - You are either with us or against us. We all know where that leads. Hopefully everyone stops before they get there.
What happened to
“… all the people
Living for today…”
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
It’s not just that — they are the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against another country. So it’s not just that they’ve stockpiled them, but they’ve willingly deployed them against others. Based on that, they shouldn’t even have a seat at the table when discussing nuclear technologies or which countries should or should not be allowed to have them.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
On Duane/Giant’s note, what gives them the right to demand dismantling of these weapons is the fact that their sense of self-worth is inflated by the fact that they have one of the largest economies in the world, have been virtually untouched by war (since the Civil War) and they have whupped everyone else’s ass, all the while stockpiling their own weapons supplies and structuring their economy (and politics) on military terms. Pricks.
Not all Americans I mean, just the ones that made the decisions that led to this current state of affairs.
/end rant.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
[quote comment="48743"]
I will never understand how the US can attempt to dictate international arms regulations when they themselves have far and away the largest stockpile of nuclear arms ever seen, and can put more missiles wherever they see fit. What gives them the right to demand anyone to dismantle “weapons of mass destruction” when they have at least hundreds of times as many, and likely supplied them in the first place?
[/quote]
Get your facts straight - Russia has, far and away, the largest stockpiles of both nuclear weapons and other weapons that are fashionable to call “WMDs”. The United States doesn’t have “hundreds of times as many” WMDs as other nations. Where are you getting your information?
[quote comment="48743"]
It’s not just that — they are the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against another country.
So it’s not just that they’ve stockpiled them, but they’ve willingly deployed them against others.
Based on that, they shouldn’t even have a seat at the table when discussing nuclear technologies or which countries should or should not be allowed to have them.[/quote]
That sounds like giving a five-year-old a time-out, which doesn’t help the process. Not to mention the fact that you act as though countries that have nuclear weapons, but haven’t used them, aren’t willing to. Hell, do you think CF-101s have never once carried nuclear warhead-equipped Genies when intercepting Tu-95s while the USSR ran their constant interception-timing “exercises” over the arctic cap?
Russia is the worst WMD offender in the modern world. Bar. None. They’re also right behind the United States in known conventional arms exports. To think that both countries aren’t playing the exact same game would be ignoring reality.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
If you really think George Bush is stupid, and Americans (not all of us) are pricks, ………..
then you probably don’t realize that Russia is well and truly cooked. France too…. and Spain.
Check out the birth rates………..and the Life Expectancy of Russians. In less than 50 years, Europe will be solidly Islamic. The Big Face-off will be the Hispanics v. the Islamists for the new, bloodier World Cup.
George Bush, stupid, hah.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
[quote comment="48755"]If you really think George Bush is stupid, and Americans (not all of us) are pricks, ………..
then you probably don’t realize that Russia is well and truly cooked. France too…. and Spain.
Check out the birth rates………..and the Life Expectancy of Russians. In less than 50 years, Europe will be solidly Islamic. The Big Face-off will be the Hispanics v. the Islamists for the new, bloodier World Cup. [/quote]
I’ll say one thing - Middle Eastern countries tend to have below-average life expectancy, but the number of people who are of ripe military age are only going to continue to explode with each generation. A protracted WoT certainly isn’t the best idea when nature is working against you. I don’t doubt that China will overturn the one-child policy within a generation or two, at most - they aren’t stupid.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
[quote comment="48755"]If you really think George Bush is stupid, and Americans (not all of us) are pricks, ………..
then you probably don’t realize that Russia is well and truly cooked. France too…. and Spain.
Check out the birth rates………..and the Life Expectancy of Russians. In less than 50 years, Europe will be solidly Islamic. The Big Face-off will be the Hispanics v. the Islamists for the new, bloodier World Cup.
George Bush, stupid, hah.[/quote]
Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day. You sound like you have been molded by the American mass media to hate everything Muslim.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
To correct something above. The United States currently has 9,962 warheads at all levels of readiness. A report issued in January of 2001 by the Pentagon put Russia’s strategic arsenal at 5,870.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Thank you Matt, I was just searching for those statistics myself.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Completely off-topic, but Matt, when were you going to tell us they’re auctioning you off as a dinner-date over on eBay? (You’re a ridiculously expensive date, you know, but I’ll excuse that as it’s for a good cause.)
It amuses me no end that the shipping states: “Will arrange for local pickup only (no shipping).” No shipping? That’s outrageous. They should totally pack you up and ship you over to whoever wins.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I was looking for same stats as well.
Just be careful what you say, Ok. There is a great russian saying - “you cannot understand Russia with your mind” - most wars that Russia participated in were won with bad commanders, poor equipment and no food supplies. They were won on the strength of individuals, even when weakened. Most Russian statements right now are not very viable, akin to Egypt saying that they had an air force back during the six day war with Israel. Otherwise how do you think Russia would have the second highest number of billionaires in the World?
Having said that, the birth rate is abysmal and disease is rampant, but what is holding North America together - high immigration rates!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Well Matt it’s been a while since we spoke. I do remember playing Axis and Allies (you did win via Axis once too many). Congrats on your career choices and moving up in volumes through your record sales. Sorry to hear about Kiley - I was shocked when I heard.
On those stats regarding silo’s .. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
That might help shed some light on that is reported.
Stay true my friend and be well.
Bill Poiirier
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
With how the political landscape has been in Russia lately, is it really that bad an idea to roll out a new line of defense against them?
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Secondly, with all the dictators and ruthless leaders that have come and gone in history (Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Hussein, etc etc), how can one in their right mind say that George Bush is one of the worst leaders in history? That is a ludicrous statement at best…..
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
[quote comment="48759"]To correct something above. The United States currently has 9,962 warheads at all levels of readiness. A report issued in January of 2001 by the Pentagon put Russia’s strategic arsenal at 5,870.[/quote]
Assuming we’re talking about the same report (by Anthony Cordesman), the 5,870 number is only the number of currently operational warheads. By that same token, you would have to remove over half the US warheads from your figure to be talking about the same subset of weapons, which would still put Russia ahead. If we’re talking about the entire stockpile including inactive reserves, that same report states that “In December 2000, the stockpile was estimated to be well under 25,000 warheads” - up to 2.5 times the current total US stockpile.
Over 5,000 warheads in the US arsenal aren’t in play - they’re identified as “awaiting disarmament” or inactive reserve, though I doubt they’ll literally be disarmed soon. Of course, it can certainly be construed as a nebulous way of making the number of operational warheads appear smaller so it can look like they’re abiding by current agreements, but according to a friend who used to be an E-8 with the 91st Space Wing in Minot, ND, “Both operationally and practically, they don’t exist.” They certainly couldn’t be made operational without even those at the lowest pay grade knowing about it, couldn’t be made operational (fitted to delivery vehicle, etc.) in a reasonable amount of time, and are wholly superfluous in any kind of war in which they’d be used.
Not that I’m trying to take a relativist “they have more nukes, so they’re the assholes and we’re just trying to keep up” position, but it’s kind of funny to see people think that since, in a sense, the cold war “ended”, that the tension has lessened to a considerable degree or that Russia has, in any way, reformed. Russia is just as antagonistic as the United States, Putin is, in most ways, as bad as Bush, and he still has as big a hand in the running of the country as he ever did. All of this seems to be ignored, though.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
[quote comment="48760"]Thank you Matt, I was just searching for those statistics myself.[/quote]
Then you might want to look at the statistics themselves.
This is most likely the report that Matt was talking about, as it was compiled for the DoD. It puts operational Russian nukes at 5,870.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif00.pdf
This is a more recent report that puts them at 5,682:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/Russia.pdf
The Arms Control Association puts total Russian nukes at about 19,000:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/factfilejune02.asp
The NRDC, in 2002, put the total “stockpile” at just over 10,000 and the total warheads at almost 20,000:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/dafig10.asp
A rough overview of US stockpiles, focusing on operational (the same level that most previous figures were related as):
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
The report I talked about by Anthony Cordesman used the 2001 DoD report for information, so is redundant - but it’s called “Strategic Threats and National Missile Defenses: Defending the U.S. Homeland”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“Stormydog - do you still think he can write? Or, once he’s out he can collect all those phonetically spelled words and come out with a book for “How to succeed during 2 terms in the office for dummies”
@ Vika – of COURSE he can write…remember, he was tpartaking in an advanced literature class for 5 year-olds the moment 9/11 broke…
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Sorry, I did the quote wrong there. maybe I need to go bak too skool…
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Since a post of citations I submitted right after my last post is either stuck in the moderation queue because of links or was dropped from it entirely, I’ll simply give the titles of reports and the numbers they provide:
“Proliferation: Threat and Response” (DoD report Matt referred to)
-5,870 operational nuclear weapons
-”Significantly less than 25,000″ nuclear warheads in stockpile as of January, 2001
“Russian Nuclear Forces, 2006″
-5,682 operational nuclear weapons as of January, 2006
“Arms Control Association - June 2006″
- US stockpile of up to 11,000 nuclear weapons/warheads, with up to 8,000 operational
- Russian stockpile of up to 19,500 nuclear weapons, with up to 8,500 operational
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
“Having said that, the birth rate is abysmal and disease is rampant, but what is holding North America together - high immigration rates!”
Yep……Russians are dropping like flies. Life expectancy was about 54 for men. All the smart Rooskies moved to Brighton Beach and started their own Mafia.
The high immigration rates are needed for the US to get them “on the Books” so they can pay Social Security to get the baby boomers through retirement age.
Europe will very different in the not so distant future. The Union, and the Euro will drop like a sack of bad hammers when the Europeans realize they have traded their freedom for some sense of security. Spain has already thrown in the towel. France is already having problems with it’s “youth”.
“Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day. You sound like you have been molded by the American mass media to hate everything Muslim.”
Giant, I have said nothing remotely anti-Muslim while stating my opinions. There is more than one way to “Conquer” an opponent. Read the stats on Muslim immigration rates, birth rates, etc.
And come on, my post wasn’t the dumbest thing you’ve heard today, is it?
April 4th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Any day where someone on here declares that what I said is the stupidest thing they’ve heard is the ultimate personal victory in my eyes.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:11 am
“Any day where someone on here declares that what I said is the stupidest thing they’ve heard is the ultimate personal victory in my eyes.”
Well sure, but I was trying to be polite!
April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Bah. Politeness is for the weak, or, alternately, the sarcastic and spiteful.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Guilty……….
April 4th, 2008 at 12:40 am
As an aside, I should say that I don’t think it will necessarily be as little as 50 years before the ethnic landscape is completely changed in Europe, though it certainly won’t be long before most of Western Europe has a much more prominent Middle Eastern tint to it. It’s been noticeable in England for the last twenty years - my old university history teacher had some great stories from that era - and France has obviously been emblematic of this sort of population shift for a while as well.
Of course, even with countries like France which have comparatively low birth rates, a good percentage of those births are to immigrant parents, so its more apparent than it would even seem at first glance.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:02 am
[quote comment="48772"]
Giant, I have said nothing remotely anti-Muslim while stating my opinions. There is more than one way to “Conquer” an opponent. Read the stats on Muslim immigration rates, birth rates, etc.
[/quote]
Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that you view immigration as “conquering,” and believe that as a result Europe is “cooked,” and that the “big face off” will be between the Islamics and Hispanics seems blatantly racist to me.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:29 am
@Robert R: When you scratch the surface, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are essentially the same religion. What exactly do you think would change if Europe became more Muslim?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I’m intrigued about the above comment as well, as up until the very early 17th century Islam had a large following native population of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) until the Spanish Inquisition drove them (and the Jews) out.
Beware the fluffy pillows!!
April 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Croatia already has a contingent in Afghanistan. They have had one there since 2003.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I suppose we could get into the argument of outdated delivery systems, sub based weapons that are no longer actively on subs, and so forth. But here’s the rub. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the state of the Soviet arsenal became a concern given the chaos prevalent in its satellite states. An initiative to account for weapons and nuclear materials was undertaken to ensure that nothing slipped between the cracks, which was not the case with conventional weapons in locations such as the Ukraine. The reality is that, to this day, the IAEA has never had access to US facilities, and has no realistic reference with regards to what the United States has or does not have. The only figures provided have been by the US themselves.
After the Cold War ended, numerous Soviet officials claimed that, during it, Russian nuclear ambitions were nowhere near as significant as the West perceived them to be. One reality that is overlooked is Soviet intelligence initiatives that worked to promote a false sense of Soviet nuclear capabilities. This was one way in which the Soviets counter-balanced their inability to spend as much as the US was able to on defense. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, the United States had a clear tactical nuclear advantage of roughly three to one, which is, according to the likes of Robert McNamara, a conservative estimate. Throughout the Cold War, the United States possessed a nuclear advantage over the Soviets, which was clearly reflected in US defense spending during those years.
With the exception of Soviet nuclear sub technology (there is no arguing that the Soviets ultimately placed most of their eggs in that basket, the Typhoon program speaks to that, as it produced the world’s foremost Boomers, a fact conceded by the US military), the US had a significant advantage in state of the art delivery systems. After the Soviet block fell, the state of the Soviet arsenal was found to be replete with outdated weapon systems that were, by no means, the equal of US systems – be they intercontinental, land based missiles (as well as medium range missiles), or bomber based.
All of that said, context is required when examining this subject with regards to green-light nuclear readiness verses mothballed weapons, not to mention the state of those conciliatory programs that exist to deliver nuclear payloads. In that arena, the United States has a clear advantage with regards to their ability to, within a frighteningly short time frame, employ nuclear force backed by state of the art delivery capabilities. To this day, The Football remains within feet of the President except in those instances when he is publicly speaking, on television, in meetings, or sleeping. In those instances, it remains with close proximity. The Football, which is carried at all times by a US Military Officer with Yankee White clearance, contains the President’s SATCOM package, Gold Codes, and the Decision Book. The SOIP’s targeting options, to this day, are broken into four categories – Russian Nuclear Forces, Conventional Military Forces, Foreign Political and Military Leadership and Command Structures, and Economic and Industrial Targets.
Political Comparisons
Nowhere in this entry did I state that Russian leadership is replete with noble intentions. I will be the first to admit that Russia is, at best, a faux democracy. That shouldn’t detract from the reality that the US is a plutocracy, but I would never dream of defending the current Russian political landscape beyond stating that Russians must ultimately be responsible for their own political destiny and that foreign influencing will only hinder that progress.
But that does not, by any means, detract from the reality that to place a Ballistic Missile Defense Shield in their backyard is like baiting a Pitbull in a cage with a raw steak. There are bound to be ramifications, and to sit back and say that the Russians are reacting in a manner that the US wouldn’t were this an instance of the Russians spearheading a similar program in the Western Hemisphere is geopolitically uneducated. There is no arguing that Russia possesses significant influence in the region and that they are bent on retaining it. That is to be expected given the fact that, not twenty years ago, they were akin to a global imperial power that controlled most of Eastern Europe.
That said, how did discussion of this entry turn to comparing George Bush to Stalin? Who, in their right mind, believes that I would be so dim as to even dare compare the two? I have, in the past, stated that George Bush is easily one of the worst Presidents in US history, and that his administration ushered in a foreign policy doctrine that is unbelievably dangerous, but never have I compared him to the likes of Stalin, and those that would try to bend discussions to such moronic levels are not adding any intelligent commentary to the actual subject at hand – simply playing childish games because they have nothing realistic to contribute regarding the subject itself.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
[quote comment="48784"]Croatia already has a contingent in Afghanistan. They have had one there since 2003.[/quote]
As a part of EAPC, yes. But not in a combat capacity. As a NATO member, the point was, will they be asked to serve in that capacity. I edited that line though, so it makes a little more sense. Good point though.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Flies and sacks of bad hammers - excellent way to discuss politics. And the US is gonna drop as…
Arecibo, I wouldn’t trust any of the reports (official or unofficial) that account for any countries military capability. Especially since they come up with different numbers and we cen pick and choose which report/agency to follow.
Giant, common Immigration is conquering - they’ll mess with your mind man! They will multiply and take over your territory! Don’t trust any immigrant - they all come with a secret agenda. And, they will refuse to wear hats over turbans!
Robert, for your info, not all Rosskie moved to New York, but many are in Brooklin. Brighton Beech is for Russian and Ukranian Jews. Also, most Russian who managed to immigrate to states are actually of Jewish origin - Canada is much more accepting to people of no means.
I want to say more, but time to stop…
April 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
[quote comment="48785"]I suppose we could get into the argument of outdated delivery systems,…
.[/quote]
Thank You Matt, I wanted to write about this yesterday, but I suppose debaters here will follow your lead better then mine. I remember pictures and reports, after the “Bloc” fell of piles of warheads that turned out to be just empty shells… And then of course, soviets were always notorious for corruption/stealing - if there is any bolt/knob/screw that you can take home as a gift (or to sell), it will be done!
April 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“@Robert R: When you scratch the surface, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are essentially the same religion. What exactly do you think would change if Europe became more Muslim?”
It depends if the governing bodies are secular in nature or religious. If religion is injected into everyday life, chaos might ensue. Economic stagnation? Who knows. I’m saying it will happen; not that I think it will be a good thing or bad. I leave that to history.
If you look into the future a wee bit, you’ll notice there is no United States. You’ll see the North American Union. (Which is already here.) Thanks for the cheap, unskilled labor Mexico! Thanks for the oil Canada! But mostly thank you for the delicious water!
Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.
[quote comment="48781"][quote comment="48772"]
Giant, I have said nothing remotely anti-Muslim while stating my opinions. There is more than one way to “Conquer” an opponent. Read the stats on Muslim immigration rates, birth rates, etc.
[/quote]
Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that you view immigration as “conquering,” and believe that as a result Europe is “cooked,” and that the “big face off” will be between the Islamics and Hispanics seems blatantly racist to me.[/quote]
It’s just you. I am not a blatant racist. I am an observer.
‘Robert, for your info, not all Rosskie moved to New York, but many are in Brooklin. Brighton Beech is for Russian and Ukranian Jews. Also, most Russian who managed to immigrate to states are actually of Jewish origin - Canada is much more accepting to people of no means.’
I realize not all Russians moved to Brighton Beach. That was an attempt at humor. Do you see any similarities between German jews leaving Germany and Russian jews leaving Russia? Ahead of the curve perhaps. The ability to see, “The Shit Come Down”?
Let me get this straight: The Jews who came to America are rich; the Jews who come to Canada are poor? Where did the atheist commie Russians go? Or did they stay and form Vodka Troikas?
April 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
[quote comment="48802"]Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.[/quote]
How exactly does an anti-missile system protect against an Iraqi widow with an explosive vest? Or a Taliban IED? Or a Hizbullah mortar? On 9/11, the US had a multi-billion-dollar missile defense system, and it sure didn’t do them any good.
Unlike the US or Europe, Russia has an *actual* armed Muslim insurrection in Chechnya/Ossetia, yet they have shown no indication of building a missile defense. Maybe that should tell you something…
April 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
[quote comment="48787"]Arecibo, I wouldn’t trust any of the reports (official or unofficial) that account for any countries military capability. Especially since they come up with different numbers and we cen pick and choose which report/agency to follow.[/quote]
I put all current information I read through the lens of the experiences of immediate family members who have, at the bare minimum, worked at Air Command Headquarters before and after the creation of AIRCOM (from their old digs, through the early nineties), which, for the most part, was the closest thing we had to a foreign intelligence service - raw information from the United States and Britain was sent there when received. By the late 1970s, this included, at the very least, same-day satellite images from the United States of Soviet missile tests, suspected research and production facilities, etc. A friend had, up until a couple of years ago, served in the 91st Space Wing. Immediate family of close friends have overseen projects related to national defense based on the known capabilities of other countries through NRC-IAR. Since I doubt they would like me to identify them, I don’t, nor do I use it as justification for my views. I’m not, however, someone who regurgitates reports without understanding how they interpret information, truths that are usually left on the cutting room floor, etc.
My overall point was that both organizations - NATO, and Russia with their tenuous grasp on satellite states formerly part of the USSR - are playing the same game. Minimizing the capabilities of other countries in comparison to NATO, and the United States in particular, is missing the point. I practically agree with everything Matt said in the first half of his last post - Russia has, on ever level, been more interested in managing image first and playing catch-up with actual capabilities later (even among conventional weapons, anyone who has been able to look at the parameters Vympel has used to define weapons specifications compared to contemporaries like Raytheon provides a good indicator of force inflation that scales throughout the entire Russian weapons industry). I always love a good historically-based technical discussion too, but that’s somewhat irrelevant in the context of what’s being spoken about here. Regardless of how outdated weapons delivery systems are, as long as they can go up in the air, they can and will. Accuracy, reliability, range, and other factors will suffer, but in the end, it’s the immediate willingness and raw capability to use a wholly indiscriminate and unnecessary amount of force that’s being argued here, and on that, NATO doesn’t have a monopoly.
I should also add that re: Matt’s Political Comparisons section, the statements I’ve often said in my posts weren’t implying that you’re marginalizing Russia’s capabilities or intentions; they’ve been general statements at the type of people who have sprung up in this comment section who take information from your original article and place it in a vacuum - pretend that it’s the only truth in the situation, and then hen-peck information about similar problems in other parts of the world, as though the fact that other countries having morally questionable weaponry and participating in the exact same kind of black market arms trade that most industrial countries do takes away from the NATO argument, which it doesn’t. It cheapens the conversation and the original message, but it wasn’t directed at you. Simply the hyperbole and unrealistic arguments that tend to follow what you say.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
[quote comment="48815"][quote comment="48802"]Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.[/quote]
How exactly does an anti-missile system protect against an Iraqi widow with an explosive vest? Or a Taliban IED? Or a Hizbullah mortar? On 9/11, the US had a multi-billion-dollar missile defense system, and it sure didn’t do them any good.
Unlike the US or Europe, Russia has an *actual* armed Muslim insurrection in Chechnya/Ossetia, yet they have shown no indication of building a missile defense. Maybe that should tell you something…[/quote]
I’m not sure to what degree of tongue-in-cheek was being talked about in the original quote, but most likely, the “Islamic Terrorists” being talked about are sovereign states that are seen as “terrorist supporters”, not irregular forces that don’t have the capability to create or acquire the materials needed to launch the types of weapons these interceptors are meant to intercept.
The missile defense systems being fielded are to intercept ballistic missiles before re-entry. To me, it’s been pretty obvious that it’s been positioned as self-created “proof” of the threat of Middle-Eastern states, a foot in the door to use the countries in which they’re being deployed as forward bases, and most importantly, a way of redistributing the balance of nuclear power independent of how many weapons the United States itself has (so they can abide by whatever treaties they want). It’s obvious that Russia is aware that the last point is the most key, else they wouldn’t be puffing out their chests by reminding the United States about their fielding of MIRV-equipped Topol-Ms (The RS-24) that can (supposedly) avoid interceptors. Any talk of a missile shield being used to protect against terrorist weapons is just rhetoric.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Well, yeah. And while we are on the subject: exactly What Missile Shield are we talking about? I don’t think there is one up, is there? Pointing at anyone? I was just saying, that by the time any such Shield is up, Russia will be down. Now, why George is engaging in such rhetoric, I dunno….but ain’t that dumb ole Bastard meeting with Putin soon……..?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
”and they have whupped everyone else’s ass”??
…not in the last 60 years really
April 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
[quote comment="48905"]Well, yeah. And while we are on the subject: exactly What Missile Shield are we talking about? I don’t think there is one up, is there? Pointing at anyone? [/quote]
The United States has never had a national missile defense system operational, nor has anything operational yet materialized out of the European initiative. The best the United States has managed are point and theater defense systems, which aren’t necessarily designed against the same scope or type of threat. After reading plenty of articles and interviews with developers of the Sentinel/Safeguard program, through the SDI and into the current NMD system (mainly in the context of 99.9% software reliability), it’s apparent that the only time at which there will truly a proper ballistic missile defense system in place is once it’s tested to its full potential, which can only be done in an endgame scenario anyway.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
To Robert R: if you are just an observer, learn to write in an impartial way. What you say above in a multitude of the comments comes across as at the very least negligent and somewhat racist - too much Stoli? Or were you trying to be funny? Most of it is not really racist but just insulting.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
sorry, last sentence should be “most of it is not really racist though…just insulting”
April 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Well vika, I was certainly not trying to be insulting, so I apologize to you.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Right you are, Matt.
What puzzles me is what use a missile defence system is when Russia has (at least) 5000 operational nukes anyway. What sort of system could possibly take these down (in the great off-chance Russia would actually want to use them) with any significant degree of accuracy?
It’s a pointless slap in the face that isn’t going to help Europe or the US against either Islam (teh terrorists) or Russia at all. Worse, the Russian reaction will probably do more harm than good. If not now, then in the years ahead (Russia will supply something like 70% of Europe’s oil).