Medvedev's speech on US ABM shield

[Emtos]

Originally Posted by Ricthofen

It's a fact that any nation is susceptible to imperialism and landgrabbing. The US is not different or unique from any other nation. Give them an ability to withstand nuclear weapons but still be able to use their own and they'll turn into a global empire fairly quickly. Take away their nukes or take away their defenses and there's no problem.

This is exactly why NK and Iran want to have nukes.

[Silent Hunter]

The United States is never going to be able to develop a 100% effective ABM system and the casualties from one nuclear strike are simply too high.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

The United States is never going to be able to develop a 100% effective ABM system and the casualties from one nuclear strike are simply too high.

You don't always need to go to a full-scale war to bully someone into submission, or even start any military action at all. The simple demonstration of one's invulnerability is enough to achieve political goals. Of course, if Russia is threatened with annihilation directly, it will resort to all kinds of measures, but there is simply no need for the US to act like this. Instead they would compromise Russian interests and decrease Russian influence in the world and directly at its borders by chipping off bit after bit.

Nobody would approve of a radical action against the US if it demanded from Russia, under the implied threat of the "big stick", to break its relations with the former Soviet republics in Central Asia to clear the space for American oil companies, for example. Then it might demand from Russia to give independence to Chechnya, etc. Such demands have already been voiced in the States on different levels before, and there is not the slightest doubt the US would start speaking the language of ultimatums (like it does to Iran, for example) if it was certain of its overwhelming superiority. Now that we have a dangerous anti-Russian nutter about to move into the White House, we have to deal with this issue urgently and investigate all possible asymmetrical responses.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

The United States is never going to be able to develop a 100% effective ABM system and the casualties from one nuclear strike are simply too high.

Then Russia should abandon the plans they have to launch nuclear weapons at the US. They cannot eliminate a counterstrike nor destroy the ability of the US to survive. The nuclear attack will anger Americans enough to do so to Russia in response though.

IOW that as been the real reason that US strategic defense bothers Russia, even with the offer to share tecnology with the Russians.

[Gixxer86g]

Originally Posted by ShAA

If the US had no means to ATTACK anybody and had a DEFENSIVE shield, nobody would have a problem. However, as the US is very actively medding in pretty much everyone's affairs worldwide, this invulnerabilty will only secure complete and unchallenged hegemony for America. What it wants is to be like a small boy spitting at people from a highrise building, enjoying his invulnerability.

The straight answer is: when the US bullies us for any reason now, it always stops short of going "way too much" as we've got nukes which can wipe it off the Earth. If it becomes invulnerable to our nukes while possessing their own and maintaining its huge force projection capability, it means that at all negotiations it will be able to exert infinitely greater pressure which Russia will have nothing to counter with.

Basically, now Russia and the US speak from the positions of relative parity.

When the US gets this shield, it will speak to us from the position of unchallenged strength.

That's pure paranoia. First of all, this system isn't designed to stop the numbers that Russia is capable of throwing at us. But again, what are you afraid of? Why would we bully you? What are you planning on doing?

And again......... just build your own system. That's a much better idea than the pre-emptive strike I saw talked about in the news. That kind of talk could lead to a pre-emptive strike against Russia's pre emptive strike. And unlike you guys, we actually have the capability and experience.........

[Gixxer86g]

Originally Posted by Ricthofen

It's a fact that any nation is susceptible to imperialism and landgrabbing. The US is not different or unique from any other nation. Give them an ability to withstand nuclear weapons but still be able to use their own and they'll turn into a global empire fairly quickly. Take away their nukes or take away their defenses and there's no problem.

Ricky, are you serious? Our economy is shot and getting worse. Who the hell are we going to colonize?

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Gixxer86g

That's pure paranoia.

Of course. The Americans can never be "bad guys". That's what your comic books have always told you - how can they be wrong?

First of all, this system isn't designed to stop the numbers that Russia is capable of throwing at us.

I see that you haven't bothered to read the article.

But again, what are you afraid of? Why would we bully you? What are you planning on doing?

The US made aggressive statements on the war in Chechnya, and recently high-ranking US leaders made outrageous statements on Russia's affair with Georgia. The US (as well as China) is actively trying to push Russia out of Central Asia to take control of its oil and gas deposits. The US already feels it has the "divine" right to order other nations what to do and how to live, and this meddling in Russia's backyard will take the shape of direct and unabashed bullying if the US felt its invulnerability.

And again......... just build your own system. That's a much better idea than the pre-emptive strike I saw talked about in the news. That kind of talk could lead to a pre-emptive strike against Russia's pre emptive strike. And unlike you guys, we actually have the capability and experience.........

Russia has neither money nor resources to build such system. You know it very well, and this suggestion is nothing but a rhetorical device. Therefore, Russia will be forced to resort to asymmetrical moves aimed at making the life of US difficult.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Of course. The Americans can never be "bad guys". That's what your comic books have always told you - how can they be wrong?

"The difference between the Soviets(Russians) and Westerners is that the Westerners believe their own propaganda"

Can´t remember who said it

[Gixxer86g]

I feel sorry for you guys, drinkin' the Putin Kool-Aid..........

[Ricthofen]

Originally Posted by Erkki

"The difference between the Soviets(Russians) and Westerners is that the Westerners believe their own propaganda"

Can´t remember who said it

Great quote.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Russia has neither money nor resources to build such system.

Then what on earth is A-135?

[Emtos]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

Then what on earth is A-135?

From wiki :

It is a successor to the previous A-35, and compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty from which the US unilaterally withdrew in 2002.

[GCoyote]

"The broader reason for the long-term U.S. missile defense program is Washington’s desire to make the United States completely secure against all missile attacks. That aspiration for complete invulnerability is at the core of Washington’s strategy for national security."

That's a conclusion/assumption on the part of the author.

The missile defense program is 90% domestic politics and 10% geopolitical prudence.

The high tech defense industry is largely concentrated on the coasts. These areas typically have heavy representation in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party makes most of it's political gains by focusing on social issues and suffers frequent attacks from conservatives as being weak in defense and foreign affairs.

Conservatives OTOH are very disturbed by rogue nations such as Iran and the DPRK and view missile defense as a critical 21st Century element of US security. As American conservatives remain largely distrustful of Russia (ghosts of the USSR), Russian complaints only serve to make these systems more attractive.

Missile defense programs represent a convergence of local issues (jobs & donations) for the Democrats and national defense (votes & donations) for the Republicans. A combination like that has made the program essentially un-killable going all the way back to the Reagan years.

Now basic game theory is enough to demonstrate that between major powers there is no 'winning' solution to nuclear ICBM warfare. Even a small failure rate for a defensive system quickly scales up to unacceptable losses. Between very unequal opponents however, the result changes.

Nations like Iran and North Korea can realistically threaten their neighbors with barrages of medium range missiles because of the small size of the populations, the short ranges, and the concentration of political and or economic power in small groups or areas. Against the US, their prospects are less clear. Given our enemies' limited economic resources it is entirely feasible for the US to field enough interceptors to give a very high level of protection to selected areas. Not a perfect solution but widely seen as better than allowing US policy to be decided by Kim Jong Un or the ayatollah-of-the-week. That's where the 10% for geopolitical prudence comes in.

Russia has few options beyond inserting itself politically between NATO members in order to talk the issue to death. Re-positioning Russian forces to counter US interceptors may seem prudent and probably posses little risk of escalation but it does feed the conservative anti-Russian viewpoint with more political ammunition. On the other hand very few serious policy makers (actually I can't think of anyone) seem to think there is a realistic chance of war with Russia over the next generation or two. There will be noise about Chechnya, Iran, Georgia, etc. but nothing beyond harsh words and aid packages has been exchanged so far and I've seen nothing to indicate that this is about to change.

The US and Russia cannot come to an agreement largely because they see things in such dramatically different terms. For the time being, this remains (fortunately) a war of words.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by ShAA

It's all been done to death already, and the article lays it all down clearly enough.

If you guys love so much to drum up your self-gratiating "benign hegemon" theme, you'd be best left talking to yourselves.

Russia has repeatedly been invited to participate in missile defense technology and deployment. I would have thought that were they purely defensive minded they would have jumped at the chance.

Since the subject of hegemony has come up, ShAA, I cannot help but notice that Romania, Hungary and Poland aret he kinds of countries that create Russian ire when the subject comes up unlike Canada or the UK haveing missile defenses.