# Russia warns U.S. over Czech missile defence base



## Mike Baker (20 Jan 2007)

> Russia warns U.S. over Czech missile defence base
> Updated Sat. Jan. 20 2007 6:50 PM ET
> 
> Associated Press
> ...


Interesting article.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070120/missile_defence_070120/20070120?hub=World


----------



## FredDaHead (20 Jan 2007)

It seems like the US don't understand that even in this post-Cold War era, screwing with Russia's sphere of influence is not a good idea. Between encroaching into Eastern Europe, trying to get former Soviet republics into NATO, and everything else they're doing in the region, they're starting to push Russia. Now, President Putin is a smart man, and he know not to react too harshly. However, push him too much, and he'll make you regret it.

Just look at the energy situation in central Europe. Russia is shutting off it's supply to certain countries to make them bend. While it would likely not affect the US directly, if it's allies in Europe start telling them to back off, and stop cooperating fully, it would cause some problems for US foreign policy.


----------



## JesseWZ (21 Jan 2007)

I wasn't aware the Russian Federation or whatever they're calling Russia now had the economic power to even mention another arms race. The last one gutted the USSR's economy did it not?


----------



## FredDaHead (21 Jan 2007)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware the Russian Federation or whatever they're calling Russia now had the economic power to even mention another arms race. The last one gutted the USSR's economy did it not?



Different economic system.

Also, with energy prices going up and Russia being a massive exporter of various energy products, they could probably bankroll an arms race. Besides, who says the US has the economic power to sustain one?


----------



## JesseWZ (21 Jan 2007)

Good point.


----------



## JackD (21 Jan 2007)

I live in Poland, kow-towing to the Russian Bear's growls is not what the majority of people here like to hear. telling Putin and company to f-off is what we in Central Europe like to hear. After-all Central Europe has had to endure the Bear's embrace longer than most. Now the German's, they are the one's who are uneasy... Build the base!


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Jan 2007)

Well it seems that Poland has yet to say anything regarding U.S. missles within their country



> WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland said on Sunday it was still in talks with the United States about the possibility of allowing it to base an anti-missile system on its soil, and had no comment on a report a final deal had been agreed upon.
> 
> Washington is investing $10 billion a year in developing the system, which would use rockets to shoot down hostile missiles.
> 
> ...


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070121/world/international_poland_usa_missiles_dc


----------



## JackD (22 Jan 2007)

Yes, the wonderful Polish government is renowned for its ability to make in-decisions. Better though for us who live here, for them not to make decisions - rather than make decisions... I believe however, that the same could be said for most governments.The hold-up I am sure is in negotiating how much each member of the sejm will make on the deal.  I hope this site is built - as building the site means improving the road network to the site - Polish roads being renowned for their in-built speed retarding devices (read "Kettle" holes).


----------



## Bigmac (15 Feb 2007)

> Top Russian general says Moscow may unilaterally leave arms reduction treaty
> 
> MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian general says Moscow may unilaterally opt out of a Soviet-era arms reduction treaty with the United States.
> 
> ...



     It definitely looks like we are heading into another Cold War, only this time there will be a lot more players involved.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Feb 2007)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> It definitely looks like we are heading into another Cold War, only this time there will be a lot more players involved.


Oh joy, I was here right after it went in the toilet, now I will have to go though one?


----------



## JackD (15 Feb 2007)

Cold War? Not really, there are too many trade connections now - The  Russian organizations that count also have too much to lose - I mean the Russian mafia (a war would surely decrease their annual profits from money laundering, racketeering, prostitution, and smuggling). Has Eastern expansion benefitted NATO? Aren't Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian troops involved on NATO operations. Isn't it every country's right to choose what organizations to belong to? Stuff the Bear. Anyway - if they invade and drive towards Germany they'd have to go either by railroad or road. The railroads are electrical - just cut off the juice - (they are also of a different gauge as well); if they do so by road, they have to cross Poland, and they wouldn't get 10 km before their vehicles fall to pieces due to encounters with the numerous potholes...


----------



## midget-boyd91 (15 Feb 2007)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> Oh joy, I was here right after it went in the toilet, now I will have to go though one?



 I think it would be more likely for Putin to be replaced by an ultranationalist in Moscow who would want the ways of the old Soviet back. Resulting in many more "small" conflicts like the one in Chechnya and more attacks inside and just outside of Russia. (Attacks meaning bombings, and sieges like the school hostage taking)


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2007)

I think the Russians have a good case for rearming, *but* not to counter American/Western/NATO 'threats.'  Russia is in steadily growing danger of losing even more of its former empire.  The _"Stans"_ have already slipped away from Russia and are firmly in  China's _orbit_.  Ditto Mongolia.  Russian influence with North Korea is, essentially, gone.  Russia's former friends in India are now *our* friends and the Afro-Asian block looks, now, towards Beijing, not Moscow.

The 'prize' is the resource treasure-house of Eastern Siberia.  For our Chinese friends:

•	Everything East of the Yenesey* River is Asian;

•	Russia is not an Asian country; and

•	The East is (still) Red.

---------

* Or Yenisey or Yenisei or, or, or ...


----------



## Baloo (15 Feb 2007)

I believe that the Russian Federation is definitely overplaying their hand in this regard. Not only do they not have the economic capacity to significantly 'challenge' the United States or NATO in terms of military might, but their former sphere within the Eastern bloc and Asian nations has dropped away sharply. Now, I would not even contemplate T-series main battle tanks crossing into central Germany, but that their medium-range missiles to respond with this deployment to Poland or Czech Republic is overreacting and straining relations where perhaps they should be looking more towards their eastern borders, as Edward has already pointed out. Their star is fading fast, if not already out of sight, and they are trying to make their regional power status more significant. Rearm to counter the Chinese perhaps, but not the Americans. That should be the farthest policy from their aims, with Chechnya and possible economic, diplomatic and border conflicts with China brewing.


----------



## JackD (15 Feb 2007)

In that case surely Russia should spend their oil/mineral wealth on building and maintaining decent roads? There is the odd website around that shows pictures of a few of these  'roads' - ah yes, found it - this site: http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2006/11/most-dangerous-roads-in-world.html . Not to denigrate a nation, but being married to a beautiful Polish lady, and living in Poland for the last  ten years, I'd say the Slavic nations cannot organize a .... you can add your choice of simile here.... as for their construction abilities.... I stripped the wallpaper from my apartment's walls and discovered in many places there was no wall behind the wallpaper... each wall is at a different angle and don't ever get me started on the electrical installation... and roads, well, Poland is a staunch Catholic nation - and it shows - even the bloody roads  are holey - and the futher east you go, the worse it gets...


----------



## Bigmac (16 Feb 2007)

> *US defense chief sees problems in Russian withdrawal from INF*16.02.2007, 06.30
> 
> *WASHINGTON, February 16 (Itar-Tass) * -- US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said a possible Russian withdrawal from the Soviet-American 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty would pose problems for the United States and Europe.
> 
> ...


http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=11257558&PageNum=0

     Perhaps the Russians are beginning to feel more insecure now that the bear has been reduced to a cub since the fall of the USSR!


----------



## time expired (16 Feb 2007)

Get over it guys, we are not heading for a new Cold War,Putin is on his way to the Middle East
and an anti American rant will score him a few points for his trip.
                                     Regards
PS If I am wrong about this send me an E-mail as I an sure I can find you a nice apartment in Lahr
after they intern all the Russians here.


----------



## Mike Baker (16 Feb 2007)

(tinfoil/hat/on)This may not be about Russia, but I never wanted to start a new topic for this(make it one if needed). http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/02/17/wld02.asp Some how, these violent conflicts may involve Russia in some way(AK-47 in mentioned). (Tinfoil/hat/off)


----------



## Bigmac (20 Feb 2007)

> *Czech leader favours U.S. missile defence system; Russia responds with threat *
> 
> VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
> 
> ...


http://www.recorder.ca/cp/World/070219/w021981A.html

         Here we go again!


----------



## Bigmac (26 Feb 2007)

More from the Russian side of the story. Russia now wants a meeting with NATO over the missile defense plan. The Russians are going to stall this as long as possible.



> Russian Threat Convinces Poland and the Czech Republic
> // Eastern Europe Opens Its Doors to US Missile Defense System
> Washington has again confirmed its desire to establish bases in Eastern Europe as part of its missile defense system. In response, the Russian military has threatened to aim rockets at US facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. American officials insist that the missile defense system is necessary for defense against Iran and North Korea, but Washington's plans are attracting criticism not only from Moscow but from Berlin and London as well. In Poland and the Czech Republic, however, threatening rumblings from Moscow have only increased support for the expansion of the system.
> The USA is Coming


http://www.kommersant.com/p745368/Doors_US_Missile/


----------



## sober_ruski (26 Feb 2007)

> Cold War? Not really, there are too many trade connections now - The  Russian organizations that count also have too much to lose - I mean the Russian mafia (a war would surely decrease their annual profits from money laundering, racketeering, prostitution, and smuggling). Has Eastern expansion benefitted NATO? Aren't Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian troops involved on NATO operations. Isn't it every country's right to choose what organizations to belong to? Stuff the Bear. Anyway - if they invade and drive towards Germany they'd have to go either by railroad or road. The railroads are electrical - just cut off the juice - (they are also of a different gauge as well); if they do so by road, they have to cross Poland, and they wouldn't get 10 km before their vehicles fall to pieces due to encounters with the numerous potholes...



I can feel the dislike from here... 
Where are your thanks to British for giving Poland to Germans, Peace in our time and all that junk, and then US and Brits to giving it to USSR after WW2? I am to assume you would have preferred NAZI rule in Poland instead? I know you would most likely want neither, but choosing between 2 evils...

Also, cutting juice might not be a good idea... i heard winters there are pretty cold... and homes use natural gas for heat and cooking 

Dont forget little tidbit where Russians living their entire lives in countries like... Lithuania and Latvia were denied medical care, were kicked out of their houses, war memorials desecrated, etc etc etc. Should i also mention who held a parade to "honour" SS? As for those Baltic countries not being treated well? Shouldn't have collaborated with the wrong side during the war, eh?

Your mafia comment, I wont even bother replying to that, just shows how much you know and how biased you really are.
I am actually surprised you did not put "vodka in the baby bottles", bears walking on  the streets, and balalaikas everywhere in your post.


PS
Slavic people can organize things, but only after getting huge kick in the nuts


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (26 Feb 2007)

Who signed a deal with the Germans to divide Poland?
Who occupied the Baltic Republics in 1940?
Who invaded Finland?

Two sides to a coin.


----------



## sober_ruski (26 Feb 2007)

Yep, and i was showing the other side


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Feb 2007)

The US is looking to base the new mobile THAAD system in Poland/Czech republic.


----------



## Bigmac (5 Mar 2007)

> March 5, 2007
> 
> *German official calls for debate on U.S. anti-missile program*
> 
> ...


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/03/05/pf-3699127.html

       Here is the latest development. Germany now wants talks with the EU, NATO, US and Russia over the missile plan. This issue is going to drag out for a long time.


----------



## JackD (5 Mar 2007)

Sober_ruski buddy, I'm a Cannuck living in Poland, as to the Russian mafia, come here, watch the news..... and did I say anything about Russia? Russia and the Russian mafia are two different organizations aren't they? Cutting juice refers to electicity too... By the way, I have visited and indeed have friends in Russia - whom I supported during the Yeltsin times when their salaries were not paid. People in Poland differentiate between Russia as empire and Russians as individuals, I am quite surprised that you did not know that - what with your knowledge of Poland, and Central European reality. Oh, and regarding some Lithuanians attempting to honour SS - this is rather a sore issue with Poland - in that many of the Nazi concentration camp guards came from Lithuania. Incidentally in some communities in Russia, bears do walk the streets - but then, so do they in Canada - need I mention Churchill.


----------



## eerickso (5 Mar 2007)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> I am to assume you would have preferred NAZI rule in Poland instead?



I am sure lots of polish officers would have preferred NAZI rule. 



			
				sober_ruski said:
			
		

> Should i also mention who held a parade to "honour" SS?



I guess this is a good indication on how great a russian occupation is.


----------



## sober_ruski (5 Mar 2007)

"Yeltsin"

Dont even get me started on that baboon. Makes Liberals look like school children.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2007)

From today's New York Times..... Gazprom, Putin, the Kremlin and the Federal Security Service certainly seem to think that the Cold War is still on.................



> April 22, 2007
> 50% Good News Is the Bad News in Russian Radio
> By ANDREW E. KRAMER
> MOSCOW, April 21 — At their first meeting with journalists since taking over Russia’s largest independent radio news network, the managers had startling news of their own: from now on, they said, at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be “positive.”
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/europe/22russia.html?ei=5065&en=d4929f91a6c5b2aa&ex=1177819200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I trust that we aren't having a failure to communicate here.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

Perhaps the best answer would be to upgrade the Ageis cruisers of the US 6th fleet and start selling that technology to NATO navies as well........


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Perhaps the best answer would be to upgrade the Aegis cruisers of the US 6th fleet and start selling that technology to NATO navies as well........


I thought that the British had an Aegis type ship? I may be wrong, so don't condemn me.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

I believe the Japanese are in the process of getting Ageis type ships, but I have not heard of the RN getting any. The United States offered to lease some to the RN to fill in for the type 42, but this offer was declined 

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/type42.htm


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Apr 2007)

Must have been Japan I was thinking of.


----------



## garb811 (22 Apr 2007)

Perhaps the Kongo class you're thinking of?  If so, the first was launched in '93.


----------



## Flanker (19 May 2007)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Who signed a deal with the Germans to divide Poland?
> Who occupied the Baltic Republics in 1940?
> Who invaded Finland?



My friend, what is your point?
Did you forget that some years before that Italy, Britain and France signed a similar agreement with the Germans in Munich?
And how then Poland, Hungary and Germans divided Czechoslovakia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement


----------



## nihilpavor (20 May 2007)

The Cold War taught us that the MAD doctrine (mutual-assured destruction) worked somehow. By selling anti-missile systems to their allies, the American Government is augmenting the insecurity of every other nations who do not have such system in its arsenal. Insecurity isn't good news in International Relations; reducing it goes a long way toward peaceful relationship between nations. I can understand the Russians to be angry, every step taken in that direction in Europe reduces it's own dissuasive power, while augmenting their fear of being attacked. The Chinese fell the same way with Japan and Australia gearing up to to have such a system in place soon enough.

When there's actions taken that changes abruptly the balance of the world powers, extreme cautions must be taken as instability and insecurity can be our worst ennemies.   :skull:


----------



## JackD (27 May 2007)

By the way, the whole idea that this missile warning site and anti-missile missile set-up impinges on Russia is a bit farcical  as in the Kaliningrad area - bordering Poland, and Lithuania ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalingrad ) is home to their Baltic fleet and associated garrisons and aviation units http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/mf-baltic.htm  and abandoned facilities - with rather complex environmental problems:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3139817.stm  http://www.nato.int/ccms/pilot/subg0/meeting/defense95/d23.html


----------



## DBA (29 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> My friend, what is your point?
> Did you forget that some years before that Italy, Britain and France signed a similar agreement with the Germans in Munich?
> And how then Poland, Hungary and Germans divided Czechoslovakia?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement



There is a difference between appeasing aggressors by not helping allies and actively conquering territory. One is a friend that let you down, the other is the enemy that beat you up. Disappointment and sadness at the failure of a friend to act doesn't come close to the disgust and loathing towards the enemy that ruled cruelly and ineptly for decades.


----------



## Mike Baker (30 May 2007)

More on this here.


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2007)

Its all politics...   :


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2007)

Live by the Cold War, Die by the Cold War
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/06/live_by_the_cold_war_die_by_th.html



> Just because Russia is against something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. And placing missile defenses in Eastern Europe to defend ourselves against Iran, which Russia opposes, is a bad idea -- not because it offends Russia or could start a new arms race, but because it rewards Iran.
> 
> Putting a missile defense in Europe essentially communicates to Tehran that the U.S. expects Iran to be successful in matching America as a conventional military force. It also signals that U.S. leaders are powerless to do anything but wait for that fateful day to arrive.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Jun 2007)

> Putting a missile defense in Europe essentially communicates to Tehran that the U.S. expects Iran to be successful in matching America as a conventional military force. It also signals that U.S. leaders are powerless to do anything but wait for that fateful day to arrive.



That is possibly the stupidest argument I've ever heard....


Matthew.   :


----------



## pbi (6 Jun 2007)

One has to wonder what drove the Russian general to make such a  blunt, crude threat.  Was he speaking on behalf of the Russian Govt, or was he "out of his lane" (perhaps usefully...). What would cause the Russians to suddenly lower the tone of the discussion by falling back into the old stereotype image that everybody in the West  (and in the "Near Abroad") used to have of  Russians as a bunch of crude, brutal bullies who could never quite get it right? Is there really much to be gained by threatening Europe? Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to quietly encourage public opinion in places like the Czech Republic, where the people seem to be at odds with the Govt's pro-base position? Why alienate possible support by making stupid threats that just bring back bad recent memories?

On the other hand, does the US fully understand Russian sensibilities here? Are they forgetting Russian historical paranoia about encirclement and surprise attack? What did the Bush administration think the Russian reaction would be, anyway?

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> On the other hand, does the US fully understand Russian sensibilities here? Are they forgetting Russian historical paranoia about encirclement and surprise attack? What did the Bush administration think the Russian reaction would be, anyway?
> ...



Agreed.

But, I wonder if part of the US aim has not been to _flush out_ the Russians.

Putin never had very sound _democratic_ credentials and what few he had have been tarnished over the past few years.  Perhaps some Americans felt it was time to push them into showing their _true colours_.


----------



## Mike Baker (6 Jun 2007)

Seems that Harper and Putin will meet at the G8.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070606/harper_putin_070606/20070606?hub=TopStories



> The Kremlin has confirmed a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Stephen Harper today as leaders gather for the G8 Summit in Germany.
> 
> There has been no confirmation from the Prime Minister's Office, however.




EDIT: Another good link


----------



## vangemeren (7 Jun 2007)

*Putin offers joint missile shield*

President George W Bush has described as "interesting" a proposal by Russia's president for resolving the row over the planned US missile defence shield.

Vladimir Putin said their two countries could use a radar system in Azerbaijan to develop a shield covering all of Europe, during talks at the G8 summit.

Mr Putin said the base could detect incoming missiles from so-called rogue states aimed at Europe or the US.

Russia has been critical of US plans to extend the shield into central Europe.

Mr Putin has repeatedly scoffed at US claims the defence shield is targeting rogue states, and has said Moscow may in response aim its missiles at Europe.

'Common work'

But after the meeting on the fringes of the summit in Germany, the Russian leader said the threat to re-target Russian missiles could be withdrawn if Washington agreed to use the former Soviet radar base at Gabala in Azerbaijan.

	This will make it possible for us not to change our stance on the targeting of our missiles
Vladimir Putin

"This will make it possible for us not to change our stance on the targeting of our missiles," Mr Putin said. "On the contrary, this will create the necessary grounds for common work."

"This work should be multi-faceted with the engagement of the states concerned in Europe."

Mr Putin added that if Washington and Moscow co-operated transparently on missile defence, "then we will have no problems".

Mr Bush said his Russian counterpart had presented some interesting suggestions and that they would discuss the issue further during two days of talks beginning on 1 July in Kennebunkport, Maine.

"We both agreed to have a strategic dialogue," he said.

"This is a serious issue."

Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the Russian proposal was a "positive development".

He said it showed President Putin acknowledged the potential threat from rogue states and that officials from Russia and the US would sit down in the future to discuss the development of the shield.

"Let's let our experts have a look at it," Mr Hadley told reporters.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

Published: 2007/06/07 16:23:13 GMT

© BBC MMVII
Shared under Fair Dealings


----------



## Mike Baker (7 Jun 2007)

Well, at least the tensions are easing.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jun 2007)

We'll be okay as long as no one proclaims peace in our time. I frankly am not sure what to make of this. My first reaction is that Putin is proposing that the site would defend against missiles from the Persian Gulf, but I would have to check a map. Is he worrying, or pretending to worry, about China? 

My how to shoot down ICBMs or IRBMs theory is not up to speed. But I wonder if he is suggesting setting up a site to get the missile on its ascending trajectory. The advanatges are that the warhead, first and second stage would still be mated and make a larger target, and the missile would be accelerating. If you remember, during the first Gulf War, the Scud warheads were getting through the Patriot belt because the missile guidance system was locking on the largest bit coming down, which usually was the burnt out second stage. (The thing to look for was the 'shooting star' which streaked down and caused a shel burst effect on impact.) While not reported at the time, it was obvious to anyone who knew what to look for. This has been corrected, but the fix has not, as far as I know, been tested under battle conditions.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2007)

The Russians are looking for ways to get cash from the West, as well as getting a peek at how the ABM system works. I suspect that the land based system is interim, if only because fixed bases are vulnerable, expensive and provide limited geographic coverage.

The reality of rogue states selling missile and warhead technology to anyone who ponys up the cash and the number of nations which actually have some sort of missile system [for example Saudi Arabia purchased Chinese "Long March" launchers for reasons never specified] means that mobile ABM systems will be the preffered choice, things like upgraded Ageis class cruisers and Boeing 747's packing laser cannons. They can be moved around to meet evolving threats, and their mobility means the launching nation cannot be certain of the location of the ABM, making deploying countermeasures more difficult.

The logic of needing to respond rapidly to global threats means the generation after that will be based or deployed in space, like systems dating back to BAMBI and G-PALS (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense for a backgrounder)


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2007)

The Gabala site was originally intended to detect incoming missiles from the Indian Ocean. It can track missiles from the southern hemisphere and much of asia. It was one of nine BMD sites. The site is probably an ecological disaster as is the case of many Russian installations. Target capacity was 350 mv. The US would have to demolish the site and install a new X band radar. Rent would have to be paid to the Azerbaijan government of course. Not an ADA expert but I think this proposal is workable.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jun 2007)

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Layton, Dion more worried about "Star Wars" than Putin
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009613.html

And a letter just sent to the _Ottawa Sun_:



> Michael Harris has again let his loathing of Prime Minister Harper and President Bush overrule any concern for reality.  In his column, "PM following wrong leader" (June 8), he maintains there is no essential difference between the missiles the US plans to deploy in Poland and the missiles the US had in Turkey, and the USSR had in Cuba, in the early 1960s.
> http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2007/06/08/4243730.html
> 
> That is not the case.  The American and Soviet missiles in the 60s were truly offensive.  They were equipped with nuclear warheads; the US missiles were aimed at the Soviet Union, the Soviet missiles at the US.  The missiles planned for Poland, on the other hand, are indeed defensive.  Their only purpose is to intercept other missiles in flight.  Moreover they carry no warhead at all.  They destroy their target solely with kinetic energy when they hit the incoming missile.   They would pose no threat to Russian territory.
> ...



In fact the system planned for Poland and the Czech Republic is the ground-based midcourse one already installed in Alaska and California.
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=3664#8 
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.24/system_detail.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2007)

In concept the new missiles destined for Poland have more in common with the ABMs that the Kremlin stationed around Moscow under the old ABM treaty.  America chose to place its old ABMs around their missile silos on the plains to guard them against a Russian strike.  The Russians figured they didn't need to guard their missiles.  They would be long gone on the first strike.   They needed to protect Moscow against the retaliatory second strike by the US.

ABMs are not new.  Neither is the positioning dance.


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Jun 2007)

A question that's a little off topic, but I want to know this. Back in the times when the U.S. stationed nuclear weapons here in Canada, we're there any ABM here or was that technology more 'futuristic' for that time?


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jun 2007)

Mike Baker: Whole story of early US ABM efforts is here--nothing was ever based in Canada.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/us-defenses-against-icbms-19581976.html


> ...
> The original twelve possible Safeguard sites were reduced to two during ABM Treaty negotiations with the Soviet Union in 1972. For the United States, these sites were Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota and Washington, D.C. In 1974, both countries signed a Protocol to the treaty reducing the permitted number of sites from two to one, with a total of one hundred interceptors. In the end, Grand Forks was the only US site ever built; it became operational on October 1, 1975.
> 
> On October 2, 1975 -- one day after the site became operational -- the House voted to inactivate Safeguard. The House decision was based on the argument that the restriction to a single ABM site combined with the recent Soviet development of MIRVs meant the system could not handle the threat. Soviet missiles with multiple warheads would overwhelm the system. This was not the only problem, however. The radars that tracked incoming missiles were extremely vulnerable: they would black out when a nuclear warhead -- including one on a US interceptor missile -- detonated. Once the radars were destroyed, the system would be electronically blind and therefore useless. Safeguard's ability to achieve even its main objective of protecting the North Dakota ICBM site was also limited by the fact that its 100 interceptor missiles were not enough to counter a determined attack.
> ...



The Russians still have an ABM system defending Moscow (which everyone forgets).
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.25/system_detail.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Jun 2007)

Thanks Mark, I never found anything on it after searching google. I should have done that in the first place  :-[

Great link on the ABM in Moscow too.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2007)

Thanks from here as well Mark.  I didn't konw if the Moscow zone was still active or not.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2007)

There were 9 BMW sites of which only three seem to be operational. Gabala is in standby mode. The Russians lack the money to operate their missile defense system and this proposal by Putin may be a way to get the US to pay for upgrades and operational costs.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2007)

Interesting.  So Gabala was part of the Moscow ABM net?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2007)

Here are the short range interceptor locations near Moscow.

1. Lytkarino - 16 interceptors
2. Sofrino - 12 interceptors
3. Korolev - 12 interceptors
4. Skhodnya - 16 interceptors
5. Vnukovo - 12 interceptors

Long range interceptors may be at the locations noted below. Its also possible that the missiles were consolidated at two sites.The 9th Missile Div which operates these missiles are located at Naro-Fominsk-10 and Sergiyev Posad-15.

Zagorsk/Sergiyev Posad 
Klin 
Naro-Fominsk
Nudol

BMW site map.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2007)

How many ways can you spell "hypocrisy" in Russian?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2007)

In addition to the Daryal radar network there are the Hen House network of AD radars which are capable of tracking incoming missiles.







As one can see there are gaps in the radar coverage and existing sites may have technical/power issues that keep them offline for periods of time.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Jun 2007)

Seems that North Korea is also warning the U.S. over their missile plan. See here.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2007)

No bully likes his potential victim to be prepared to defend themself. No missile shield means no one can defend against a missile attack or the threat of attack. The argument of the left is that the system doesnt work. If it doesnt work the Russians wouldnt be complaining. In fact they would like to encourage us to waste our money. Instead they know ABM works and even a limited system is defense against a limited attack or even a mistaken missile launch. If we cant stop nations like North Korea or Iran from getting nuclear weapons then a defensive system is the way to go.Both countries are neglecting their people in their drive to have nuclear weapons and internal turmoil cannot be ignored.


----------



## Mike Baker (16 Jun 2007)

+1 T6. The only real way to stop them by not attacking them is to have an ABM.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2007)

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Bush has 25 poodles
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009674.html

Also:

Missile misrepresentation
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009653.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (12 Jul 2007)

The latest news article on this topic...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070704/world/russia_us_eu_defence

Russia threatens to put missiles in Kaliningrad region if US puts missiles in central Europe.  Looks like the cold war took a few years of vacation but is back in business...


----------



## Mike Baker (12 Jul 2007)

There goes the neighbourhood, again.


----------



## JackD (13 Jul 2007)

The fact that missiles could be reintroduced in the Kalingrad region shows that Putin's rhetoric is meaningless. Having been there myself, there is little to worry about. Due to the massive toxic wastes generated  by the 62 years of Soviet and Russian presence in that region, the threat of missiles being replaced in Kalningrad (if they even left there) is a greater threat to the operators, than to Europe.


----------



## Greymatters (13 Jul 2007)

???

You'll have to explain that in more detail - how does toxic waste equal meaningless rhetoric?


----------



## JackD (13 Jul 2007)

okkk. One was a flippant statement regarding the degradation of the environment within many of the regions of eastern/central Europe - the other "meaningless rhetoric" is in regard to his statement that he will re-introduce these missiles to this region - as they are probably still in the area - as the launchers were mobile ones - and as well, that this proposed anti-missile base in Poland is a threat to Russia - I doubt that any antimissile missile system can react  to such an immediate launch should Russia choose to do so. Look at the geographical location of Khalningrad - it is the heart of the Baltic region


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Jul 2007)

Russia suspends participation in treaty.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jul 2007)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> Russia suspends participation in treaty.



Much ado about nothing. On a side note the Russians are deploying the  S-400 Triumf air defense system around Moscow. It is definitely a significant improvement in ABM capability.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html








> The first missile added to the system is the 48N6DM (Dalnaya - long range), a long range weapon with a cited range of 215 nautical miles, intended to kill AWACS, JSTARS and other high value assets. Further details of this weapon remain to be disclosed.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jul 2007)

> Sergei Markov, the Kremlin-connected head of the Moscow-based Institute for Political Research said the move to impose a moratorium on the CFE was the Kremlin's signal that Russia will not be bullied.
> 
> "There are people who don't want Russia getting up from its knees, who are pushing it back, who are saying 'You are weak, you lost,' but Russia is resisting that," he said



From the article that Mike Baker posted.

One theory pertaining to the initiation of WW2 suggests that it was made easier because most Germans didn't feel they had lost the war.  They hadn't been subjected to the devastation that France and Belgium saw or even that Britain tasted with the shore bombardments.  Most people lived in the same houses they did before the war.  They hadn't lost.  They were betrayed - in their minds - by the Kaiser or by the Prussian General Staff or by the Communists.


Russia and Russians?  Also not defeated.  Betrayed by Gorbachev.  Or at least that is the story for a good part of the populace......


And worse ..... Hitler didn't have a source of ready cash.

I don't see WWIII or V or WWI or whatever - but I do see some Russians wanting to re-exert their birthright to everything from the Elbe to Kamchatka and from the Arctic to the (unattained) Indian Ocean.  Economics, Politics or Force.


----------



## JackD (15 Jul 2007)

From what my Russian friends say in regard to their government  (I should say 'imply' - no-one can 'say' anymore it seems), there is a bigger 'disconnect' between the average Russian and their government than you would find in - certainly Poland - where the government are buffoons - and by far - Canada. It seems that in Central and Eastern Europe there is a return to aristocracy. Normal people live their lives, the aristocracy lives their lives. Is Russia a threat? Yes - not because of policies but because of the ineptness of the Russian way of doing things. There are many Chernobyls waiting to happen. Environmental degradation is common and that effects everyone far more than controversies over nuclear weapons. Honestly, there is a different mentality here in Central and Eastern Europe - People will dump their garbage over the fence and then complain about the garbage dumped over the fence. Teachers will be extremely unfair, and then afterwards when exams results have been revoked and exams needlessly repeated, be praised for teaching so well. The government will set aside millions to build a new airport but will not fix the potholes within the patches within the potholes in the road going to that airport... in other words the whole lot - from a western perspective - are crazy.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jul 2007)

Thanks JackD for the upbeat summary.

I would rather face a mob than a disciplined force.  It doesn't sound as if discipline is a Russian strong suit, unlike Hitler's lot.  Must be that cultural thing that Edward Campbell keeps harping on about.  


The only problem I see is if the Russian "Aristocracy" starts acquiring sufficient like-minded individuals to impose that discipline.  Not to beat MY Gazprom drum too loudly but a few days ago I saw a CBC documentary on the Gazprom - a community above the arctic circle with modern apartments, Ikea interiors, buses that run on time and happy employees.  The things you can do with money.  

Add to the mix the fact that the Russian Parliament has authorized Gazprom to raise its own armed PSC security force to guard its infrastructure - then take a look at the network of  fields, pipelines, refineries, offices and towns that constitute Gazprom "Infrastructure".  It will likely need a very large, very happy and very well paid Security Force to protect that lot from the "peasantry".

What happens when they wish to protect their "infrastructure" beyond their borders - in places like Kazakhstan, Poland, Britain or even Canada (where they are tied in with an LNG project for Quebec - building an LNG terminal)?


----------



## JackD (15 Jul 2007)

What they do is hire lawyers - the biggest threat to mankind that there ever was or will be. A friend of mine observed that here, bus shelters are regularly trashed, items are stolen, vandalism is common and graffiti is everywhere. However, there is a gas terminal down the road from me beside a MacDonald's(but on what used to be parkland). The tank-transporters sit there overnight. No fence, no nothing - no vandalism, no graffiti. It is owned by Russian interests. There is a former Daiwoo autoplant in this city that is now owned by Russian interests. It is mostly idle and produces nothing but stays in business. Again no vandalism, no graffiti. Why is that?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jul 2007)

JackD said:
			
		

> What they do is hire lawyers - the biggest threat to mankind that there ever was or will be.



Amen Brudda.

As to the rest - you would seem to be better placed to know than me.  

Cheers.


----------



## JackD (15 Jul 2007)

A fascinating place still Poland.. Central Europe as well. perplexing and maddening too - especially if you try driving around here. I do urge you to visit it though - the food has taste, the beer is good.... but you know - for all the faults and idiocies found in Canada  (mostly connected with governments and institutes of higher learning - and minor compared to that found here) - it is the finest country in the world - and the best functioning.


----------



## oligarch (31 May 2008)

How democratic is this, though? 65% in the Czech Republic oppose this shield, and do not believe in the proposed threat

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7WjSo-qOq8

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC-vqotMK1g

3) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/14/content_8164713.htm

4) http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=312240


----------



## old medic (29 Nov 2008)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-czechs28-2008nov28,0,5191296.story


Czech Senate backs U.S. antimissile plan
Associated Press
November 28, 2008



> Reporting from Prague, Czech Republic -- The upper chamber of the Czech Parliament on Thursday approved a deal with Washington to accept a U.S. missile defense installation.
> 
> The deal still needs the approval of the lower chamber, where the vote is expected to be close because the governing coalition has too few seats to guarantee passage. The vote there is not expected before the end of the year.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (14 Aug 2015)

Necroposting this thread back to life since it's still relevant with this update:

Reuters



> *Russia steps up demand for U.S. to drop European missile shield*
> Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:27am ED
> 
> By Gabriela Baczynska
> ...



Please also note other older, related threads on the Europe missile shield which could be merged with this:

Medvedev: Russia may target missile defence sites

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine

Russia's nuclear challenge to Europe

US-Russian team deems missile shield for Europe ineffective vs Iranian attack


----------

