 sj |
||
|
||
BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:54 AM Czechs say Russian spies stir against U.S. base 38 minutes ago PRAGUE (Reuters) - Russian spies are extremely active in the Czech Republic and are stirring public sentiment against a planned U.S. missile defense base, the Czech counter-intelligence agency said on Thursday. In a 2007 annual report, the Security Information Service (BIS) said Russian spies' wider aim may be to weaken the integrity of the NATO alliance and isolate the United States. The United States plans to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and place interceptor rockets in Poland as part of its global shield against ballistic missiles that it says could be fired by adversaries such as Iran. Russia, increasingly aggressive in foreign policy, fiercely opposes the plan, which will bring U.S. military hardware into countries that once belonged to the former Soviet empire. "The intelligence services of the Russian Federation have attempted in the past year to contact, infiltrate and influence people and organizations that have influence on public opinion," the BIS report said. "Russian espionage activities in the Czech Republic currently reach an exceptionally high intensity." The plan to host the U.S. radar is highly unpopular in the central European NATO member, where the public is wary of any foreign military presence, largely due to the Soviet invasion of 1968. The BIS said the Russian spies had focused on non-government organizations, politicians and the media to drum up opposition to the missile defense base, but they may have a wider plan. "The BIS believes the active Russian measures against the Czech Republic and its allies were possibly part of a wider and long-term Russian campaign whose aim is to impair the integrity of the EU and NATO, isolate the United States and renew control over the lost Soviet security perimeter in Europe," it said. Increasingly strained relations between Russia and the West hit a new post-Cold War low after Russia invaded Georgia last month and recognized the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:08 AM "stirring public sentiment against a planned U.S. missile defense base" Can you say CUBA? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:12 AM slight difference between OFFENSIVE IRBM with nuclear weapons and DEFENSIVE kinetic-kill ABM. One can hit a city- theo other cannot. ABM are only usefull against missiles that are already attacking someone - So the Russians object to NOT being able to attack someone??? Russia just sent s ship with multiple nuclear weapons to Venezuala- THAT is more of a equivalant threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:19 AM We are TOLD that they are 'defensive' and the US Govt NEVER LIES! Can you say "TONKIN"? Thread list... BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... BS: Bush gets his Golden Parachute!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:23 AM BTW, this is the same ( radar and ABM missle) installation that the Bush administration offered to SHARE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF with Russia, a few years ago. Wonder why they did not want a systen that could show where missiles were launched from, and possible keep those missles from killing millions of civilians? Since many here claim (falsely) that the ABMs would never work, why should ANYONE object to their deployment, unless they want to be able to launch missiles undetected? If the systems do work, how are missles that ONLY shoot down missiles a threat? Are they worried about NOT being able to kill off some nation's civilian population???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:30 AM I'm sorry, I'm not in on the inner conspiracy circle. I CAN, however tell you WHY the base will be built - to keep up employment and profits in the US Military Industrial Comp[lex... as the rest of the US economy goes down the tubes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:34 AM Far be it for me to want to save the lives of any of the civilians of Europe if their own governments would rather be vunerable to IRBMs from unstable states. I guess we should just wait until AFTER they are launched, and complain about the US not stopping them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:38 AM "to keep up employment and profits in the US Military Industrial Complex... as the rest of the US economy goes down the tubes... " Gee, the last Great Depression, the Dems took over and needed a World War to get the economy back on track. I wonder if that is their plan this time, too? A nuclear strike on Rome or Paris would be almost as good as Pearl Harbor... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:20 AM "the Dems took over and needed a World War " And just WHO screwed the world INTO that Depression? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:26 AM The European Allies ( France, England, etc) , with it's terms for peace in WW I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:59 AM Oh, and of course, I noticed that you exclude the US from any involvement in the financial screwing... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM See the treaties- The US was NOT the driving force behind the attempt to reduce the Axis to poverty. It was a blatent grab for empire by England and France. (Just look at the Middle East, to see the results) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 12:08 PM "During World War I many European nations abandoned the gold standard, forced by the enormous costs of the war. This resulted in inflation, because it was not matched with rationing and other forms of forced savings. The view is that the quantity of money determined inflation, and therefore, the cure to inflation was to reduce the amount of circulating medium. Because of the huge reparations that Germany had to pay France, Germany began a credit-fueled period of growth in order to export and sell enough abroad to gain gold to pay back reparations. The United States, as the world's gold sink, loaned money to Germany to industrialize, which was then the basis for Germany paying back France, and France paying back loans to the United Kingdom and United States. This arrangement was codified in the Dawes Plan. This had numerous economic consequences. However, what is of particular relevance is that following the war, most nations returned to the gold standard at the pre-war gold price, in part, because those who had loaned in nominal amounts hoped to recover the same value in gold that they had lent, and in part because the prevailing opinion at the time was that deflation was not a danger, while inflation, particularly the inflation in the Weimar Republic, was an unbearable danger. Monetary policy was in effect put into a deflationary setting that would over the next decade slowly grind away at the health of many European economies. While the Banking Act of 1925 created currency controls and exchange restrictions, it set the new price of the Pound Sterling at parity with the pre-war price. At the time, this was criticized by John Maynard Keynes and others, who argued that in so doing, they were forcing a revaluation of wages without any tendency to equilibrium. Keynes' criticism of Winston Churchill's form of the return to the gold standard implicitly compared it to the consequences of the Versailles Treaty." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 08 - 12:26 PM Russia is installing missles inside the Canadian and Mexican border with the US. They say they are defensive and not to be used against the US #$%^&*()_()**& Now if this were the case, similar to Poland and Czech. what do you think we would be doing? fundamentally it takes 2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 12:49 PM Donuel, If they were ABMs with no nuclear warheads, they WOULD be defensive- as are the ones we have a few miles from Russia in Alaska right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 08 - 01:18 PM True, but Alaska is not a foregn country, it makes a difference. Putin called, he wants Alaska back! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM Spying has been around forever so it's no wonder that there are Russian, as well as American, spies up to no good... The Geogian/Russian hot war was a different story and it was US who gave the Geogians the idea that it was okay to fire the first shots... That is some serious Cold War, and not so cold, stuff... And, BTW, we are not "all Gworgians"... That was some of the worst Cold War rhetoric that I've heard since Mr. K pounded his shoe in the 50's... McCain/Palin = Cold War II... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Sep 08 - 02:56 PM Obama/Biden = nuclear war Just my opinion, as was your comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 25 Sep 08 - 06:15 PM The missile defense shield creates a situation in which the US could send missiles to Russia (nuclear or otherwise) and Russia would not be able to respond. Which makes the missile defense shield an offensive rather than defensive measure, in that it eliminates deterrence against a US attack on Russia. The Russians have every reason to feel threatened by the US missile defense shield being place in those countries. Russia did suggest an alternative site for the missile defense shield, that would have been more effective in deterring missiles coming from countries like Iran, and would not leave the Russians feeling threatened (one of the Stans, if I recall correctly), but the US is determined to put the shield where it will be a threat to Russia. So it is certainly true that it only takes one side to start a Cold War, but it is the US that is starting it, and not Russia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:04 AM For the umpteenth time, Putin is not against the SDI missile package as such. What he objects to is its placement in Poland (missile component - all 10 of them!!!) and in the Czech Republic (Radar/Guidance component). He does not object to them being parked on Russia's doorstep and actually suggested that the complete system be situated in Azerbaijan (which is on Russia's doorstep). The system, as clearly stated many times by BB is defensive (He should know he worked on it), and as far as Putin and the Russians are concerned the only danger that it poses to Russia is that if there was a rough missile launch against Europe from either Pakistan or from Iran and the missiles in Poland were launched against it, then it is possible that debris from the strike would land on Russian soil. That's it folks as clearly explained by Vladimir Putin a couple of years ago. And unless these concerns can be addressed the man has a point. The placing of the system in Azerbaijan may not be an option as that might not give the system sufficient time to obtain a "firing solution" as it might be too close to the target missile's point of launch. I do not believe that the sighting of the systems components was arbitrary, there is a reason for them being where they are that has to do with that system providing optimum cover relative to the performance of the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Wolfgang Date: 26 Sep 08 - 05:45 AM Mr. K pounded his shoe in the 50's... Picture of the event (scroll a bit) that actually happened in the early 60s Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:07 AM CarolC "The missile defense shield creates a situation in which the US could send missiles to Russia (nuclear or otherwise) and Russia would not be able to respond" Incorrect. Try to understand what you are talking about. The 10 interceptors would be easily ( by Russia) overwhelmed by a launch of , say 20 missiles. Thus your point is invalid. They WOULD be effective against a launch of 4-8 missiles, which is what the present design criteria is . Russia has a lot of missiles. The ONLY way that they would launch only 4-8 missles is if the launch was not under the control of the centyral government, ie, by terrorists or illegal occupation of ther launch sites. I would think that everyone ( except the launching parties) would want them stopped in those circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:28 AM "but the US is determined to put the shield where it will be a threat to Russia." Perhaps you should consider that the US is determined to put the shield where it will be effective in defending our allies against rogue states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM Present policy under MAD- If a nation launches even one missile at the US or allies, the US will respond with overwhelming force and destroy that nation. Policy available with BMD- If a nation launches only a few missiles at the US or our allies, we can destroy them, determine the intent of the launchings, and take the action appropriate. SO, CarolC, you want to keep the present MAD in effect, and be responsible for the killing of millions of civilians ( on either or both sides) when and accidental launch, or terrorist occupation of a launch site? Just keep insisting on no BMD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:40 AM Why would it be more effective to put the "shield" in Poland and the Czech republic than in Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan is right next door to Iran (the rogue state the US government is saying is its primary concern), while Poland and the Czech Republic are much further away. And also, quite a lot of Europe lies between Iran and Poland and the Czech Republic, so how would missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic help them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:41 AM Correctiona to 26 Sep 08 - 07:07 AM : "destroy that nation.' destroy that nation, having to accept whatever death and destructon is caused by the original attack. "when and accidental ..." when there is an accidental... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:44 AM "Why would it be more effective to put the "shield" in Poland and the Czech republic than in Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan is right next door to Iran (the rogue state the US government is saying is its primary concern), while Poland and the Czech Republic are much further away." You hit it exactly- the system works better if it has enough distance to actually track the attacking missile before it has gone overhead. So, we could put it in Turkey, and have it never able to react in time or work, or in Poland and have it be effective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:46 AM Note the BMD systems in place against N. Korea are in Alaska, NOT Japan*) * there are local BMD systems in Japan ( AEGIS) but the KK BMD system is in Alaska. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:47 AM We've already been round and round that merry go round a number of times before. We know that the missile defense shield is not fool proof. Some missiles can still get through it. The only way to prevent the scenario in which millions of people get killed by nuclear weapons is to work as hard as we possibly can to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. The missile defense shield provides people with a false sense of security which removes the incentive for them to eliminate the nuclear weapons. So I'm not the person in this discussion who will be responsible for killing millions of people with nuclear weapons. That person would be the one who favors using the "missile defense shield". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:48 AM My last was in response to the points made in the 26 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:53 AM The missle defense shield is a redundant because everything it can do can be done from submarines... The Navy just tested such a system this week and it was a complete success... So such a redundant system is not only costly in terms of tax dollars but also in terms of our relations with Russia which have syffered badly under Bush and more recently, McCain... Face it, folks... This foriegn policy of threats, sabre rattling and bluster ain't workin' and once again we are reminded of Einstien's definition of insanity: repeating behavior expecting a different result... Well, I for one, have seen enough insanity from the neocons to last me a life time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:56 AM And how would a missile defense shield in Poland or the Czech Republic help the people in the countries in Europe that lie between them and Iran? Or are we only concerned with some countries and not others? And if the shield can only take down a small number of missiles, what would stop a "rogue state" from launching a couple of dozen missiles with no nuclear warhead on them, and waiting until they've been shot down before launching the ones with the nuclear payload? I'll never believe that our people haven't thought of that possibility. So that would mean that either they have planned for that and the shield can take down a lot more missiles than they're saying (which would make it an offensive weapon against Russia), or the people who are designing this system are too stupid to be playing with explosives. Or they're just lying about the shield actually being of any benefit whatever, and the "missile defense shield" is just another way to rip off the US taxpayers. I'm inclined to believe it's all three, myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:59 AM CarolC, "We know that the missile defense shield is not fool proof. Some missiles can still get through it." Note the design criteria I posted. The actual effectiveness is on the order of 95% Yes, it is possible to overwhelm the BMD- THAT is why your comment of 25 Sep 08 - 06:15 PM is not significant. But in the case of either an accidental launch OR the use by a rogue state of LIMITED numbers of missiles, the system would be effective enough to save millions of lives, and possibley keep us out of a global thermonuclear war. "to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world." Ain't going to happen. ANYONE with basic knowledge and access to material can build one: Do you want to have the kind of world needed to prevent ANY access to nuclear materials? No more cinder blocks ( high in thorium), nuclear medicine ( requiring reactors), etc? ANd that does NOT account for the natural deposits- I guess we need to occupy the entire world with troops to prevent the mining of those. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:02 AM And of course the other (and highly likely) possibility is that they are doing it specifically for the purpose of provoking Russia, so that the US can create a pretext for ramping up a new Cold War with that country. Just think if the money that will flow if we could have a new Cold War (along with all of our other very expensive wars) to line the pockets of the military industrial complex (which, if I'm not mistaken, writes the paychecks of the person who started this thread). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:04 AM I want to have the kind of world where there are no incentives for anyone to want to have nuclear weapons. And I don't buy for even an instant, that such a world is not possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:05 AM Bingo, Carol!!! The neocons have figured ou8t that the American people have bought their last *hot* war from the Bush/Cheney/McCain War Machine so they have chosen a new course of action to keep the Anmerican people scared and, of course, fleeced... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:07 AM Bingo, Part 2, Carol!!! Vote Obama for a restoration of sane foriegn policy.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:10 AM Bobert "The missle defense shield is a redundant because everything it can do can be done from submarines." Except thet the submarine is NOT able to detect launches when under water. So it has to sit on the surface, in the right place, until it detects the launch. NOT in the Navy's Op Plan. ".. The Navy just tested such a system this week and it was a complete success..." proving CarolC wrong in her assessment of its effectiveness. CarolC "what would stop a "rogue state" from launching a couple of dozen missiles with no nuclear warhead on them, and waiting until they've been shot down before launching the ones with the nuclear payload? I'll never believe that our people haven't thought of that possibility. " They have- much of the system is sensors to determine the decoy warheads and select out the real ones ( for MIRVs). I would suspect ( not being privy to present Ops Plans) that after about 6 - 8 launches, the launch site would recieve a small present from the US Armed forces- say about 100KT. "And how would a missile defense shield in Poland or the Czech Republic help the people in the countries in Europe that lie between them and Iran?" A site in Poland WOULD be able to shoot down a missile long before it REACHED Poland- you do not realize how fast (or far) they will go. The goal is to intercept in the midflight stage- after launch burnout, but before warhead separation. I suspect a launch from western Iran to Greece, say, would be well within the operational range. The missile DOES NOT have to go over the BMD launch site! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:13 AM "Vote Obama for a restoration of sane foriegn policy...." Under Obama, we would be having a nuclear war right now. Obama stated he would go into Pakistan, a nuclear power, to get OBL. The Pakistanis have already fired on allied troops at the border- what do you think they would do if we execuited a full attack on their territory without permission? Sorry, Bobert. Obama is far more likely to get us into a shooting war than McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:17 AM "And I don't buy for even an instant, that such a world is not possible. " Fine. I believe that it is possible that the streets should be safe to walk on, but that does not mean I will object to having police out there to deal with those that disagree with me. Until that world exists, I will advocate that we take the steps needed to be safe in the world we live in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:41 AM So a missle in Poland can detect a missle lauch, bb??? Guess again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:48 AM No, Bobert. A radar in Czsch Republic can detect the launch phase of a missile in Iran, and a missile launched in Poland can intercept it. Not guessing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It takes one side to start a Cold War... From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:53 PM Well, bb, lets do a little review here of your own statements... You say that a "radar in the Czech Republic can detect the launch phase of a missile in Iran" and you don't dipsute the Navy's claims this week that our missiles from subs can take out a missile then I don't understand why you need another missile in Poland, especially seeing as it is hurting oyur relations with Russia... Why not just installl the radar and and use one of the subs in the Mediterranian Sea or the Gulf to do the intercepting??? B~ |
