U.S. may put missile defence in Lithuania

AmusedToDeath · #1 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:09 AM

Quote:

The U.S. is talking to Lithuania about the possibility of installing part of its missile defence system there if it fails to strike a deal with Poland, according to the chief Polish negotiator on missile defence.

Poland has agreed to base ten U.S. interceptor rockets on its soil but in exchange it is demanding billions of dollars to upgrade air defence systems.

Washington says it will look for another country if negotiations with Warsaw fail.

Russia strongly opposes the deployment of the missile defence shield, saying it threatens its security.

So Uncle Sam is looking for another victim, since the Polish want to cash their alliance with Uncle Sam... And cash it good

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/26330

Makedde · #2 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:10 AM

Stupid question: Why can't the US just keep the missiles on it's own soil?

AmusedToDeath · #3 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Stupid question: Why can't the US just keep the missiles on it's own soil?

Because they need the missiles to surround Russia, not to defend from Iranian ICBM's that don't exist (which US officials claim to be the motive).

Makedde · #4 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmusedToDeath

Because they need the missiles to surround Russia, not to defend from Iranian ICBM's that don't exist (which US officials claim to be the motive).

Another stupid question: Does the US have something against Russia that it feels it has to surround it with missiles?

SenaxFlatulus · #5 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:25 AM

In this forum (Latest World News), it's required to post a link to your news story when you start a thread.

If you care to familiarize yourself with the practices used, you can read about them in the two sticky posts at the top of this forum's index.

Please provide a link to your source so that readers can be better informed.

AmusedToDeath · #6 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Another stupid question: Does the US have something against Russia that it feels it has to surround it with missiles?

O, yep.. They have much against Russia. First of all they fear Russian nuclear arsenal, second they fear Russian potentials and want to secure themselves in advance.

But since Russia is the No1 energetic supplier to EU, Uncle Sam may find it hard to install those missiles. As time goes by, he will find it harder and harder.

AmusedToDeath · #7 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

In this forum (Latest World News), it's required to post a link to your news story when you start a thread.

If you care to familiarize yourself with the practices used, you can read about them in the two sticky posts at the top of this forum's index.

Please provide a link to your source so that readers can be better informed.

Sorry, I edited the post and added the link.

SenaxFlatulus · #8 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:32 AM

I appreciate your effort by providing the link.

Now I have a question...

Why would Russia care about a defensive missle system? They're not under any threat by this. It's defensive in nature. Does Russia have a better system to sell the Polish government?

AmusedToDeath · #9 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus

I appreciate your effort by providing the link.

Now I have a question...

Why would Russia care about a defensive missle system? They're not under any threat by this. It's defensive in nature. Does Russia have a better system to sell the Polish government?

Well, it is supposed to look defensive. But as things and politics change, perhaps that very system may become offensive in the future.

Here si a good article that could answer your question:

Quote:

Why Russia Fears Ballistic Missile Defense
by Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
Washington (UPI) Feb 15, 2007

"Mikhail Barabanov, editor of Arms Export magazine, appeared to argue that Russia should rely much more on its strategic clout as the world's greatest energy exporter of oil and gas combined than on its traditional strategic nuclear arsenal to retain a leading role in the world."

Why does Russia oppose so fiercely the deployment of U.S. ballistic missile defenses in Central Europe to protect NATO allies from any Iranian threat? A lengthy article published Tuesday in the Moscow newspaper Kommersant by Mikhail Barabanov, editor of Arms Export magazine, gives an important insight into Russian thinking.

First, Barabanov expressed skepticism that the Iranian threat is the real reason the new BMD system is going to be deployed with frontline radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Like the late Henry Ford, Barabanov argued that people have two reasons for doing what they do: a good reason and the real reason. In the case of BMD, a determination to fence Russia in is, he argued, the real reason.

"It is highly likely that the missile threat from 'problem' states is not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system by the Americans," Barabanov wrote. "The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear missiles, Russia and China most of all."

As we have repeatedly noted in these columns, the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense system currently being developed at enormous cost is not designed to defend the Untied States against a full-scale launch of ICBMs by Russia's Strategic Missile Forces with their multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle, or MIRV, warheads. And it could not do so.

Nevertheless, Barabanov argued that "even a limited missile defense system injects a high degree of indeterminacy into the strategic plans of other countries and undermines the principle of mutual nuclear deterrence. With Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear arsenal significantly and China maintaining a low missile potential, the Americans' ability to down even a few dozen warheads could deprive the other side of guaranteed ability to cause the U.S. unacceptable damage in a nuclear war."

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin is pouring unprecedented funds from a treasury bursting with energy-export profits into modernizing Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, Barabanov struck an uncharacteristically pessimistic, or frank, note about Russia's long-term strategic prospects.

"If current tendencies continue, Russia will be unlikely to have the capacity to maintain more than 400-500 nuclear warheads by 2020. Russian experts have estimated that the U.S. could down half of that quantity with its missile defense system. That would be an especially heavy blow if the Americans delivered a disarming nuclear missile first-strike and the remaining Russian missiles could be eliminated almost completely.

"The first 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland will not make a serious dent in Russian nuclear potential for the first few years," Barabanov acknowledged. But, he continued, "The Russian Army is buying six or seven Topol-M ballistic missiles per year. The destruction of just one of two of them by the American missile defense system would have a high price for Russia. And the placement of a strategic weapons system in Poland, even a defensive one, is a challenge to Moscow by Washington.

"Practically the only way to prevent a slow growth of the American strategic advantage is a significant increase in the purchase of new ballistic missiles by Russia. But the current Russian leadership is not prepared for that, mainly for political reasons," Barabanov said. And that is why, he continued, "Russia's reaction to the news of the possible placement of American interceptor missiles by the Russian border was loud and disorderly, both in political circles and in the press."

In line with his other frank comments, Barabanov was also remarkably outspoken in his criticisms of the Russian diplomatic reaction to the proposed BMD deployments. Russian officials, "as usual, made a number of contradictory statements that amounted to the usual vague threats to 'take adequate measures,' boasting an unconvincing justification for their helplessness," he wrote.

"The Russian leadership had the same initial reaction to the expansion of NATO and the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Everything possible has been done to convince the West that there is no need to pay attention to Russia and Moscow's loud objections."

Finally, Barabanov appeared to argue that Russia should rely much more on its strategic clout as the world's greatest energy exporter of oil and gas combined than on its traditional strategic nuclear arsenal to retain a leading role in the world.

"For an 'energy superpower,' it is more important to be able to pump its energy resources westward than to maintain any strategic balances," he concluded.

Most western analysts would disagree with most of Barabanov's analysis. But it is of great value in explaining the background to the Russian alarm over the BMD program's extension to Europe and President Putin's broadsides against U.S. policies this past week in Munich and Amman. The United States remains on a collision course with Russia on this issue.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...fense_999.html

skeptic-f · #10 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 05:08 AM

The main reason Russia would object to a missle defense system right up against it's borders is that it would seriously curtail its land-based nuclear capability. It would not stop enough nukes by itself to save the United States from a Russian nuclear attack, but Russia has to bear in mind that the U.S. has also been playing with SDI space defence for 15 years and one day may suddenly deploy an effective system.

If the U.S. can use its nuclear arsenal on Russia and Russia cannot use its nuclear arsenal on the U.S., the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine is gone and Russia is severelly
limited on how far they can afford to annoy the U.S. in pursuit of their own national interests.

For example, if Russia and China decided to divide Kazakhstan between them for its resources, warning the U.S. forces based there to stay out of it, the U.S. has very little option but to do so if MAD is still effective. On the other hand, if MAD no longer works, the U.S. can issue an ultimatum that it will defend the Kazakhs by any means necessary if the Russians and Chinese don't turn around and leave immediately, and they'll have to comply.

If you're a Russian, this is not a good scenario. Imagine how we would have felt if the situation was reversed and we were threatened with nuclear destruction if we didn't call off the Afghanistan campaign against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anti-missile defence – further talks on the radar	AmusedToDeath	Russia & Eastern Europe	29	03-31-2008 06:13 AM
Border Defence.	ashleykennedy	Middle East	2	04-01-2007 12:49 AM
Lithuania plans...	Antanas	Russia & Eastern Europe	1	03-19-2007 02:50 PM
Iranian air defence	lunecat	Middle East	34	01-29-2007 03:11 PM
Visit of Condoleezza Rice to Lithuania	Dodger	Political Opinions & Beliefs	1	04-27-2005 12:45 PM