Russia warns US over missile shield

I can understand Russia's desire to prevent the US from putting parts of this system right on their border. Would we allow the Russians to install such a system in Cuba or Mexico? I think not. However Mr. Lavrov also said the following:

"If our partners (the U.S.) make a decision to create an American missile defense system with global reach, then that will doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for further reductions in strategic offensive weapons," he said.

Now I think this missile defense shield may just be a waste of money. From what I've heard much of it is still unproven technology. And I have always felt that putting parts of the system right on Russia's border would amount to an unnecessary provocation. But on the other hand the US has every right to create some form of missile defense system if it so chooses. As to Poland and the Czech republic for that matter as long as it is their system and not the one installed by the US. For that reason I think the previously quoted statement from Mr. Lavrov was unfortunate. If he is talking only about the US plans to deploy parts of the system in eastern Europe than I think that's something the US and Russia can negotiate. But if he is talking about any form of missile defense shield then frankly that is none of Russia's business. The US should not sign any treaty which prohibits it from building defensive systems on its own territory. Few people seem aware of this but Russia actually has a missile defense system which protects Moscow (although I'm not sure how effective it is). It is Russia's right to have such as system and it is our right in the US to do the same.

Frank wrote:

I can understand Russia's desire to prevent the US from putting parts of this system right on their border. Would we allow the Russians to install such a system in Cuba or Mexico? I think not. However Mr. Lavrov also said the following:
"If our partners (the U.S.) make a decision to create an American missile defense system with global reach, then that will doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for further reductions in strategic offensive weapons," he said.
Now I think this missile defense shield may just be a waste of money. From what I've heard much of it is still unproven technology. And I have always felt that putting parts of the system right on Russia's border would amount to an unnecessary provocation. But on the other hand the US has every right to create some form of missile defense system if it so chooses. As to Poland and the Czech republic for that matter as long as it is their system and not the one installed by the US. For that reason I think the previously quoted statement from Mr. Lavrov was unfortunate. If he is talking only about the US plans to deploy parts of the system in eastern Europe than I think that's something the US and Russia can negotiate. But if he is talking about any form of missile defense shield then frankly that is none of Russia's business. The US should not sign any treaty which prohibits it from building defensive systems on its own territory. Few people seem aware of this but Russia actually has a missile defense system which protects Moscow (although I'm not sure how effective it is). It is Russia's right to have such as system and it is our right in the US to do the same.

This missle shield is more of an pol'l threat than a military one. The russian parasites and their zombie pop'n for centuries have occupied and stole from poland/eastern europe and due to their parasitical nature they cannot stop it today. Examples, monopoly of gas and all pipelines delivering oil and gas to europe. They do not control everything but they are trying. If US puts its bases in poland than that means that in case of war with russia they will not only be fighting with polish/eastern european forces but US will be involved as well. Well you are going to probably say poland is part of NATO and have nothing to fear. It is just an agreement, a piece of paper and western european NATO members will cower like bunch of pussies if the war breaks out because they will not want their infrastructure destroyed by nuclear bombs if they get involved. With US bases in poland russians will think twice about using such weapons because US posses it as well.

The ten missiles are kinetic kill vehicles, meaning nonexplosive, impact only kill vehicles. They are only useful for a certain phase of a missile's trajectory and are no risk to any Russian launches. The radar involved is highly specific and would not provide new intel on Russian activities. The location was picked to optimize the likelihood of a successful intercept of missiles en route from certain specific location.

A U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe has not been clearly justifed to Americans or Europeans. And if there exists a present or future threat of missile fire from a particular nation, then that issue should be delt with now, without spending billions of dollars to anticipate an attack.

Kenhunt wrote:

The ten missiles are kinetic kill vehicles, meaning nonexplosive, impact only kill vehicles. They are only useful for a certain phase of a missile's trajectory and are no risk to any Russian launches. The radar involved is highly specific and would not provide new intel on Russian activities. The location was picked to optimize the likelihood of a successful intercept of missiles en route from certain specific location.

its the old sword and shield philosophy. there must be a balance. a shield is a threat if its a good one.

Dan USA wrote:

A U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe has not been clearly justifed to Americans or Europeans. And if there exists a present or future threat of missile fire from a particular nation, then that issue should be delt with now, without spending billions of dollars to anticipate an attack.

Yeah, sort of a pre-emptive thingy!

Kenhunt wrote:

The ten missiles are kinetic kill vehicles, meaning nonexplosive, impact only kill vehicles. They are only useful for a certain phase of a missile's trajectory and are no risk to any Russian launches. The radar involved is highly specific and would not provide new intel on Russian activities. The location was picked to optimize the likelihood of a successful intercept of missiles en route from certain specific location.

Nevertheless, this missile shield means bringing US military presence nearer the Russian border, at a time when the US wants to engage Russia in disarmament!! The Kremlin is entitled to be suspicious of the whole thing.

What the US administration is asking defies all logic.

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Nevertheless, this missile shield means bringing US military presence nearer the Russian border, at a time when the US wants to engage Russia in disarmament!! The Kremlin is entitled to be suspicious of the whole thing.
What the US administration is asking defies all logic.

It would be so if there was another site equally effective against the expected threat. I think we've done a poor job of explaining why there seem to be no alternatives. I have never been a fan of this myself, but Kim and Ahmadinijad seem to get goofier by the day. I seem them as trading material.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>It would be so if there was another site equally effective against the expected threat. I think we've done a poor job of explaining why there seem to be no alternatives. I have never been a fan of this myself, but Kim and Ahmadinijad seem to get goofier by the day. I seem them as trading material.

Why not installing the missile shield in Iraq?

Closer to Iran, located in a country that 'may' need protection from its neighbours, where American troops already operate, that would be more credible to 'protect' Israel too, since that seems to be the cornerstone of US policy.

It would take decades of developement before NK can be seen as as threat by Europe!

The whole thing is a red herring, just like the WMDs...

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not installing the missile shield in Iraq?
Closer to Iran, located in a country that 'may' need protection from its neighbours, where American troops already operate, that would be more credible to 'protect' Israel too, since that seems to be the cornerstone of US policy.
It would take decades of developement before NK can be seen as as threat by Europe!
The whole thing is a red herring, just like the WMDs...

that might be a solution, who knows? NK will not need decades to get a deliverable warhead, I think.

Frank wrote:

I can understand Russia's desire to prevent the US from putting parts of this system right on their border. Would we allow the Russians to install such a system in Cuba or Mexico? I think not. However Mr. Lavrov also said the following:
"If our partners (the U.S.) make a decision to create an American missile defense system with global reach, then that will doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for further reductions in strategic offensive weapons," he said.
Now I think this missile defense shield may just be a waste of money. From what I've heard much of it is still unproven technology. And I have always felt that putting parts of the system right on Russia's border would amount to an unnecessary provocation. But on the other hand the US has every right to create some form of missile defense system if it so chooses. As to Poland and the Czech republic for that matter as long as it is their system and not the one installed by the US. For that reason I think the previously quoted statement from Mr. Lavrov was unfortunate. If he is talking only about the US plans to deploy parts of the system in eastern Europe than I think that's something the US and Russia can negotiate. But if he is talking about any form of missile defense shield then frankly that is none of Russia's business. The US should not sign any treaty which prohibits it from building defensive systems on its own territory. Few people seem aware of this but Russia actually has a missile defense system which protects Moscow (although I'm not sure how effective it is). It is Russia's right to have such as system and it is our right in the US to do the same.

Yes, yes, Frankie ...The USA has the right to have such a system to protect Washington... in the USA near Washington... Not on Russia's borders...

And yes it is Russia's business... The USA has over 700 military bases world=wide and that isn't enough to protect them.. they "need" to put them into Poland and the Czech Republic and then maybe Georgia and to steal naval bases in the Black sea..

Well then...I think it would be perfect... if Russia puts a military or missles base in Cuba to protect them and maybe in Venezuela or anywhere they damned well please... No DOUBLE STANDARDS... It's only fair that Russia has 700 bases world-wide too.

I think that Russia should scrap that idiotic RESTART treaty and scrap American planes flying over RUssian territory to Afghanistan... they have over 700 bases that should be enough...

and unless the USA butts out of the Black Sea and the Caucuses and the Stans... there should be no treaty at all.

The USA is as per usual... demanding everything their way... and giving nothing. Nobody needs a treaty like that...

And what is wrong with Russia protecting Moscow with a system near Moscow... Its' in their own country and not on anyone's borders... What makes you think that RUssia or any country should want American missiles anywhere near their borders????

Such hypocrisy...

peter wrote:

<quoted text>
This missle shield is more of an pol'l threat than a military one. The russian parasites and their zombie pop'n for centuries have occupied and stole from poland/eastern europe and due to their parasitical nature they cannot stop it today. Examples, monopoly of gas and all pipelines delivering oil and gas to europe. They do not control everything but they are trying. If US puts its bases in poland than that means that in case of war with russia they will not only be fighting with polish/eastern european forces but US will be involved as well. Well you are going to probably say poland is part of NATO and have nothing to fear. It is just an agreement, a piece of paper and western european NATO members will cower like bunch of pussies if the war breaks out because they will not want their infrastructure destroyed by nuclear bombs if they get involved. With US bases in poland russians will think twice about using such weapons because US posses it as well.

the American imperialists already controll the largest oil field in Saudi Arabia, the second largest in Iraq and they want to control all the oil in Russia's sphere of influence as well????

I think it is clear who is the parasites and it isn't Russia...

And until the West meddled in Ukrainian and Eastern European affairs...there was no problem with gas transiting nor delivery...

And that war that you keep hoping for with Russia is not going to happen... Only if anyone agresses on Russia will there be a war.... and that you can blame the west and Nato on...

And it is the western lone Superpower who is the parasite, sucking all natural resources by using their power to take it away from the countries it belongs to... The west needs to stay out of Russia and its business...

Kenhunt wrote:

The ten missiles are kinetic kill vehicles, meaning nonexplosive, impact only kill vehicles. They are only useful for a certain phase of a missile's trajectory and are no risk to any Russian launches. The radar involved is highly specific and would not provide new intel on Russian activities. The location was picked to optimize the likelihood of a successful intercept of missiles en route from certain specific location.

If America is so paranoid that it needs missile systems, then it needs to ring the USA with missles systems... not be putting them on other countries borders nor attempting to agress on the entire world to satisfy their imperialism... That so-called fear is just an excuse to agress on the caucuses and European Russia...

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Nevertheless, this missile shield means bringing US military presence nearer the Russian border, at a time when the US wants to engage Russia in disarmament!! The Kremlin is entitled to be suspicious of the whole thing.
What the US administration is asking defies all logic.

TRue... the USA always wants Russia to disarm as it continues its imperalistic march across the globe...

But I don't think Russia will go for it... Signing agreeing to sign at a later date... is not iron clad and they should send that idiotic restart button (which they couldnt' even name correctly in Russian) back and refuse to sign that treaty...

The USA is not playing fair... They want it all their way and are not giving up anything... so they aren't serious about restarting anything...

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not installing the missile shield in Iraq?
Closer to Iran, located in a country that 'may' need protection from its neighbours, where American troops already operate, that would be more credible to 'protect' Israel too, since that seems to be the cornerstone of US policy.
It would take decades of developement before NK can be seen as as threat by Europe!
The whole thing is a red herring, just like the WMDs...

I agree...the whole thing is a red herring... just like the WMD's, just an encuse to continue agressing on the world and taking over resources which do not belong to them...

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not installing the missile shield in Iraq?
Closer to Iran, located in a country that 'may' need protection from its neighbours, where American troops already operate, that would be more credible to 'protect' Israel too, since that seems to be the cornerstone of US policy.
It would take decades of developement before NK can be seen as as threat by Europe!
The whole thing is a red herring, just like the WMDs...

Because the European nations are part a long standing defense organization called NATO.
Iraq is not.
Iran's missile range keep increasing.
Russian military has missile defense S-400 appears to very effective.
The Russian S-400 is a advanced air defense system that is effective not just against aircraft, but also against long-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Its range is reportedly 400 km.

Crusader wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the European nations are part a long standing defense organization called NATO.
Iraq is not.
Iran's missile range keep increasing.

Yeah, but did you hear in the past many NATO European countries worried about Iran's missiles and 'asking' for US protection? No!!

Before the threat from Iran was ever mentioned, There was no concern at all in Europe, and certainly no one was asking the USA to put missiles to defend them!

I have certainly never heard any fear from Britain, or France, or Italy ... Does Poland think it is actually targeted by Iran? LOL

The whole thing is a red herring !! The USA created a PRETEXT to stay in Europe and open more military installations by spreading this panic about Iran capability and stirring up the relations with Russia in the process.

Iran missiles = WMDs , they are just PRETEXT.

The US expect people to be gullible and swallow the whole thing without thinking.

Jazz singer wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but did you hear in the past many NATO European countries worried about Iran's missiles and 'asking' for US protection? No!!
Before the threat from Iran was ever mentioned, There was no concern at all in Europe, and certainly no one was asking the USA to put missiles to defend them!
I have certainly never heard any fear from Britain, or France, or Italy ... Does Poland think it is actually targeted by Iran? LOL
The whole thing is a red herring !! The USA created a PRETEXT to stay in Europe and open more military installations by spreading this panic about Iran capability and stirring up the relations with Russia in the process.
Iran missiles = WMDs , they are just PRETEXT.
The US expect people to be gullible and swallow the whole thing without thinking.

It is called a bargaining chip and posturing and it can be dealt off later. Just geopolitics. Nothing to get your shorts in a knot over! Poland and E Europe is still smarting over Russia's ( USSR ) unwelcome 45 year foray into E. Europe.

Juris wrote:

<quoted text>It is called a bargaining chip and posturing and it can be dealt off later. Just geopolitics. Nothing to get your shorts in a knot over! Poland and E Europe is still smarting over Russia's ( USSR ) unwelcome 45 year foray into E. Europe.

Once Eastern Europe will have finished with its posturing, it will realise that shifting US bases is as difficult than getting rid of Soviet bases.

Eastern Europe countries seem to be marooned in both cases, the difference is that this time, they 'invite' a third country to use their soil for its own interest.

In both cases, it is surrendering sovereignty and accepting to be part of a military alliance there they will not have much to say.

Also, if Poland and Eastern Europe are still afraid of Russia, why use Iran as an excuse? That doesn't add up ...