While I'm waiting to catch the plane I have to put this up. It doesn't seem like much has changed lately. All of the old treaties are falling by the wayside and Americas/NATO meddling in European Asia and Central Asia is moving forward along with the appropriate counters by Russia and China.

Is Russia right to put up her guard? Is Russia right about the new anti missile system? Do we really need another arms race? From Russia Today. A very good source of info too.

November 14, 2007, 17:31
Belarus may host Russian missiles

Russian Iskander missiles could be supplied to Belarus in response to U.S. plans for a missile shield, according to Russia's Defence Ministry. A spokesman says it would also compensate for nuclear and conventional missiles destroyed as part of a treaty with the U.S. Some observers now fear a new arms race.
"One day I'm sure the U.S. will try to deploy a missile defence shield in space, and other countries will try to do the same if we will not find a solution like new international agreements about that," says Vadim Kozyulin, an arms expert from the Moscow-based Political Studies Centre.

Meanwhile, the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, Yury Baluevsky, is in Brussels taking part in a NATO meeting.

“As I suppose, someone in the United States still has a desire, mildly speaking, to solve the current problems using the existing U.S. weapons. But to solve these problems in such a way, one needs to get full information that the use of these weapons won’t cause a counterstrike,” he told Russia Today.

“And once deployed in Europe, it [anti-missile shield] won’t be aimed at Iran. Because why deploy a system against some alleged Iranian system that doesn’t exist? But there’s a system in Russia. And in any case by 2011 the Americans are planning to deploy the radar and by 2012, 2013 those antimissiles and that radar will be definitely aimed at Russia.”

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was agreed by Russia and the U.S. as a way of reducing their arsenal in a peaceful way.

To see more, watch our Spotlight programme.

More to the point my friend, when did the arms race end then? Russia had a turbulant time with its equipment but I dont think they like us ever stopped research or development or even production. Maybe not in the massed produced units of yesteryear, but I look at Russias equipment now and its necessary change in tactics and organisation and I see a better armed forces if not in the same numbers but capable of as much destruction as we in the west could match. Arms race never ended, we just altered some ideology and methods.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

What I dont understand (honestly) is Russias resitance to an anti-missle system.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

Im afraid to comment in here as im not sure that we are allowed to

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I think there was a treaty a while back with the USA and the USSR banning each other from building a anti-missile system-but the cold war is not one of my areas of knowledge, though it's still interesting.

__________________
Patriotism is where the love of your country comes first, nationalism is where the hate of other countries comes first.-Charles De Gaulle.

Joe hit it on the head.

Placing such missiles is a breach of the INF treaty signed between the 2 nation in 1987. It seems now that Russian will also be withdrawing from this treaty altogether.

Also these missiles have the ability to become offesive. Not to mention that they are being placed in a country which is currently considered an enemy of Russia.

How do you think that the U.S. might react if Russia placed such missile in CUBA?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

But the US missiles are supposed to be only a limited number (10?20?) and aren't nucelar tipped.

How do you say "overreaction" in Russhkyi?

__________________

Оверреактион

(before you ask, I used google translator)

__________________
Patriotism is where the love of your country comes first, nationalism is where the hate of other countries comes first.-Charles De Gaulle.

How long do you think that will last? I would think at least as along as the ink is wet. Those missiles can easily be converted or another kind put on the launcher rails. Changing the targeting and guidance systems is as easy as changing the circuit boards and software. Once the toe is in the crack of the door, next comes the foot, leg ect.

This is an escalation. This is said to be a defensive system but first read the above and consider a few things. This makes Russia more vulnerable for a few reasons. As I said above on one day there can be defensive missiles on the rails, the next day tactical nukes. Who would know?

This system also makes Russia more vulnerable to a first strike and the world more vulnerable to nuclear conflict. It defeats the the concept of MAD {mutual assured destruction} which was one thing that kept Russia and America from a nuclear exchange in the first place. If one power thinks they can strike the other and win, an exchange is more likely. If one power is fearful of being struck then they may feel a need to strike first. Russia will be fearful of being struck first and not being able to inflict damage back on the attacker because the system is meant to defeat a ragged retaliatory strike.

The reasoning behind the system too in my eyes is not legitimate either. If Iran for example were to launch a nuclear missile at Paris what does any sane person think the WORLD would do in response? How long would the government that launches the missile last? Would Iran even exist a few days after the launch? I think not. This system is not needed.

I think the system is being installed for 2 reasons. Money and the influence if the wests MIC. The second is the ongoing effort by the west to dominate the Eurasian continent for reasons of energy and resources. Specifically the surrounding of Russia and future domination of its resources and commerce. It's what empires do and are meant to do.

My own take on it is there is lots of money to be made selling arms to anyone who wants to buy them. Policitcians like to accept money from anyone. A case in point would be all the European countries who bought the F-104 during the 60's.

Anouther case would be the Osprey. I read in a magizane recently it is grossly overbudget and has killed 44 people and can not operate safely or carry the load it was supposed to, yet people still keep pushing it. It's gestation period has been well over 20 years and still it has problems.

Most retired admirals and generals get great paying jobs with defence contractors. They are paid to convince people that their country really needs a defence system that they are pushing. A little money under the table just helps things along.

With enough money you can convince the Swiss that they need submarines to defend their country from out side intruders.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

"Bing" TA......Lobbyists
making $$$$, Backed by bigger $$$$, in an effort to make even more $$$$.
Some time back I remember when the Japanese were shipping vehicles to Seattle they used Lobbyists to get small trucks to be classified as "cars" to beat the current emission standards while on the boat.
Once on the dock and parked, they succeeded in getting them re-classified back to "small-trucks", so they didn't have to live up to mileage/safety standards.
That could be reverse, but it was an obvious scam to beat the system (for as long as possible), and an insult to peoples intelligence, and an observation into the integrity/priorities of certain public officials.
I can't remember how long they got away with this, or even if they're still doing it. It was in the Seattle Times.

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

I thinkn Chuikov really hit it on the head.

1. Who is to say that in 5 years, these 10 missiles wont turn into 30?

2. These missiles can easily be turned from deffensive to offensive at almost a flip of a switch.

3. The fact that the radar will also monitor Western Russia's movement also sits uneasy.

4. It has been pointed out by many politicians and scientists that Iran is at least 20 years away from developing missiles which can reach Europe, the why put the system in now?

5. The placement of these missiles is a breach of contract.

6. They are also being placed in a country not friendly to Russia.

It seems that Russia's concerns may justify their objections while at the same time outweighing the U.S. concerns for their missile plan?

Afterall, if the true intension is to protect Europe from Iran, then why not use the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan jointly with Russia as Russia proposed?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler