Smiley, you have me (to an extent). I cannot deny that currently the BMD poses no threat to Russia but it represents a dangerous precedent of ring fencing an emerging power which controls much of Europe’s energy resources. To contend that it is worth spending billions of dollars on a technology to defend against one missile is ludicrous beyond belief, therefore the only realistic extrapolation of the facts is that America (at least long term) is looking at this in the same way Regan did when he started the Star Wars project.

As with stealth technology, America is trying to build up an arsenal of weaponry that will enable them to deliver a decisive blow to any adversary with minimal return. Not sure if you’ve read much about America’s policy on the militarization of outer space; in my opinion when this information is tied in with the BMD then it is clear that America is only interested in securing its military hegemony.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...ntrol/Space.asp

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

I think the problem Russia has with America's missile defence programme is not that it is, or that they think it is, intended to target Russia's missiles, but that it might allow America to extend its influence to areas Russia also seeks to have an influence. The most obvious example is Iran. Everybody knows America wants regime change in Iran for various reasons. Russia is also trying to gain influence in Iran (probably for similar reasons). I think Russia is scared that should America successfully build a missile defence shield it will be less reluctant to attack these "rogue states" and install regimes favourable to American interests. It's basically the old imperial game we saw during the 19th and 20th centuries and again through the Cold War - the major powers want their influence spread as far round the globe as possible and perhaps this missile defence shield will help America do just that.

But I think the power that has most reason to fear missile defence technology is China. Not only because they have a small nuclear arsenal compared to Russia and America, but because of the implications it should have for one of America's biggest arms customers - Taiwan. If Taiwan had well developed strategic and tactical missile defences China might not be in that great a position to prevent their independence...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But I think the power that has most reason to fear missile defence technology is China. Not only because they have a small nuclear arsenal compared to Russia and America, but because of the implications it should have for one of America's biggest arms customers - Taiwan. If Taiwan had well developed strategic and tactical missile defences China might not be in that great a position to prevent their independence...

I agree on conventional military terms but Taiwan has just elected a pro-Chinese government which aims to strengthen ties with the mainland while maintaining a sense of autonomy. America’s belligerent attitude towards China regarding Taiwan has softened recently with the increase in trade between the two powers. It is highly unlikely that America would go to war with China over what is for them more of an ideological battle than anything else. Such a war would also probably not be able to contain itself due to the nature of the conflict and the amount of economic turmoil it would create. Much in the same way Britain sold Poland out at the end of the Second World War; responsibility to defend Taiwan is looking more like a weight around America’s neck than the excuse it needed to justify its military presence off the Chinese coast. Also China is developing extensive asymmetric warfare capabilities as the purported attempts to hack Robert Gates email and the other attacks on the Pentagon show.

Again I’d suggest reading the article on American space-based weaponry. Although I have basically folded to your analysis regarding BMD I do think that when considering US intentions for the militarization of outer space then the threat towards Russia becomes more credible.

PS

We’ll have to start our own thread on geopolitics at this rate!

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

Lover Boy, you're a one very interesting thinker ;-) too bad I dont see you post enough on this POD forum.

George, so what that Russia has 2,000 nukes sitting/lying all over the place? Russia has like many more tanks than nukes ... yet most of these tanks are rusting away, not being used, not being maintained properly, etc. (you get the point)

Also, if USA wanted to bring influence to countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to cut off Russian influence and threat, they would have just settled with military bases, economic pacts, alliances, etc. etc. etc. But building missile interceptors is quite a different story. You only create interceptors to counter a country's missile attack ... in this case, the only thing that makes sense is to prepare to intercept the few Russian missiles that manage to survive the initial NATO/USA pummeling ... and with recent American announcement that they will now consider sending weapons into space - well, now shouldn't Russians be worried? Especially after Americans overthrew most of the oil and gas rich regimes in Middle East? And the remaining, of course, have been forced to ally with USA.

I say if USA builds the interceptors in Turkey then Russia should start full-scale military rebuilding, mainly focusing on tactical weapons and making sure they're sharp and ready, aimed at all possible threats. Its long overdue. Russia is in huge danger today, like never before. It hardly even has any allies around itself to serve as a buffer zone to protect itself anymore.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium George, so what that Russia has 2,000 nukes sitting/lying all over the place? Russia has like many more tanks than nukes ... yet most of these tanks are rusting away, not being used, not being maintained properly, etc. (you get the point)

Russia currently has 7,200 operational warheads and a further 8,800 in reserve (link)

quote:

Also, if USA wanted to bring influence to countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to cut off Russian influence and threat, they would have just settled with military bases, economic pacts, alliances, etc. etc. etc.

America has, or will do, exactly as you describe above for the countries you mentioned, but we aren't talking about those countries are we?

quote:

But building missile interceptors is quite a different story. You only create interceptors to counter a country's missile attack ...

Yes, like Iran's ballistic missiles

quote:

in this case, the only thing that makes sense is to prepare to intercept the few Russian missiles

7,200 is not a "few"

quote:

that manage to survive the initial NATO/USA pummeling ...

Please read what me and Lover Boy were saying about the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike against Russia (a successful first strike would mean Russia would not be able to retaliate) - Russia's submarine based nuclear arsenal pretty much eliminates the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike

quote:

I say if USA builds the interceptors in Turkey then Russia should start full-scale military rebuilding, mainly focusing on tactical weapons and making sure they're sharp and ready, aimed at all possible threats. Its long overdue. Russia is in huge danger today, like never before. It hardly even has any allies around itself to serve as a buffer zone to protect itself anymore.

Lol! Where do you think Russian missiles would fly on their way to America?! They gonna take the scenic route over Turkey then buy a cheap beer in Prague?! The shortest distance between American territory and Russian territory is 3 miles, and that is nowhere near Turkey or Eastern Europe - any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Lover Boy, you're a one very interesting thinker ;-) too bad I dont see you post enough on this POD forum.

Why thank you Magnetonium. I come and go on the TA forums, I should make more of an effort because the POD forum here is very good imo.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ... any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

I don't think this stands logically. If America is defending itself against Middle Eastern missiles aimed towards the continental US then they would only need interceptors on American soil. They’ll be plenty of time to shoot them down over the Atlantic after all (as you suggest they would do with Russian missiles, generally speaking). This raises the spectre of another underlying intent – the protection of Israel.

Iran realistically has no motive for attacking Europe or the continental US; such a move would be suicide. However an attack on Israel is much more likely & Israel’s counter would have to be balanced, it can’t level Iran as it would unleash a pogrom to rival The Holocaust. Therefore it could be deduced that America is building the shield in effect to guarantee Israeli security.

In any case the ring fencing of Russia and regional powers (Iran) threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of forces that has kept these bellicose protagonists at bay. When juxtaposed with the emerging energy crisis and global economic slowdown, America’s final gambit at maintaining its global hegemony risks pushing the world into a new Cold War.

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy I don't think this stands logically. If America is defending itself against Middle Eastern missiles aimed towards the continental US then they would only need interceptors on American soil. They’ll be plenty of time to shoot them down over the Atlantic after all (as you suggest they would do with Russian missiles, generally speaking). This raises the spectre of another underlying intent – the protection of Israel.

Well Russian missiles wouldn't fly over the Atlantic for a start! But the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic (or Fylingdales for that matter) do not house interceptors, they are radar bases for detection. I guess the closer they are to the launch site the easier it is to detect a missile in its boost phase. But I agree that it would be odd to site interceptors in Turkey because they are designed to intercept missiles in the mid-course phase, but as Turkey shares a border with Iran I'd probably say these missiles would still be in the boost phase and out of range when they were in their mid-course phase from interceptors based in Turkey. The articles posted seemed a bit ambiguous over whether or not the Turkish site would house interceptors or radar bases but imo interceptors would be a bit pointless (not that I don't think the entire BMD shield is pointless in the first place!)

quote:

Iran realistically has no motive for attacking Europe or the continental US; such a move would be suicide. However an attack on Israel is much more likely & Israel’s counter would have to be balanced, it can’t level Iran as it would unleash a pogrom to rival The Holocaust. Therefore it could be deduced that America is building the shield in effect to guarantee Israeli security.

It's a reasonable argument. The line between American security interests and Israeli security interests has become so blurred that the two are almost identical. There are a few problems you might want to think about while talking specifically about Turkey - one, Turkey isn't geographically placed between Israel and Iran; two, if it were to protect Israel, why not just build the site actually in Israel?; three, the BMD shield, as far as what is being mooted for Turkey, is designed to defend against strategic missiles, not tactical missiels, the distance between Iran and Israel would mean tactical missiles would tend to be used (also I'm not too sure Iran, as of yet, even has any strategic missles!); four, Israel and America have already a joint tactical missile defence programme currently in operation in Israel - the Arrow Defence System (why would they need further defences based in Turkey?)

quote:

In any case the ring fencing of Russia and regional powers (Iran) threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of forces that has kept these bellicose protagonists at bay. When juxtaposed with the emerging energy crisis and global economic slowdown, America’s final gambit at maintaining its global hegemony risks pushing the world into a new Cold War.

I think what you hit on here is the key point. These systems, imo, are not intended to target the big boys of the world. They are designed to target the rogue states it will be necessary in the future to control (energy etc). As technology advances, these rogue states will have access to weaponary (long range ballistic missiles) that might be able to strike America and that would severly hamper American efforts to extert influence over them, for example, would the Iran war have happened should Saddam have had missiles capable of reaching New York?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ... would the Iran war have happened should Saddam have had missiles capable of reaching New York?

I hope you mean Iraq!

I disagree that nukes wouldn’t go over the Atlantic; if you want to hit NYC the quickest way is the Atlantic. You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory.

My Israel hypothesis was a thought I came up with while I wrote my last post. As you said, it’s a reasonable assumption but doesn’t follow usual logic. Much about the BMD doesn’t make sense. To an extent I do think it is just a component of the corrupt military-industrial complex, an excuse to destroy the products of human labour in the name of securing “freedom”. I’m not too sure of the monies involved or the contractors but whoever it is has a guaranteed revenue stream of billions of dollars for the next decade at least. Bush’s cronyism knows no limits, I doubt even Eisenhower could have envisaged the extent to which the military-industrial complex has destroyed American democracy.

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy I hope you mean Iraq!

Yep!

quote:

I disagree that nukes wouldn’t go over the Atlantic; if you want to hit NYC the quickest way is the Atlantic.

I said Russian nukes wouldn't go over the Atlantic - they would be fired over the Arctic to strike all locations in America. "Iranian nukes" would clip the arse end of Greenland and hence the very northern most part of the Atlantic Ocean.

quote:

You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory.

Don't think I've ever made this claim have I?

quote:

My Israel hypothesis was a thought I came up with while I wrote my last post. As you said, it’s a reasonable assumption but doesn’t follow usual logic. Much about the BMD doesn’t make sense. To an extent I do think it is just a component of the corrupt military-industrial complex, an excuse to destroy the products of human labour in the name of securing “freedom”. I’m not too sure of the monies involved or the contractors but whoever it is has a guaranteed revenue stream of billions of dollars for the next decade at least. Bush’s cronyism knows no limits, I doubt even Eisenhower could have envisaged the extent to which the military-industrial complex has destroyed American democracy.

This is probably very true

So I see Magnetonium is still beating this dead horse? The US missile defense system is not a threat to Russia and will never be in its current form.

1. It is not in proper position to defend against Russian nuclear launches against the mainland US

2. The system is nowhere near 100% successful at intercepting a SINGLE missile much less a massive launch of thousands of missiles from Russia

3. The US does not have enough interceptors to even put a small dent in a full scale Russian nuclear launch

And it is amusing that the pot is calling the kettle black here, don't forget Russia has had a functioning ABM system around Moscow for decades now.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't think I've ever made this claim have I?

Sorry think I misread what you wrote here

quote:

You also have the added bonus that there is relatively little chance of intercepting it over the ocean when compared to travelling over three thousand miles of BMD enforced territory

I think there would be more chance of detecting, tracking and intercepting a missile fired from Russia over the Atlantic rather than the Arctic (the shortest distance) simply because of the extra amount of time it would spend in the sky (don't know the exact distance but were talking around double the distance/time)

Also, don't forget that a major component of the BMD shield is the sea based Aegis defence system which will track and intercept mid-course ballistic missiles, so whether the missiles were fired over land or sea wouldn't make a difference

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Russia currently has 7,200 operational warheads and a further 8,800 in reserve (link) America has, or will do, exactly as you describe above for the countries you mentioned, but we aren't talking about those countries are we? Yes, like Iran's ballistic missiles 7,200 is not a "few" Please read what me and Lover Boy were saying about the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike against Russia (a successful first strike would mean Russia would not be able to retaliate) - Russia's submarine based nuclear arsenal pretty much eliminates the possibility of being able to mount a successful first strike Lol! Where do you think Russian missiles would fly on their way to America?! They gonna take the scenic route over Turkey then buy a cheap beer in Prague?! The shortest distance between American territory and Russian territory is 3 miles, and that is nowhere near Turkey or Eastern Europe - any BMD components that are designed to target Russian missiles would be based on American soil and nowhere else - these European bases are designed to target only missiles fired from the Middle East region

That article is ballony. 12 SUBS??? That globalsecurity.org article alone crashes that point - most of Russian subs are rusting away. And the ones that do patrol, these can ill-afford to be armed with real nuclear missiles due to various problems, like that of Kursk ...

Russian missiles dont have to take scenic route over Turkey. Lover Boy explained it in detail for me already as to who what and why these interceptors are being developed for. Russia has no interest in sending initial attack on USA or NATO and its allies. So far it seems vice versa, culminating in American announcement of developing weapons in space.

7,200 nuclear warheads mean nothing if they're just sitting locked away in warehouses. Because thats what most of them are - up until recently Russian military was so cash-strapped they couldn't even afford to do regular maintenance on them. When accidents, failures and problems in the Russian military will stop being an everyday media event in Russia, then I'll believe that their strategic forces are actually in full force and protecting the country ready to send a retaliatory blow in case of an attack.

Besides, building these interceptor missile sites around Russia can one day result in a war. Why? One day one of these rogue states might launch a long-range missile, and then Russia might panic and send an attack if it sees one of the missiles (interceptor ones) going into its direction. I remember the famous 1995 incident when Yeltsin almost pushed the nuclear button when Norway launched some kind of missile or whatever it was.

USA should save itself some problems and build missile defense around its continent, not around Russia. And also, Israel already is developing missile defense - a very expensive and sophisticated program which I read about 3 years ago.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture