 Login
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Should US press to place missiles in Poland?Poland is a member of NATO
Poland is a member of NATO and a member of the EU. 
Quote: The Russian reaction
[quote] The Russian reaction is expected. It is similar to that of the US when Russia put missiles in Cuba. War was avoided because Russia withdrew its missiles. [/quote] Well, that's a stretch of logic. The Russian missiles in Cuba were nuclear missiles. The missiles in Poland are a Patriot missile battery--an aircraft/missile interceptor without offensive capability. Russia is sabre rattling and that's to be expected. No stretch of logic at all.
No stretch of logic at all. The missiles based in Cuba had no real strategic significance. It was pure posturing on both sides. The same applies now. Mike is wrong to say that missile protection is not offensive. Don't believe the baloney about deflecting an Iranian attack. The Iranians are as likely to launch a ballistic attack on America as the Rumanian rugby team is to beat the All Blacks. It's purpose is to make a first strike possible without retaliation. However, they would only be able to stop a token number of missiles and so there would be no point. What's more, they probably wouldn't work anyway. The Russians know this as well as the Americans. The Americans want to put the missiles in Poland in order to show that they can. The Russians are mad about it because it demonstrates their inability to stop it. Same as it ever was. 
 You know things are getting
You know things are getting bizarre and that the neocons are truly offensive when Pat Buchanon sounds like a voice of reason. [quote]American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush. True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"? Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi? Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing? When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away? Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?[/quote] Worth reading HERE
Whatever the rhetoric,
Whatever the rhetoric, there is no real fear of a serious threat to Russia from the anti-missile defence system in Poland. It is also really debatable that is worth the huge expense but there is no doubt some dubious justification with a few companies benefitting from the investment. There is also some that see a political gain from further humiliating the old enemy. Putin must have been advised that the military threat to them is minimal but chooses to make it into a big issue. The 10 or so missile installation is exactly what it is supposed to be: a defence if Iran launches ballistic missiles at the USA. It would hardly have much impact on the several hundred missiles possessed by Russia and it is not an offensive system. There are other parts of the missile defence system (In Alaska for example) that would be more able to intercept Russian missiles but the Russians can't do much about those anyway. They could argue that the associated radar system could be used as a useful tool in the event of a dispute with Russia and therefore is a strengthening of a US hand in any diplomacy poker game, but this is a minor point; such a system could be employed quietly and without the fuss associated with ABM systems. The Russians are upset that these have been installed in a country that they previously controlled and Putin has made the most of this for his own political gain. I posted this as part of a comment on the Georgian crisis in the "Conflicts" section. But as it has been raised here...
The Patriots pose
The Patriots pose no threat to Russia, offensively or defensively. According to news reports the Patriot Missle lacks the capability of shooting down Russian intecontinental missles and the Russians know it. The small number of proposed batteries in Poland means exactly what they are slated for, to knock down the small number of inferior missles the Iranians are capable of launching for the foreseeable future. Objections to the Patriot by the Russian leadership are not military, but political. They want to create a new fear of the West among the Russian people. They are trying to create it out of thin air. Efforts to spread the same fear when US trainers were in the Ukraine failed to ignite concern. The real question is not whether the US should protect Europe from possible Iranian attack, but whether the Iranians should continue their reckless nuclear program which brought on this reacation. They have plenty of peaceful alternatives.
The Iranians do not and are
The Iranians do not and are never likely to have the wherewithal to launch a first strike against the US. Even if they were able to they would be extremely unlikely to risk total obliteration by doing so. What's more the Patriots would be very unlikely to work. Here's an interesting article about their little brother's effectiveness in the Gulf War: http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html [quote]The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." [/quote] (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992) The posturing is on both sides. These missiles are meant to do nothing more than threaten and embarrass the Russians.
Poland is a member of NATO
Poland is a member of NATO and the EU. Russia should stop its bully boy tactics and grow up. However, the West should take note of Russia's attitude of late. She is as dangerous as she was in the Cold War. Moscow must be made to see that her recent actions are unacceptable and she must be made to pay, and pay dearly for her actions.
Quote:Moscow must be made to
[quote]Moscow must be made to see that her recent actions are unacceptable and she must be made to pay, and pay dearly for her actions.[/quote] That's a nice bit of hawkish rhetoric if ever I have seen it. How, pray tell, could NATO "make Russia pay"? Perhaps a dialogue with Russia to determine what steps might be taken to allay their fears and concerns might work just as well as empty threats. The Russians seem quite clear that they believe the only missiles that can be defended by the anti-ballistic missile installation in Poland is theirs, which changes 40 odd years of established military 'balance' in the region. Even a small change in this balance is obviously of concern to the Russian Federation.
BC;
An Iranian First
BC; An Iranian First Strike At The US? Hardly. The purpose of the Patriots in Poland will be to protect Western Europe and England (including you) in the event some crazy mullahs decide to fire. The Effectiveness Of The Patriots In The First Gulf War? For a comparison on effectiveness, during WWII Germany amassed almost 1 million men to man 100,000 anti-aircraft guns to defend against Allied bombing. It took 12,000 shells from those guns to knock down one bomber. There was some speculation about the effectiveness of the Patriots after the First Gulf War; but If it took ten Patriots to knock down one incoming missle, all you had to do was fire ten Patriots. capisce? The Patriots are even better today. Quote:The purpose of the
[quote]The purpose of the Patriots in Poland will be to protect Western Europe and England (including you) in the event some crazy mullahs decide to fire. [/quote] You still haven't explained why they should do this, or how. I don't live in England by the way.
link
Quote:Rice confirmed
[quote]Rice confirmed she would travel from the meeting in Brussels to Warsaw to ink the deal on installing US interceptor missiles on Polish territory, a move sure to further inflame tensions with Russia... We are going to help rebuild Georgia into a strong Georgian state," Rice told Fox News Sunday. "The Russians will have failed in their effort to undermine Georgia. And we will be looking at what we can do with the states around that region as well."[/quote] That won't cost a thing! The missile defense will pay for itself. We're the good guys so if any country feels threatened by the efforts of our government to inflame tensions in the world and acts to protect their interests by trying to stop the spread of ours: good. It will show those sissy anti war Americans how our enemies are dangerous and that will justify further military action or at least warrant another round of inflaming tensions somewhere in the world. Its a let the chips fall where they may approach to global security. How very conservative.
The Russian Army marching
The Russian Army marching into Georgia might not seem any big deal to you, but it is a very dangerous act. One is not really surprised to see all those on OD who spout off at the USA at every verse end have nothing at all to say about Russian aggression. Russian might seem to be winning, but in the end she will lose the war just as surely as she lost the cold war. The tide of history and of the 21st century is against her just as surely as it is against the grand delusions of the Fascist Left.
Quote: We're the good
[quote] We're the good guys so if any country feels threatened by the efforts of our government to inflame tensions in the world and acts to protect their interests by trying to stop the spread of ours: good. It will show those sissy anti war Americans how our enemies are dangerous...[/quote] See? I knew you'd come around eventually.
Quote: As Foreign Minister
[quote] As Foreign Minister Lavrov put it last week, the United States will eventually have to choose between its “virtual project” in Georgia and a “real partnership” with Russia “on issues that really demand collective action.” That kind of partnership will require the United States to do something it has been unwilling to do since the end of the Cold War—prioritize its foreign policy objectives. Simply put, America’s promotion of a dubious “democratic” movement in Georgia—or in other ethnically divided and unstable post-Soviet states—is not as important to Western interests as working with Russia on the most significant energy, economic, and international security challenges of our time. [/quote] |
|
|
Russia has consistently opposed the placement of missiles in Poland as part of what the US touts as an anti-balistic defense system. Despite this, there is a push to proceed. Since the Geogian conflict the Polish President has renewed his commitment to allow the placement of missiles in Poland.
The Russian reaction is expected. It is similar to that of the US when Russia put missiles in Cuba. War was avoided because Russia withdrew its missiles.
According to Pravda: "The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia warns Poland that it may become a priority target for Russia in the event the USA deploys elements of its missile defense system on the territory of this East European nation. To put it in a nutshell, Russia may strike a nuclear blow on Poland, which is possible after the recent change of the Russian Federation defense doctrine."
See more: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/15-08-2008/106113-russia_poland-0
Is the reaction to Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia a message to Poland and the US?
D. Lindley Young