Russian General Threatens Arms Race, Again
- Thread starter faheem
- Start date
Last I checked technically the US and the state of Iran COULD be in a theoretical state of war since 1979, the seizing of the US embassy and its personnel would cause that. Therefore the onus of responsibility for that threat would be on Iran first. Doesn't help that their current president who's been spouting threats of destroying Israel and the US was one of the guys involved in the embassy seizure either.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I agree with what you have said. To be fair though, i heard that after 9/11 the Iranian government co operated with the CIA by giving them information on several al quieda operatives (thats not a fact its just what i heard), and that this did lead to arrests. And it was george bush who named Iran as part of the "axis of evil". So i can understand the Iranian government getting defencive. But having said that there is no way we can allow Iran to obtain a nuclear arsenal with decent delivery systems.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/
http://www.eisenhowerseries.com/pdfs/terrorism_06/final/final_2006_09-14.pdf
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5956
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1993/6044087-6046949.htm
I was at this "tear gas meeting" in DC. No, I was on the other side of the fence in the crowd, fighting for my life. I already told this story here , about how I ended up in DC that day, but I'll say this. We were in the crowd of peaceful Shah supporters when we saw thousands of masked students charging across the parkway carrying big sticks. They waded into our crowd and started beating people without mercy, and I'm talking woman and kids here.
I was on crutches that day and I gave one crutch to a buddy and started swinging the other one. We saved some kids these clowns were beating on with their big heavy sticks. The only thing that saved us, the army wouldn't leave the WhiteHouse, was about 20 DC park police on horseback. The horses went crazy against the demonstrators. All the coppers could do was hang on while the pissed off horses stomped, kicked, bit, and ran down the rioters. It was actually kinda funny.
There is a long, long history of Iran supporting terrorism. They were directly involved with the Khobar towers bombing and the Beirut marines barracks bombing. The only reason the Iranians ha vent supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban is because they consider these two groups to be hostile to them as well, being Persian and all.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/lifting_veil_life_revolutionary_iran.php
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Iran is just an example or a symbol of what drives the US NMD in Europe. Iran is an example of a nation that is likely to go nuclear in the medium term. When that happens a number of states in the region is likely to follow suit. Thus the issue is not only related to Iran and the threat hyping effect that has.
To discuss if Iran is or is not a threat is a strawman, as this is not the core issue. It is of course, interconnected with the other agendas at play:
To discuss if Iran is or is not a threat is a strawman, as this is not the core issue. It is of course, interconnected with the other agendas at play:
- Dissuasion. BM defence reduces or negates the value of small nuclear arsenals in the 50-200 warheads category. Nuclear weapons loses attractiveness as the cost-benefit calculation both politically in peacetime and in warfighting is greatly affected. It impacts on proliferation.
- US security relevance to Europe. In order to still have a relevance and a say in Euro affairs, the US has to deliver something the Europeans cannot provide for themselves.
- Consolidation and freedom of choice of options. Enhances the strategic and political maneuver space of both Europe and the US as no one can hold Europe at risk/hostage for the purpose of affecting US policies. Consolidation of Eastern European entry into NATO.
Well said GD.
Is it a safe conclusion to draw that it is continuing european military weakness as much the threat from the middle east that is driving US NMD. Or am I just being eurocentric
In the short term Iran is the focus of the NMD system in Europe, in the longer term this system could have a serious effect on Russia deterrent. And possibly its ablity to act in a convential confiict in the event of the fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
With the current state of its conventional military, Russia, if its deterent is degraded enough, could find itself the victim of foreigin intervention in its border regions.
Then again enhanced targeting packages on BMs negates the value of ABMs. I'm talking MIRVed warhead buses capable of pre-programed changes in course. Also on the table are other masking techniques, such as dummy warheads, window....ect. Another fly in the ointment is stealthy cruise missiles.
As a psychological tool nuclear weapons are peerless. The evolution of Israels arsenal is what, in large part, brought peace and stability to it. Forcing their enemies to supporting asymmetrical/terror warfare against her instead attack by organized armies. Sometimes in the '70s the Arabs simply became terrified of Israelis nukes. The Yom Kippur war itself was a last ditch attempt to destroy Israel before its arsenal became to large.
Then, with her initial forces over-run, the Israelis leak it out that they have assembled a dozen nukes and is considering using them. This announcement forced Americas hand and thus a huge Yank resupply of Israels conventional arsenal started, and has never really stopped. The leverage these nukes gave Israel was, Im sure, noticed by her other neighbors in the region.
The fact is a Israel type nuclear capability would give all kinds of leverage to the Iranians. No doubt they also noticed what happened to Pakistan, India, and North Korea. While initially treated as pariahs, and economic sanctions put on them, both Pakistan and India have been accepted as members of "The Club" and have garnered a lot of prestige and security from their nuke programs. North Korea has used "its" program to leverage and shake down its richer neighbors and even the USA.
And the UN has showed what a true gelding it is with its watered down, meaningless sanctions against Iran. So really? If I were an Iranian I would continue with the program too.
Iran might, all on its own, keep NATO viable and prevent our Euro-allies from straying to much. The reason? Our nuclear umbrella of course. ABM systems might limit the damage from a concerted BM attack but I dont think it can prevent one 100%. The biggest deterrent to such an attack would be the power of Americas strategic arsenal and the surety any enemy who tried such a move would be punished in the most horrible way.
So yes, the new ABM structure in Europe, especially east Europe, not only strengthens NATO but also has some leverage power against the Russians. Who really dont want to see a high technology ABM mechanism in Europe. This reality might give the Russians reason to join in the INTL pressure against Iran.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Russia_US_missile_shield160011358.phpA deployment would take days - don't play word games, focus on substance, you know what I said. Seizing on me not typing out entire novels to explain and take every insignificant caveat into account does not further anything. Substance.
Also, that it is a distant possibility does not support your absurd "US attack/invasion/submission of Russia" case as you fail the reality check on the prerequisistes of a deployment.
Sorry, but no cigar.
To the practical and technical stuff. Why do that at all, when the US has 3,000 nukes that take 15-20 min to get there and bombers that can fly directly to Russia from CONUS via more relevant flight paths?
They don't need those bases and that basing. The routes from Euro bases are unfavourable, and longer for deepstrike. The bombers would also be more vulnerable en route and on their basing.
The only purpose would be to send the political statement that Russia shouldn't attack Europe in a time of crisis. And that if Russia attacks Europe, the US will get involved. To take this further, and perhaps most importantly, I note that there are none based in Europe now.
The posture is not there!
Here is a link calculating distances of the great-circle. The great-circle is the shortest distance to travel.
http://www.acscdg.com/
The B2's are stationed in Whiteman AFB, 65 miles southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. You can type in Kansas City or Whiteman AFB and it will take you there for a starting point.
Here is an reasonable description of the layout of Russian ICBM bases.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/icbm_fac.htm
Try it out, from Whiteman AFB to the Russian nuke installations, with and without a waypoint in Europe. Btw, notice who the Russian missiles are actually facing.
It should now become apparent why the B2's are stationed in Missouri.
Also, the northern coast of Russia is difficult to defend, easier to penetrate for the B2. This is contrasted by the heavily defended airspace facing Europe.
Shorter in time and distance and tactically/strategically more lucrative to go the polar route.
The Russian ICBM take the same route. A Europe based NMD has no chance of intercepting a Russian ICBM on its way to the US. In rough terms the ICBM will have to be headed towards Europe to enter the GBI engagement footprint.
Physics and geography.
US doesn't have to place nukes in Europe. Europe already have 2 nuclear states that's close allies to US. France (maybe not so close) and Britain (pretty much client state of USA LOL). The missile shield is for them, as a strategic check against Russians. The US does not have to directly attack Russia in the event of war, the russians have to deal with France and Britain's nuclear attack first if this is a nuclear war. By placing missile shield there, it gives the NATO a first strike option and minimise the damage from retaliatory strikes from Russia.
And those ten missiles are going to be europes defense against some thousand russian warheads in a nuclear war?
This is for sure not a first strike option for europe/NATO.
BTW, the US still have nukes stationed in europe which are also going to be delivered by other NATO countries in case of war.
This is for sure not a first strike option for europe/NATO.
BTW, the US still have nukes stationed in europe which are also going to be delivered by other NATO countries in case of war.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you read that article, you'll notice the Russian General uses a simple psychological grip.
He cries foul foul play and deception. As if Russia is being decieved and somebody has been going behind its back. That it has been slighted.
Basically, he is presenting Russia as a victim.
You should be too clever to fall for such a trick.
Russia was told what this is about all the way. Russian nationalists are just unhappy that it does not control its client states anymore, cannot veto (because it is not their prerogative), and they're also showing that tint of paranoia permeating the Russian psyche.
That everybody is out to get them.
Now, I showed you how that US posture in Europe has been altered, reflecting detente. Just like every other nation in Europe has no threatening posture towards Russia. You do not care for this. Rather you come up with this impossibly absurd first strike theory.
And if a conventional war should ever break out, it would not be on account of the Europeans attacking. And Europe is perfectly capable of handling a conventional war with Russia. In such a case, the BMD would be even more warranted and legitimate.
You totally fail to provide a plausible reason to why UK or France would do such a thing. Particularily as the posture is not there!
The Russians, as I've already argued, do not have the clout to take on neither Europe nor US in an arms race. It is in their interest not to precipitate an arms race. That is an area where they do have the initiative.
Lastly, if you want to draw conclusions from Russian statements you should try to decode them. Who is talking; why; what is the argument; what are the tools being used to get the message across?
Apparently much is being taken by face value. I always enjoy reading statements from the Russian generals (and the Duma), as they're made to work perceptions and because they use the perception creation tools of the Soviet times on the audiences of the West. Poor spin.
My favourite so far is the BMEWS capability that was threatened to be installed in embassies in the West. The funny part was that it would never be able to detect any missile launch. The Western ballistic missiles are either out to sea or delivered by a method that such a system would not detect. Absolutely useless. It is also in breach of conventions surrounding embassies.
It was a lame attempt at intimidating Western populations, without having nothing to show and losing credibility at the same time. Actually, it was such a piece of crap, that they had to publicly renounce it soon afterwards. Read on:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...sile_Radars_In_Russian_Embassies160011073.php
Now, these kind of statements are about preaching to the choir and herding the sheep.
You need to apply reasoning, moderation and context in order to figure out what is being said.
Only sheep would accept these statements at face value. They're meant to work perceptions. And as the arguments themselves are being debunked, there are only irrational threats and "concerns" left.
Cheers
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Forgot to answer this one.
They will get bypassed. This is what is going on.
And trying to create a vacuum is an illusion.
NATO won't get into Russia.
And the main effect it has on the wider world, like Iran, is to dissuade development of nuclear weapons, as their value is severely degraded and they are still horribly expensive. Makes the 'developing nuclear weapons cost-benefit calc' go into red.
It is primarily a political tool.
To be more accurate I would call it political weakness. The military weakness follows from this. However, it is an illusion to think that a BMD vacuum can be maintained. Thus the European politicians fail and let the Americans in. A BMD is a natural part of a military if you wish to assure allies. If Europeans cannot provide this assurance - then the US will. A Germany, France, UK, etc, who do not provide the full security package, including BMD, for the Eastern allies do not have the credibility.Well said GD.
Is it a safe conclusion to draw that it is continuing european military weakness as much the threat from the middle east that is driving US NMD. Or am I just being eurocentric
They will get bypassed. This is what is going on.
And trying to create a vacuum is an illusion.
I see no reason for intervention. Too many 'ifs'. If Europe is protected from nuclear madness from Russia in case of a breakup - that's just good.
NATO won't get into Russia.
And the main effect it has on the wider world, like Iran, is to dissuade development of nuclear weapons, as their value is severely degraded and they are still horribly expensive. Makes the 'developing nuclear weapons cost-benefit calc' go into red.
It is primarily a political tool.
You've hit the nail right on the head. Isolation means they have less to lose, and more to gain, from getting the bomb. Even if they don't get the bomb soon, they NEED the west to make a fuss over it, why? Their economy is in such disarray that they need their string of foreign policy sucesses to distract the public.
Schumacher
New Member
I disagree where NK, India, Pakistan has got today is due mainly to their nukes.
India has got nuke for a long time but it only quite recently became accepted as a part of 'The Club' due to its usefulness as counterweight to China. As for NK, the fact that it's managed to milk as much as it has from the situation there has more to do with China & SK not wanting to be too tough on it rather than its nuke program.
I read this 10 times in a row and still cant figure out what it means. Maybe someone can translate.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
NATO Allies Back US Missile System
(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued April 19, 2007)
NATO allies have given their backing to controversial US plans to set up a missile defence system in eastern Europe. At a meeting in Brussels, NATO member states also agreed that any future NATO missile shield should complement the US system to ensure that all of Europe was covered.
However, Russia's government remains opposed to the idea of having a strategic US defence system on its doorstep, and has even accused Washington of targeting Russia.
The US insists that installing the system in Poland and the Czech Republic will not pose a threat to Moscow and can be used to shelter parts of Europe from any missiles launched from the Middle East.
link
(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued April 19, 2007)
NATO allies have given their backing to controversial US plans to set up a missile defence system in eastern Europe. At a meeting in Brussels, NATO member states also agreed that any future NATO missile shield should complement the US system to ensure that all of Europe was covered.
However, Russia's government remains opposed to the idea of having a strategic US defence system on its doorstep, and has even accused Washington of targeting Russia.
The US insists that installing the system in Poland and the Czech Republic will not pose a threat to Moscow and can be used to shelter parts of Europe from any missiles launched from the Middle East.
link
Schumacher
New Member
No problem. Basically saying there's much more than just nukes, which I think is what you claimed in your previous post, that gave Pakistan, India & NK the 'status' they now have.