Posted on 05/10/2009 12:23:59 PM PDT by pobeda1945
MOSCOW, May 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will link U.S. plans for a missile shield in Europe with the issues of strategic offensive armaments in relations with the United States, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Sunday.
"One needn't be an expert to understand: if one party wants or would have an umbrella against all kinds of threats, this party would develop an illusion that it is allowed to do anything and then the aggressiveness of its actions will increase numerously, and the threat of global confrontation will reach a very dangerous level," Putin said in an interview with Japanese media on the eve of his visit to Japan.
Moscow has been at loggerheads with Washington over plans to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe. The United States has signed agreements with the Czech Republic on hosting a radar station and with Poland on the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles by 2013.
Russia says the missile shield would be a threat to its national security while the United States has argued it is necessary to guard against the threat of missile attacks from states such as Iran.
Considering that the current nuclear arms reduction treaty expires this year, Moscow is ready to return to this issue and agree on a new pact, Putin said.
Russia's Foreign Ministry earlier said that the first round of negotiations between Russia and the U.S. on a new nuclear arms reduction treaty would be held in Moscow on May 18-20.
The Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1), signed in 1991, obliges Russia and the U.S. to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and their delivery vehicles to 1,600 each. The treaty expires on December 5 this year.
In 2002, a follow-up agreement on strategic offensive arms reduction was concluded in Moscow. The agreement, known as the Moscow Treaty, envisioned cuts to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 2012.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama agreed during their London meeting in early April on an immediate start to talks on a new strategic arms reduction treaty.
Russia and the United States possess 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.
Moscow, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement with Washington in 2005, expects the United States to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles.
Moscow also insists on the effective use of control mechanisms and procedures, "which the previous administration ignored categorically," according to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Putin knows that Obama will cave.
But if the one party (the United States) has no reason and has never had a reason to be overly aggressive and if the other party (Russia) which has a history of aggression, (take your pick, Georgia recently) then the missile shield without preconditions is a very good and justified idea.
And Obama would buy it.
“But if the one party (the United States) has no reason and has never had a reason to be overly aggressive”
Gaiana, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Laos, Nikaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan,
Perhaps I should have said, unnecessarily aggressive.
I believe the Russians are "sane and rational" by our standards. We may disagree on ideology - they're capitalist and we're headed towards socialism ;-) but by and large, they can be counted on to look after their own best interests. They are rational enough to see that a nuclear exchange of any size is not in their best interests.
What I am absolutely opposed to is any limits on our missile defense efforts. The Russians may be rational opponets, but not everyone out there with nuclear technology or aspiring towards nuclear and missile technologies are rational by our standards. With these people Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) does not and will not work. Just look at Al-Qeada. They attacked us with such violence that we had to respond. They had to know we'd come after them. They had to know we had the military might to crush them. They attacked anyway - basically suicide by US Military.
The same thing can, and will occur with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. It is only a matter of time. That is why we absolutely need a viable missile defense program. Fortunately, former Presidents Reagan and Bush saw to it that we took steps towards that goal. We have a limited defensive capability now. We must grow that capability in depth and breadth - or suffer an attack that will make 9/11 look like a minor fender-bender.
Picture tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands sick and injured. An entire city and surrounding region poisoned and uninhabitable for decades. That is a possibility from a single warhead getting through. Given the recent focus on nuclear and missile technologies by some states and organizations that are "less than rational" by our standards, reducing, curtailing, or impeding missile defense is a criminally reckless act for any leader to contemplate. I honestly think it ought to be considered grounds for impeachment if obama goes through with cuts to missile defense. That can only be seen as offering aid to our enemies and placing millions of US lives at risk.
As for the Russians:
Russia says the missile shield would be a threat to its national security...
That is pure political posturing unfounded in scientific fact. Anyone with a globe, a piece of string, and even a rudimentary knowledge of missiles can see that. A ballistic missile fired out of Russia towards the US travels basically north, over the pole and then south to the US. Pick any likely Russian missile launch points (you can probably google for some missile fields), and any likely US targets. Stretch the string across the globe from launcher to target, and you have a fair approximation of the ground track of the weapon.
Now look at the proposed missile defense interceptor site in Europe. Picture a missile launched from there trying to meet one from Russia. In almost all cases it results in a "tail chase" intercept - a very unfavorable geometry for an intercept. The Russians know this, their scientists and engineers have no-doubt briefed their leadership. They know the intercepts would be in many/most cases a physical impossibility. They can also "count rifles" or in this case missiles. A couple of dozen interceptors are just about zero threat (even if they could hit them) to the 700+ ICBMs Russia has (I googled that a while back, I think that is still a good number).
So yes, I think we should mutually cut back to a sane (and less expensive) total number of systems. But we should not compromise at all on missile defense. We are going to need it, and when we need it, we will need it bad.
Putin is going to completely cornhole Obama and Big boy O won’t even see it coming.
Russia has 100 interceptors around Moscow, NOT counting the SA-10/20 systems which many account with an ABM potential, especially with their optional nuclear warheads. The latter system was deployed IN VIOLATION of the ABM treaty that the left has howled so loudly about when W Bush withdrew from, wisely it would seem. William T. Lee, a CIA analyst disagreed with McMamara on a lot of things including ABM capabilities of Soviet/Russian SAM’s in his book The ABM Treaty Charade; A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion. It is a scary book, and Lee is quoted in later works;
“Looking at Russia today, William Lee points out, “The Russians realize strategic nuclear forces are the only military counter to the U.S. that they can afford. Like the Soviets, the Russians understand that the side with both strategic offensive and defensive forces has a great advantage over the side relying solely on offensive weapons. They also understand that advantage multiplies as offensive arsenals are reduced by START agreements. That’s why the Soviets built strategic defenses to the limits of the ABM Treaty and beyond.”
What is unclear for today is whether at the end of the Cold War the Russians abandoned the earlier Soviet strategy of nuclear superiority or whether they adopted the same policy of mutually assured destruction held by the United States. The Russians continue to build huge, deep underground nuclear command and control facilities near the Ural mountains, suggesting continuity with Soviet doctrine. In any case, such uncertainty calls into question a U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy based on mutually assured destruction. MAD’s shortcomings are even more obvious with regard to China, North Korea, and the rogue states”.
http://www.missilethreat.com/treaties/pageID.201/default.asp
Yes, we are no longer afraid of impotent Russia's pathetic "threats," and this upsets stupid evil Putin very much. Yes, our actions are no longer constrained by the threats of the defeated and humiliated EVIL EMPIRE. Yes, we shall spread freedom all over the world and there is nothing the unrepentant Chekists in the Kremlin can do about it. Not even Obama can save you now.
Judging by the destruction of US puppet Georgia last summer, it seems to me that it is Russia that is not afraid.
War is merely politics carried out by other means. The Chekist Putin can't remove America's ally through politics so he attempted to do so by force. He failed to achieve his objective and so the whole invasion was therefore a failure.
If you think that Russia's action prove their bravery, then you have severely misjudged them. Russia's action are all due to their paranoid fear of encirclement, their schizophrenic delusions that everyone is out to get them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.