28 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhere has all the common sense gone? If we wanted to attack Russia with rockets, we could do that from South Dakota. We don't need Eastern Europe at all for that.
If I listened and read correctly, what he is so pissed off at is that we invited him to join in an anti-rocket missle system. But truth to tell, i didn't pay much attention to it.
To hear the world bash the US though, you would think we were installing mirved rockets tomorrow. lol
Silly world we live in. But with naught but the bbc spewing news in ...[text shortened]... a growed up person cry. Almost.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=98&id=484592007
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by SeitsePutin is a very dangerous man.
Oh freakin'A! For crying out loud people, this thread is for discussing
that nutcase of Putin and how dangerous the freakin Russia is for all...
[b]NOT for the Eurotrash sweage rat, bitter underemployed of
shavixmig to spit his usual, obsolete & uncreative anti-american propaganda.[/b]
But, have we not learned anything from history? The U.S. have already shown that they will do anything and everything (illegal invasions, torture, kidnapping, political assassinations, sponsorship of death squads) to keep oil flowing. Putin is using the fact that he controls Europe's oil to keep us and countries like the Ukraine in toe (tow? ). If the U.S. put their missiles and spy stations on the Russian border, then he loses some of that power, which he cannot allow to happen.
It's also a clever move by the U.S. The theory of mutual destruction only works if the nukes are only in both countries. If Russia has to concentrating on taking out silos in Czech Rep and Poland first, then they are at a disadvantage.
As an aside, what do you think the U.S. reaction would be if Russia placed similar "defensive" installments on Cuba or in Latin America?
Apart from Global Warming, these types of nutcases are the reasons we should try to switch to sustainable power sources asap. Why do we choose to live at the whims of power hungry psychopaths like Bush, Putin and the Saudis?
D
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkRussia is in a better economic postion than ever.
And Russia is not in an economic position to follow suit. The last space race worked out well for us, and if they want another one, it'll work out well for us again.
The arms race cost the US a fortune and meant that it had to do deals with tyrants all over the world. The cold war was a disaster for global politics.
One of the side effects of Idiot Bush's cowboy politics is to heighten tensions and polarise opinion. Unfortunately Putin has more allies than he should.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkShort range is needed for first strike capability. Thats why USA got so upset about Cuba.
Where has all the common sense gone? If we wanted to attack Russia with rockets, we could do that from South Dakota. We don't need Eastern Europe at all for that.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by RagnorakBad theory. MAD still applies if we put the planned interceptors in eastern Europe. Russia would not have to rely on taking out the interceptors first. 10 interceptors are worthless against a fleet of 8000+ ICBMs.
Putin is a very dangerous man.
But, have we not learned anything from history? The U.S. have already shown that they will do anything and everything (illegal invasions, torture, kidnapping, political assassinations, sponsorship of death squads) to keep oil flowing. Putin is using the fact that he controls Europe's oil to keep us and countries like the ...[text shortened]... hoose to live at the whims of power hungry psychopaths like Bush, Putin and the Saudis?
D
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilWell, you're kind of right, except, these interceptors are not first strike weapons so that arguement really isn't valid.
Short range is needed for first strike capability. Thats why USA got so upset about Cuba.
The other thing is, we have 14 Ohio class boomers to handle a first strike.
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkI take your point about the interceptors as you made it in previous posts.
Well, you're kind of right, except, these interceptors are not first strike weapons so that arguement really isn't valid.
The other thing is, we have 14 Ohio class boomers to handle a first strike.
But this post was valid as it was replying to your point that attacking from south Dakota was just as good as attacking short range.
You seem to ignore all the dangers of esculating an arms race as well as the huge negative economic consequences.