Meaningless threat. If Russia fires first, the defensive missile system will be overwhelmed anyway. It's not being designed for that.
If the US fires first, the Russians fear the missiles will be used to stop any of their remaining missing from getting through and, they argue, that possibility reduces their defensive deterrence. However, if the US fires first their new anti-missile anti-missile sites would be the first things to go up rendering them pointless.
Proper US response should be, "Fine with us if it makes you feel better." A dismissive response is both accurate and has the nice side benefit of reversing the domestic political gain the Russian leadership was trying for by treating that leadership as too weak to be capable of making a meaningful threat. The subtle message would be "Don't try to drag us into your domestic politics".
If Russia and the U.S. really want to fight they should wait for that day when many people are living in other planets and moons in the universe. Nobody wants the human species to become extinct by a stupid nuclear war.
Russia is going to have to get over it. They are no longer the "Soviet Union", instead they are a single nation and are stilled feared by those they once ruled by force and nearly starved to death. There own interest are better served by changing that image and joining the nations that oppose tyranny and violence as a form of government.
NO FEAR OF OBAMA, OR IS IT NO RESPECT FOR OBAMA? OR IS IT BOTH?
Wouldn't we think that we have the types of leaders in Russia and America that would be classified as intelligent and 'reachable' enough, to assure each side that any missile deployment is NOT intended or aimed at the other? And in this case of Euro-American defense, hasn't the message gotten across, that the subject missiles are deployed EXCLUSIVELY against the religiously-fanatic, APOCALYPTIC-MINDED, "MADMEN-GOING-NUCLEAR", who rule the current Iranian regime?
But then again, we have been cursed with anti-America Hussein Obama, whose weak, uncoordinated policies, vacillate from;
"appearing to protect America to accommodating, supporting, encouraging and REWARDING adversaries, enemies, hostile regimes (as Iran), religious extremists and others who seek to destroy us."
As the result of Obama's weak and failed policies, our adversaries and enemies, feel that they can operate against us with relative ease.
Replacing Obama with a REAL ABLE leader, whose policies are STRONG AND COORDINATED, would be very appropriate resolution to America's being cursed with an enemy foreign agent President, whose policies are NOT Pro-America, are NOT Pro-West, and continually lie in the best interests of our adversaries and enemies!
The attack on this country didn't happen on President Obama's watch. He did what the last administration would not or could not do. Can you be more specific about how Our President's policies are "not pro west"?
@ bilrobi1 as stated above:
Obama's... weak, uncoordinated policies, ... vacillate from:
"appearing to protect America to accommodating, supporting, encouraging and REWARDING adversaries, enemies, hostile regimes (as Iran), religious extremists and others who seek to destroy us."
They can't do that! Ronny Raygun bankrupted them remember. Someone better tell them as thought they might care. Thanks republicans for shipping US technology and manufacturing overseas. If you wanted to destroy a planet the republicans can show you how. BTW the Chinese now have the oil in Iraq.
I have to agree with those who say the US is right and Russia is wrong. The Russians and China have provided Iran with the tech they want to build nuclear weapons.
While I agree that Russia and China could be more cooperative re. Iran. Putting missiles in Eastern Europe however is kind of provocative. I remember well when Russia attempted to put missiles in Cuba and how we responded.
Quite a bit different in this case as these missiles are defensive only. What I am hearing out of this guy is that "we will not allow you to prevent us from nuking poland if we want to".
A common misperception by layman is that defensive weapons don't escalate and destabilize. The 1972 ABM treaty (which we have pretty much unilaterally violated under the pretext the Soviets no longer exist) understood such a situation.
If two people each had a sword they might not attack each other, but if one were given a shield this would be a decisive advantage and encourage an attack. The opponent would naturally look for a shield too, and if unobtainable would look for another sword.
We didn't violate the treaty. We invoked an escape clause that was in the treaty that allowed us to cancel the treaty with sufficient notification which we gave.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
If the US fires first, the Russians fear the missiles will be used to stop any of their remaining missing from getting through and, they argue, that possibility reduces their defensive deterrence. However, if the US fires first their new anti-missile anti-missile sites would be the first things to go up rendering them pointless.
Proper US response should be, "Fine with us if it makes you feel better." A dismissive response is both accurate and has the nice side benefit of reversing the domestic political gain the Russian leadership was trying for by treating that leadership as too weak to be capable of making a meaningful threat. The subtle message would be "Don't try to drag us into your domestic politics".
Wouldn't we think that we have the types of leaders in Russia and America that would be classified as intelligent and 'reachable' enough, to assure each side that any missile deployment is NOT intended or aimed at the other?
And in this case of Euro-American defense, hasn't the message gotten across, that the subject missiles are deployed EXCLUSIVELY against the religiously-fanatic, APOCALYPTIC-MINDED, "MADMEN-GOING-NUCLEAR", who rule the current Iranian regime?
But then again, we have been cursed with anti-America Hussein Obama, whose weak, uncoordinated policies, vacillate from;
"appearing to protect America to accommodating, supporting, encouraging and REWARDING adversaries, enemies, hostile regimes (as Iran), religious extremists and others who seek to destroy us."
As the result of Obama's weak and failed policies, our adversaries and enemies, feel that they can operate against us with relative ease.
Replacing Obama with a REAL ABLE leader, whose policies are STRONG AND COORDINATED, would be very appropriate resolution to America's being cursed with an enemy foreign agent President, whose policies are NOT Pro-America, are NOT Pro-West, and continually lie in the best interests of our adversaries and enemies!
as stated above:
Obama's... weak, uncoordinated policies, ... vacillate from:
"appearing to protect America to accommodating, supporting, encouraging and REWARDING adversaries, enemies, hostile regimes (as Iran), religious extremists and others who seek to destroy us."
If two people each had a sword they might not attack each other, but if one were given a shield this would be a decisive advantage and encourage an attack. The opponent would naturally look for a shield too, and if unobtainable would look for another sword.