The new cold war: Russia's missiles to target Europe

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...094839,00.html

On the strength of its natural resources (it supplies about 40% of Europe's energy) Russia is confronting U.S. military unilateralism head on. Will the implicit threat of European cities again being nuclear targets (and the past explicit threat of controlling its energy exports) cause the former Eastern European states to withdraw from the U.S. anti-missile system? Their doing so would be a serious defeat for U.S. military and foreign policy.

Imagine Russia doing that in Mexico or Canada.

Source:http://www.itv.com/news/world_375fdf...4b6ef8e92.html

President Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia will take "retaliatory measures" if the US builds a missile defence system for Europe.

In an interview published in an Italian newspaper, Vladimir Putin criticised plans to put interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, which Washington claims is needed to counter possible threats from Iran and North Korea.

His comments come just days before the annual meeting of G8 leaders in Germany and follows last weeks' tests of Russia's new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile.

Mr Putin said: "We are told that the anti-missile defence system is designed for defending something which does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you, to say the least?"

He said the missile defence system would reach as far as his country's Ural Mountains and in a well-known Russian expression added: "It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad."

He warned Russia would retaliate if the US refused to halt the plans, saying: "If this doesn't happen, then we will withdraw any responsibility for our retaliatory measures because it wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race development in Europe."

Mr Putin said Russia would create a system to counter the US anti-missile one in order to restore "the strategic balance in the world" and suggested his country could aim its nuclear weapons at Europe.

He said the US plan could be an attempt to spoil Russia's relations with Europe, adding: "If it is so, although I am not claiming that it is - it's only one of the versions - but if so, I think that it is another mistake.

"Because in this way, we will not improve international security and international peace."

I am not a supporter of Putin, and he certainly has also an eye on domestic politics, when is the strongly driving this topic: but in principle he is right. The planned installation of US interceptors at Russia's border is an US provocation, a possible threat to Russia, and an unnecessary and not welcome attempt to change the strategic balance in Europe.

Source:- http://news.monstersandcritics.com/m...s_&quotjoke%22

Tehran has described as 'joke of the year' the US missile shield project for safeguarding Europe against Iranian missiles, state news agency IRNA reported Monday.

National Security Council secretary Ali Larjiani told IRNA that it was hard to believe that US authorities were not aware of the fact that Iranian missiles could not reach Europe.

Besides, Larijani added, there would be no logic at all behind the idea of attacking Europe, which is Iran's most important commercial partner.

The top Iranian top aid that the US was probably following a bigger plan but resorted to such propaganda for diverting public opinion from the real objectives.

The longest-range Iranian missile is reportedly the Shahab-3, which has a range of up to 2,000 kilometres and could reach any part of Iranian arch-foe Israel.

It's obvious to everybody who is familiar with the current situation and the recent history of Europe what are the reasons why these interceptors are planned in these 2 countries.

. These 2 countries have been kept under communist rule for 40 years and both still hold a grudge against Russia. Their governments are most probably the only ones in Europe that would agree to have these missiles stationed on their soil.

. The US are using this issue to divide the EU. The US know that the EU does not want these new US missiles in Europe because they are clearly, and for no reason and benefit, are antagonizing Russia. So, they are using this this issue to split the unity between EU countries.

. The US are demonstrating towards Russia once more that they have won the Cold War, and have now stretched their sphere of influence directly to Russian borders.

. The 10 interceptors itself could probably not seriously damage Russia's second strike capability. But the guidance and tracking installations stationed so close at Russia's borders that comes with these interceptors could most probably guide US missiles against Russia other countries in this region.

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS

Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...098257,00.html

Putin surprises US with missile suggestion


Patrick Wintour, political editor
Friday June 8, 2007
The Guardian


Vladimir Putin sprang a diplomatic surprise yesterday in his dispute with America over the siting of a US missile defence system in Europe, suggesting instead that it could be placed in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan.
The Russian leader, who raised the prospect of a new cold war with the west in his hawkish speech on the eve of the summit, claimed he had already secured the agreement of the Azerbaijani government to the proposal.

[Govinda]

Mincey economic rhetoric, and little more.

Opinion time.

There's a power shift coming - West to East. East has oil, we don't, simple (also explains why G8 are so keen on 'climate control' - byword for weaning the West off of oil).

And the American's won't accept a Russian/American base in Azerbijan. Missile defence systems can't really shoot down nukes - but what they can do is target military communication satellites. It's about power. And I'm willing to wager that America won't want to share that with Russia.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. The Czechs are really not pleased with the US. Putin was trying to scare us, and he did just that - but I feel it was more a case of, 'We're Russia, we're here and we're strong, we supply almost all of your gas and you will ****ing do as we say.' As well as a two's up to America, and a nice line for Putin before the Russian elections.

Certainly interesting. Can any Americans tell me how much news coverage this story received stateside? I'd be interested to know. Ta.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Oh I wouldn't so vaguely generalize it down to just oil. There are only the Middle Eastern, Ex-USSR and South American countries who have vast reservces of oil.

Fact is, the West's domination in the past 1500 or so years as the power center of the world is soon becoming irrelavant once again because
1) The system is crumbling upon itself. Manufacturing is being taken by China. Services are being taken by India. They're more efficient at it, and achieve the same thing with cost savings of 50% or more. Whilst traditionally, both were dominated by the West, this is changing very rapidly.
2) The resourses are not in the control of 'colonized states' anymore.

What's the only thing the west can do to maintain irrelavance? Innovate

Oh, Russia already has ICBMs that can defeat the American missile defense system. However, I stand with Russia on this one. There is absolutly no reason for America to install an anti missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, other than to shit stir, which the govt. seems to love to do oh so much.

If Iran was really thier target, then they could just as easily accept the Russian proposal. But ofcourse they won't do that will they.

[Govinda]

Well, for a start, Middle Eastern oil reserves far outwiegh South American ones, by a long shot - Saudi Arabia has the most. Iran's not far behind.

Shit stirring? No. There is far more to it than that - I'll assume you know that. As much as the American administration may be a bit egoistic, it is a government run by people who do have brains - if they want a base, it's for a reason. They're not stupid. I still maintain that it has to do with military communication satellites.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what comes of this. News today that America will accept the base in Azerbaijan, but still wants bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, apparently in co-operation with Russia. It's a pile of PR mince, really. The article also had a quote from the NATO Sectretary General, who said that everyone agreed to the missile defence shield as 'practical and useful' or something.

A few days for Putin's response, I say. But another thing - don't underestimate the EU. People seem to forget that a threat against Europe is a threat against the EU, a stable and glued nuclear-armed coalition (the EU itself may not specifically be nuclear armed, but France and the UK at least are). They didn't make any noises after Russia's rhetoric, which was why I paid little attention.

The lesson in this? Get those twats of leaders to sit down, look at the NPT, and make a modern version of it that might actually work. Then get them to work on reducing oil dependeny (latest figures, cited in today's Independent, give us forty more years with enough black gold). Which they'll probably not do. Hmm.

....revolution?

It's sort of quaint, in a way, to watch democracy eating itself.

[Akira]

I think Bush's decision to push for the Eastern European defense system is extremely irresponsible of his role as leader of the U.S. and is an obvious negligent move on his part, simply because this ultimately threatens to deteriorate if not destroy relations with the second strongest nuclear power in the world. I feel that things are usually depicted to one-sided, and as Casanova said, we must also consider Russia's position on the matter rather than just pulling into retrospect what the U.S. and its citizens would think.

Let us sum up: Russia has absolutely no reason to trust the United States. I'm not refering to the Cold War conflict here, but rather the egoism the U.S. government has shown in the last 5 years, mainly due to good ole' Georgy boy being the dickhead he is. Obviously, no country has any reason to believe a nation that blatantly ignores the orders of the United Nations, the organisation that's supposed to maintain peace worldwide. So why should the Russians honestly believe the U.S. that this shield defense system is simply to safeguard the Eastern European border from Iranian and Korean nukes?

What's more, Bush obviously underestimates the steadfastness of President Putin. He's a hardliner, and as such will do anything to show that he cannot be pushed around. His methods of dealing with peaceful demonstrations and negative news critique are evidence of this. Even his solution for making due of the terrorist situation in Chechnya a few years ago shows that he will not relent to let a few people kick the bucket as long as a greater goal is achieved. He should definitely not be underestimated, much less pushed into a position where he will feel threatened, which is obviously the case with the defense system.

Just because the U.S. presents itself as the global liberator and granter of freedoms as well as the nation that will uphold worldwide peace, does not mean that every nation will necassarily believe that, nor should they. The U.S. obviously has its own intrigues, and as such will surely try to fulfill these foremostly before doing anything else. This isn't ment to make the U.S. sound evil somehow, it's simply the way politics work.

Originally Posted by Casanova

. These 2 countries have been kept under communist rule for 40 years and both still hold a grudge against Russia. Their governments are most probably the only ones in Europe that would agree to have these missiles stationed on their soil.

Nah, their are plenty of other countries that hold just as much a grudge against Russia, and I'm sure they aren't any less willing to place the missiles in their lands as the Czech Republic and Poland are. The Baltic countries are a perfect example, to name at least three. However, placing such a defense system RIGHT NEXT to Russia would be so blatantly aggressive, that even Bush would know that he's pushing the envelope too far. The two countries in question, however, mark nations that are the closest the U.S. could gain support for such a system. Just west of that are all the highly industrialized nations of Europe such as Germany, France, the Be-Ne-Lux countries, and Denmark, and I'm presuming building a defense system of this level would not only be difficult, but near impossible. But consider for a second, if the true motive was to defend against Iranian missiles, why not build them in countries like Bulgaria, Romania, or even the former Yugoslav states?

Originally Posted by Casanova

Oh I wouldn't so vaguely generalize it down to just oil. There are only the Middle Eastern, Ex-USSR and South American countries who have vast reservces of oil.

Well, there are quite a lot of oil sources in Malaysia and Brunei, as well as other nations around the world. But that's being nit-picky. What is important is, however, that despite large reserves being in southern Russia (Chechnya for instance), the greatest reserves lie in the former Soviet nations of Aizerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia which are completely dependant nations over which Russia has little to no political power. This means the true motive can't necassarily revolve around oil in this matter.

Originally Posted by Casanova

1) The system is crumbling upon itself. Manufacturing is being taken by China. Services are being taken by India. They're more efficient at it, and achieve the same thing with cost savings of 50% or more. Whilst traditionally, both were dominated by the West, this is changing very rapidly.

I can't really agree with that statement. Of course I'm not claiming that the markets aren't wandering towards these nations, but I mean the part about efficiency being better. Compare a shirt still produced in a western nation to one produced cheaply in these third world nations. Even Adidas products produced in the sixties for instance, were of such high quality, that producing such a product today at the same price as the cheaper variant would be lunacy in terms of economics. The difference in quality is tremendous, but the world's (west's) leading global players apparently have no problem in forfeiting quality for massive profits.

Tehran has described as 'joke of the year' the US missile shield project for safeguarding Europe against Iranian missiles, state news agency IRNA reported Monday.

National Security Council secretary Ali Larjiani told IRNA that it was hard to believe that US authorities were not aware of the fact that Iranian missiles could not reach Europe.

Besides, Larijani added, there would be no logic at all behind the idea of attacking Europe, which is Iran's most important commercial partner.

The top Iranian top aid that the US was probably following a bigger plan but resorted to such propaganda for diverting public opinion from the real objectives.

The longest-range Iranian missile is reportedly the Shahab-3, which has a range of up to 2,000 kilometres and could reach any part of Iranian arch-foe Israel.

One thing speaking for the U.S. here though: if the Iranian government did possess the capability to launch a missile as far as Europe, do you think they'd honestly go and tell everybody about it? Hardly! This source is not exactly the best to base an opinion off of. Fact is, the Iranian government is radical fundamentalist, and as such, will hardly act in the best interest of the west. I won't go as far as to say that they would definitely nuke a western state if they had the power to. Simply that I wouldn't rule out the possibility (though ultimately, I believe it's just an act of establishing legitimacy in global politics).

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Govinda

The lesson in this? Get those twats of leaders to sit down, look at the NPT, and make a modern version of it that might actually work. Then get them to work on reducing oil dependeny (latest figures, cited in today's Independent, give us forty more years with enough black gold). Which they'll probably not do. Hmm.

Yeah, this is truly the best step for all of humanity right now. But without the proper leaders in the according positions, nothing will come about other than bickering and arguements. I hope Gore decides to run for the presidency again though (although he did say no), since he'd be a president that thinks on a global scale rather than a U.S. level. Fact is, the world is becoming evermore interlinked because of globalisation, so for leaders to try and maintain the ideals of the past is merely an attempt to work against a positive development of globalisation.

[Angantyr]

Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]

Fact is, the West's domination in the past 1500 or so years as the power center of the world is soon becoming irrelavant once again because
1) The system is crumbling upon itself. Manufacturing is being taken by China. Services are being taken by India. They're more efficient at it, and achieve the same thing with cost savings of 50% or more. Whilst traditionally, both were dominated by the West, this is changing very rapidly.
2) The resourses are not in the control of 'colonized states' anymore.

What's the only thing the west can do to maintain irrelavance? Innovate

Don't make me laugh, that is exactly what made the West what it is, the world that is often threatened but always manages to come out on top. China is going to take nothing, they are numbers but thats about it, where do you think their money comes from? Without us they are nothing and they are way over populated for the rest of the world. Actually America may fall back on itself but Europe will still stand strong, Quality of Quantity. I mean hey you can always dream can't you

Russia has always tried to be the up and coming state, if they got a more solid leader rather than Stalin then they possibly would have, part of the problem however was that the former Communist leaders were not in it for Russian interests, which coincidently has back far and rather than following in Stalins footsteps, they have carried on the Idealogy's of Sir Hitler. Russia has constantly been in difficult situations and to try and push them just lowers my already below dirt opinion of Bush.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

oh comeon you surely don't believe that! China, the way it's going, will grow to prosper in a massive way that can compete with the west in a very credible way. Whilst in raw terms, thier GDP per capita will take forever to reach western levels, once you factor in Purchasing price parity, it won't be too long at all!
Same goes for India. With Gini coefficients lower than both the US and China it's probably a more stable bet.

Out of the so called 'BRIC' bloc, The I and the C I believe, are the two real contenders. Brazil has been a no show, and Russia has issues.

Oh and Akira, Iran would show it off. Whilst being radical, Iran's leaders are actually quite smart. Not the trigger happy nutjobs our government tries to make them out to be. They showed off cluster warhead missiles which seriously worried a little while back. They're massive fans of sabre ratting.

Oh, and a quick squiz through any decent defense site/thinktanks like globalsecurity.org for instance will yield that Iran is infact, very, very far away from an ICBM that can threaten the west, or even a nuke warhead.

Btw, as far as the manufacturing goes, Did you know that Japanese manufacturing was once considered to be very shoddy quality, and poorly designed and put together? This would've been back early in your father's day, and in your grandfather's day. Now, they're cutting edge in just about everything mechatronics.

Originally Posted by Govinda

The lesson in this? Get those twats of leaders to sit down, look at the NPT, and make a modern version of it that might actually work. Then get them to work on reducing oil dependeny (latest figures, cited in today's Independent, give us forty more years with enough black gold). Which they'll probably not do. Hmm.

sadly, yes. I agree with absolutly everything enclosed in the quote. Including the last sentance. Breaks my heart to heart to hear it though.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]

Oh and Akira, Iran would show it off. Whilst being radical, Iran's leaders are actually quite smart. Not the trigger happy nutjobs our government tries to make them out to be. They showed off cluster warhead missiles which seriously worried a little while back. They're massive fans of sabre ratting.

Of course they'd flont their massive weapons around if they had them, but until they have a substantial arsenal of ICBM warheads, it would extremely unclever to show off with few smaller weapons capabilities, since these would still be in range of being disarmed quickly and hassle free. As soon as nukes come into the picture, other nations are forced to show more respect towards the nuclear weapons wielding power. I was obviously refering to the bragging about smaller less threatening weapons, which if were shoved into people's faces the way you depict it, would quickly be knocked out of effectivity resulting in the country's forced disarmament act.

Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]

Btw, as far as the manufacturing goes, Did you know that Japanese manufacturing was once considered to be very shoddy quality, and poorly designed and put together? This would've been back early in your father's day, and in your grandfather's day. Now, they're cutting edge in just about everything mechatronics.

Bad comparison...where as Japan's economy was devastated after WWII and therefore the products coming from there were of poorer quality due to still continual build up, they obviously couldn't compete at first. This period from about the 50s-mid 70s was where Japanese cars were of still horrid quality, basically on a level where no one Nissan model was resembling the others for instance (for instance, two Nissan Fairladys would have different parts, although it was the exact same car model). This is the period you refer to. However, the resilience of the Japanese and more importantly, their mentality led them to rise to become one of the world's leading industrial powers, and quite fast at that.

In the case of China and India (and any other third world producer nation for that matter), none of these nations are recovering from destruction experienced during a great war. Their weak economies (which I know are on the uprise) are merely attributable to bad economic management as well as a lack of resources. And consider, there are resources other than natural resources, such as refinery equipment which is the actual moneymaker and also the main reason why industrial nations get richer while third world nations stay mostly on the same level, despite actually having resource reserves.

Just because Japan was able to recover from an economic slump and raise the quality of products manufactured in its borders to a enviable high, does not mean that other nations will be able to do the same. In the case of China and India, it may very well be the case that they can eventually also reach a higher quality standard, however, there are many other nations that global players manufacture their products in that won't be showing the same development. Consider all the southeast Asian, south Asian, and south American that are production centers of the world's biggest corporations. It would be impossible for them all to attain such a high standard, meaning the quality will stay poor for decades to come.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Originally Posted by Akira

Of course they'd flont their massive weapons around if they had them, but until they have a substantial arsenal of ICBM warheads, it would extremely unclever to show off with few smaller weapons capabilities, since these would still be in range of being disarmed quickly and hassle free. As soon as nukes come into the picture, other nations are forced to show more respect towards the nuclear weapons wielding power. I was obviously refering to the bragging about smaller less threatening weapons, which if were shoved into people's faces the way you depict it, would quickly be knocked out of effectivity resulting in the country's forced disarmament act.

Isn't that a bit sad? Take North Korea for instance. They have a lunitic leader. They have nukes. They probably have missiles that can read The US. But what's being done about that? Sweet **** all.

Bad comparison...where as Japan's economy was devastated after WWII and therefore the products coming from there were of poorer quality due to still continual build up, they obviously couldn't compete at first. This period from about the 50s-mid 70s was where Japanese cars were of still horrid quality, basically on a level where no one Nissan model was resembling the others for instance (for instance, two Nissan Fairladys would have different parts, although it was the exact same car model). This is the period you refer to. However, the resilience of the Japanese and more importantly, their mentality led them to rise to become one of the world's leading industrial powers, and quite fast at that.

I don't buy into this argument. A great depression is not needed for a country to rise up. To say the Chinese and the Inidian resiliance is lower than that of the Japanese, I don't believe. Back then, there were greater gaps. Now, the gaps are smaller, so the Journey is harder. Take the business software market for instance.

In the case of China and India (and any other third world producer nation for that matter), none of these nations are recovering from destruction experienced during a great war. Their weak economies (which I know are on the uprise) are merely attributable to bad economic management as well as a lack of resources. And consider, there are resources other than natural resources, such as refinery equipment which is the actual moneymaker and also the main reason why industrial nations get richer while third world nations stay mostly on the same level, despite actually having resource reserves.

The process of disintermediation will take care of this very very soon. Hell the gears are already in the process. I can list some examples of this if you'de like. Oh, and mismanagement is right indeed. Which is why this is changing at an ever increasing pace. Having experienced this first hand, going to SE Asia in, say, mid 90s, then in early 00s. and now, mid 00s, the amount of difference each time is mindblowing.

Just because Japan was able to recover from an economic slump and raise the quality of products manufactured in its borders to a enviable high, does not mean that other nations will be able to do the same. In the case of China and India, it may very well be the case that they can eventually also reach a higher quality standard, however, there are many other nations that global players manufacture their products in that won't be showing the same development. Consider all the southeast Asian, south Asian, and south American that are production centers of the world's biggest corporations. It would be impossible for them all to attain such a high standard, meaning the quality will stay poor for decades to come.

Economies of scale are a wonderful thing. And it's exactly what both India and China have. Huge potencial for economies of scale. This is exactly why you will have products that are better built in the future for the cheaper prices.

Oh, and other nations will be able to do the same. It's not rocket science. It's investment. And the investment figures are building.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]

I don't buy into this argument. A great depression is not needed for a country to rise up. To say the Chinese and the Inidian resiliance is lower than that of the Japanese, I don't believe. Back then, there were greater gaps. Now, the gaps are smaller, so the Journey is harder. Take the business software market for instance.

Originally Posted by Me

Just because Japan was able to recover from an economic slump and raise the quality of products manufactured in its borders to a enviable high, does not mean that other nations will be able to do the same. In the case of China and India, it may very well be the case that they can eventually also reach a higher quality standard, however, there are many other nations that global players manufacture their products in that won't be showing the same development.

You didn't read my post closely enough. Of course a nation does not have to experience the kind of destruction Japan saw in WWII! That wasn't my point. I was merely saying that the circumstances you used as a comparison happened on completely different levels, and are therefore not the same situation, in essence, a bad comparison. Read through the whole thread again and you might ACTUALLY be able to catch that part.

Originally Posted by Casanova[OCAU]

Oh, and other nations will be able to do the same. It's not rocket science. It's investment. And the investment figures are building.

Originally Posted by Me

however, there are many other nations that global players manufacture their products in that won't be showing the same development.

Again you didn't read my post carefully enough. If you had taken the time to read it properly, you would have noticed that I wasn't refering to absolute probabality. The use of the word "many" means alot, but not ALL. Of course other nations besides China and India will be able to take advantage of similar development now traceable in China and India, however, it's absolutely rediculous to say that ALL nations will be able to go through this kind development. Globalisation and the process thereof is built upon nations of higher and lower standards working together, and if you only have higher standard industrial nations, the system falls apart. Either, each nation does develop positively to a superpower and the system is forced to evolve, which in my opinion is a rather naive thought, or the system is maintained and I was right with my statement.