Poland to Have Tactical Missiles
|
|
Poland plans to deploy tactical missiles on its soil.
Russia says it makes Poland a Russian target.
The move is extremely destabilizing and is encouraged by the Bush administration.
The Russians need to be assured the West does not have military designs in its region.
While the missiles are purportedly defensive, the Russians must now target Poland as a possible offensive target. There better never be an occasion for the Russians to believe, or want to believe, that the missiles are not verifiably defensive.
It is extremely destabilizing--what elites bank on for a legitimacy of power.
This needs a skilled pragmatist with a superb diplomatic style and a high moral intelligence.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Russia says it makes Poland a Russian target.
The move is extremely destabilizing and is encouraged by the Bush administration.
The Russians need to be assured the West does not have military designs in its region.
While the missiles are purportedly defensive, the Russians must now target Poland as a possible offensive target. There better never be an occasion for the Russians to believe, or want to believe, that the missiles are not verifiably defensive.
It is extremely destabilizing--what elites bank on for a legitimacy of power.
This needs a skilled pragmatist with a superb diplomatic style and a high moral intelligence.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
It's more than 'encouraged' - it's already a signed deal. Poland will let us build the Missile Shield.
Why do people protest this now? I put post after post about it and was mocked because I live in Alaska where we have suffered the emotional stress of Bush playing with his missile interceptors along our coast. One missile didn't get intercepted and landed in the ocean unexploded (I think it was either 5 or 8 million dollars). Too, some of these tests are radiating enough that it kills birds near it.
Poland: 20 interceptors
Russia: 5000+ warheads
Damn, I guess they'll just have to destroy the world with only 4980+ warheads.
Do cry me a river.
Analysts don't just "think" it has a tremendous affect on the Russians, it does.
The empirical evidence you present disconfirms your argument.
And what's this about "verifiably defensive"? We've got offensive nukes, 20+ per sub, on a dozen subs off the Russian coast. You're telling me some missiles in Poland matter? The Cuban missile crisis was a problem because at the time, the Russians couldn't hit us with nukes any other way.
Not only that, but missiles and missile trajectories are enormously complex things. Contrary to what you may have seen in Star Trek, changing a ballistic missile's capabilities is not of a serendipitous nature.
Russia: "OMG! The cop has a utility knife! He could stab someone with it!"
Me: "It's a utility knife. It's used for plenty of other things.
Russia: "But he COULD use it to stab!"
Me: "Um, he has a 9mm glock semi-automatic pistol with a 15-round clip. And two spare magazines."
Russia: "BUT THE KNIFE! HE COULD *STAB* SOMEONE!!!"
Me: "He can shoot 45 people a lot more readily than stabbing someone with a knife."
Russia: "NO KNIVES, DAMMIT! THOSE ARE THE RULES THAT WE JUST MADE UP RIGHT NOW!!!"
Me: "Whatever."
The placement of these missiles in Poland is destabilizing.
I understand the weaponry and the stakes associated with their placement and probable use very well, thank you.
"changing a ballistic missile's capabilities is not of a serendipitous nature." All that needs to be done is to change the programming, which can be done very surreptitiously.
Very best wishes.
and the knife stuff sounds Nazi Adolf Hitler-esque, not Red Army. There's a difference between Germans and Russians, but you sound like you're linking them.
If it doesn't have any effect on Russia, tell them that. They responded that this WAS about Russia and not Iran. If they said that, their perception is that they're backs are against the wall, they come out swinging. Bush puts him on the defense flying planes along their the no fly zone.
You apparently fail to understand how an interceptor works. My point is the danger, and they DON'T work, they tested this over 20 yrs and the odds are 2 missiles colliding doesn't work and this is costly. We could use our funds better. Interceptors are nothing new, the failure rate is way too high. So, if Iran wants to shot one at Poland, our money pays to try to stop it and fail the mission. Oops, then Poland gets mad that we built something that failed.
Too, Russia breaks down their warheads and sends them to US. We use their nuclear warheads.
No ones crying, it's your perception, not mine.
We have more interceptors alone than what you've posted here. Even if we were successful and intercepted one in mid-air, the nuclear weapon will explode and disperse anyway. They have no way to anticipate the trigger and then getting a missile to a particular destination and away from people or environment. Only Bush thinks this will work and he's used allot our of money to practice in Alaska.
Second: it doesn't work? So what is Russia's problem? SURELY they have scientists with a LITTLE more experience and understanding of the problem than you do. I mean, if it's OBVIOUS TO YOU that it doesn't work, then Russia MUST know. Therefore, they are full of shit.
QED.
Finally: A nuke won't explode simply because it is intercepted. Maybe you should stop making assumptions.
What is diplomatically significant is not to be provocative given the historical security interests of the Russians. Provoking a major nuclear power is just impolitic, especially right NOW.
That's why.
Very best wishes.
:)