Disappointed in Poland

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Which is going to happen when exactly?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Which is going to happen when exactly?

I don't know. I do know that if the Georgians hadn't of attacked SO the Russians wouldn't have responded like they did.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

As part of a Peace Keeping Plan along with South Ossetians troops and Georgian troops.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
they're not even being paranoid. they're being russians. they're doing the same thing they've been doing for 400 years. why anyone is shocked about this, i don't know. why anyone would blame the US, when the russians have been doing this since well before the founding of the US as a country, i don't know.

Sad to see this post, so you think that Russia is just paranoid for 400 years for no reason, that it is natural state of mind for people over there? Sorry, but you are plain wrong.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Which is going to happen when exactly?

You don't give your enemy a timeline for withdrawal. They will just wait it out until you leave and then attack. They better stay there then for oh....100 years or so.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

To decimate the Georgians ability to invade SO again as soon as they pulled out

Which is going to happen when exactly?

You don't give your enemy a timeline for withdrawal. They will just wait it out until you leave and then attack. They better stay there then for oh....100 years or so.

touche lol

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JS80
Russia was not the aggressor but Georgia did not attack Russia.

It killed a dozen Russian troops on the outset.

Russia knows the missile defense system is ineffective against 1000 nuclear warheads headed towards XYZ. MAD is still in play.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't put trust my life to the US' anti-missile shield. It's about as likely to hit a live, real-use missile as a blind man shooting a grape with a deringer at a thousand yards.

Why were Russian troops in Georgian territory?

You know why. It was also UN mandated.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
wait, so most here disagree with a defense system?

How is Russia at all threatened? Poland and the US are just trying to defend themselves, this is nothing like the Cuban crisis. Cuba had nukes pointed at the US, we are just putting up a defense system.

First strike nuclear capability for the US. Mutually assured destruction is out the window and the balance of power is shifting to the US. The Russians felt "safe" in the fact that any nuclear attack by the US could be countered with a severe counter attack assuring there was nothing to gain from doing so. However, you put the missile shield in place, a first strike by the US can eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear assets to ensure the missile shield can effectively counter Russia's counter attack.

Did I say counter enough?

With US troops massing in countries so close to Russia's border, it's no wonder they may be a little jumpy. Add in our new doctrine of preemptive strikes and the nervous twitch grows. The US is playing very dangerous games in that part of the world and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe we may be seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

The bolded is factually untrue.

The agreement with the Polish government covers 10 interceptors of which I think are questionable at best in their real world effectiveness. This is nowhere near enough to counter the Russian nuclear deterrent which numbers well into the hundreds or thousands depending on how you count. Not to mention the fact that the system is almost totally out of position to engage warheads launched against the continental US from most of Russia.

The US isn't massing troops in eastern Europe. This isn't World War I, II, or III.

Correct. The deployed system is composed of 10 interceptors. This is sufficient to counter a very small strike by a rogue nation. Assuming targeting 2 interceptros per inbound warhead, we have a maximum of 5 possible intercepts. This is clearly designed as a counter to Iran, not Russia.

Russia is simply being paranoid Russia. The system is no threat at all to Russia. Perhaps jp would prefer to live in Russia, seems he likes anyone else more than the US. Too bad the other guy got banned. He was spot on.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
wait, so most here disagree with a defense system?

How is Russia at all threatened? Poland and the US are just trying to defend themselves, this is nothing like the Cuban crisis. Cuba had nukes pointed at the US, we are just putting up a defense system.

First strike nuclear capability for the US. Mutually assured destruction is out the window and the balance of power is shifting to the US. The Russians felt "safe" in the fact that any nuclear attack by the US could be countered with a severe counter attack assuring there was nothing to gain from doing so. However, you put the missile shield in place, a first strike by the US can eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear assets to ensure the missile shield can effectively counter Russia's counter attack.

Did I say counter enough?

With US troops massing in countries so close to Russia's border, it's no wonder they may be a little jumpy. Add in our new doctrine of preemptive strikes and the nervous twitch grows. The US is playing very dangerous games in that part of the world and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe we may be seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

The bolded is factually untrue.

The agreement with the Polish government covers 10 interceptors of which I think are questionable at best in their real world effectiveness. This is nowhere near enough to counter the Russian nuclear deterrent which numbers well into the hundreds or thousands depending on how you count. Not to mention the fact that the system is almost totally out of position to engage warheads launched against the continental US from most of Russia.

The US isn't massing troops in eastern Europe. This isn't World War I, II, or III.

Correct. The deployed system is composed of 10 interceptors. This is sufficient to counter a very small strike by a rogue nation. Assuming targeting 2 interceptros per inbound warhead, we have a maximum of 5 possible intercepts. This is clearly designed as a counter to Iran, not Russia.

Russia is simply being paranoid Russia. The system is no threat at all to Russia. Perhaps jp would prefer to live in Russia, seems he likes anyone else more than the US. Too bad the other guy got banned. He was spot on.

Simple question then...

Why not put the shield in between Iran and Europe instead of between Russia and Europe? Turkey looks to be a much better location to achieve that result if it is indeed the intended goal.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

peacekeeping ended in 1994 yet the Russian soldiers stayed?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
wait, so most here disagree with a defense system?

How is Russia at all threatened? Poland and the US are just trying to defend themselves, this is nothing like the Cuban crisis. Cuba had nukes pointed at the US, we are just putting up a defense system.

First strike nuclear capability for the US. Mutually assured destruction is out the window and the balance of power is shifting to the US. The Russians felt "safe" in the fact that any nuclear attack by the US could be countered with a severe counter attack assuring there was nothing to gain from doing so. However, you put the missile shield in place, a first strike by the US can eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear assets to ensure the missile shield can effectively counter Russia's counter attack.

Did I say counter enough?

With US troops massing in countries so close to Russia's border, it's no wonder they may be a little jumpy. Add in our new doctrine of preemptive strikes and the nervous twitch grows. The US is playing very dangerous games in that part of the world and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe we may be seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

The bolded is factually untrue.

The agreement with the Polish government covers 10 interceptors of which I think are questionable at best in their real world effectiveness. This is nowhere near enough to counter the Russian nuclear deterrent which numbers well into the hundreds or thousands depending on how you count. Not to mention the fact that the system is almost totally out of position to engage warheads launched against the continental US from most of Russia.

The US isn't massing troops in eastern Europe. This isn't World War I, II, or III.

What's the distance from Iraq to Russia? 350, 400 miles? If that's not near the border of Russia, then you're right, my statements were factually incorrect. As to the systems in Poland, they are not the entire missile shield merely a small portion. It's the system as a whole that is a threat to Russia's stability gained through MAD and to deny that is to deny the facts. We've positioned ourselves militarily in a manner which certainly makes Russia uneasy. Toss in our constant rhetoric about Iran and it means nothing more than an even bigger buildup in the region. You say we're nowhere near any type of WW, but tell me what transpires after Russia makes good on threats to attack Poland over the system? What will our response be? This situation is nothing less than a cinder in the tinder box and the slightest breeze could set a blaze out of the control of anyone. Ruskies are notorious for their paranoia but our actions are not doing anything to quell that fear.

Are you seriously suggesting the US is planning a ground assault into Russia through Turkey/Georgia or perhaps even Iran/Armenia/Azerbaijan with the forces deployed in Iraq?

No, definitely not especially with current troop levels. However, if we continue our buildup in the region this may not be as far fetched as it seems now.

The entire ABM program consists of 20 missiles with a not so hot track record. There is simply no practical way anyone could consider the Russian nuclear arsenal negated by this.

Do you really believe for one second that you have all the specifics on this system or it's effectiveness? By the publicly available information you may be correct, but cmon, this is a military program and subject to said military's secrets. Neither you or I know what this system is really capable of and certainly not what it will be capable of in 3 to 5 years.

Russia won't attack Poland, there is far too much risk for a negligible reward.

How can you be so sure? Cooler heads most likely will prevail, but there's always that what if factor. One action can be taken as an aggressive move and the whole thing could turn out of hand in an instant. Hell, maybe Russia intends to make good on their threat just to ensure that our plans don't fall into place the way we want them to. They know they can be self sufficient if need be so they may look at this as their only chance to stop us from dominating the globe. No one knows what they're thinking or what may happen. The only thing that's certain is we're engaging in a pretty dangerous game right now.

Fern, I also see your point concerning appeasement. I for one am not saying that Poland is not entitled to do as they please, they are a sovereign nation after all, all I'm saying is we're walking a tightrope which could have very detrimental consequences if things go awry. As we all know, appeasing the Germans didn't help the world out very much now did it?

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

peacekeeping ended in 1994 yet the Russian soldiers stayed?

widespread hostilities ended, not peacekeeping.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

peacekeeping ended in 1994 yet the Russian soldiers stayed?

Aren't we still in S. Korea, Germany, Philippines, Japan, etc?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
wait, so most here disagree with a defense system?

How is Russia at all threatened? Poland and the US are just trying to defend themselves, this is nothing like the Cuban crisis. Cuba had nukes pointed at the US, we are just putting up a defense system.

First strike nuclear capability for the US. Mutually assured destruction is out the window and the balance of power is shifting to the US. The Russians felt "safe" in the fact that any nuclear attack by the US could be countered with a severe counter attack assuring there was nothing to gain from doing so. However, you put the missile shield in place, a first strike by the US can eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear assets to ensure the missile shield can effectively counter Russia's counter attack.

Did I say counter enough?

With US troops massing in countries so close to Russia's border, it's no wonder they may be a little jumpy. Add in our new doctrine of preemptive strikes and the nervous twitch grows. The US is playing very dangerous games in that part of the world and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe we may be seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

The bolded is factually untrue.

The agreement with the Polish government covers 10 interceptors of which I think are questionable at best in their real world effectiveness. This is nowhere near enough to counter the Russian nuclear deterrent which numbers well into the hundreds or thousands depending on how you count. Not to mention the fact that the system is almost totally out of position to engage warheads launched against the continental US from most of Russia.

The US isn't massing troops in eastern Europe. This isn't World War I, II, or III.

Correct. The deployed system is composed of 10 interceptors. This is sufficient to counter a very small strike by a rogue nation. Assuming targeting 2 interceptros per inbound warhead, we have a maximum of 5 possible intercepts. This is clearly designed as a counter to Iran, not Russia.

Russia is simply being paranoid Russia. The system is no threat at all to Russia. Perhaps jp would prefer to live in Russia, seems he likes anyone else more than the US. Too bad the other guy got banned. He was spot on.

Simple question then...

Why not put the shield in between Iran and Europe instead of between Russia and Europe? Turkey looks to be a much better location to achieve that result if it is indeed the intended goal.

Because the Earth is a sphere?

When Iran fires a missile it wont take a direct line like you would think on a map. It will traverse towards the north and over the top of Russia coming in more from the East than the SE than you would think. Also I think Poland is the only country atm to accept.

/shrug

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
wait, so most here disagree with a defense system?

How is Russia at all threatened? Poland and the US are just trying to defend themselves, this is nothing like the Cuban crisis. Cuba had nukes pointed at the US, we are just putting up a defense system.

First strike nuclear capability for the US. Mutually assured destruction is out the window and the balance of power is shifting to the US. The Russians felt "safe" in the fact that any nuclear attack by the US could be countered with a severe counter attack assuring there was nothing to gain from doing so. However, you put the missile shield in place, a first strike by the US can eliminate enough of Russia's nuclear assets to ensure the missile shield can effectively counter Russia's counter attack.

Did I say counter enough?

With US troops massing in countries so close to Russia's border, it's no wonder they may be a little jumpy. Add in our new doctrine of preemptive strikes and the nervous twitch grows. The US is playing very dangerous games in that part of the world and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe we may be seeing the beginnings of WWIII.

The bolded is factually untrue.

The agreement with the Polish government covers 10 interceptors of which I think are questionable at best in their real world effectiveness. This is nowhere near enough to counter the Russian nuclear deterrent which numbers well into the hundreds or thousands depending on how you count. Not to mention the fact that the system is almost totally out of position to engage warheads launched against the continental US from most of Russia.

The US isn't massing troops in eastern Europe. This isn't World War I, II, or III.

What's the distance from Iraq to Russia? 350, 400 miles? If that's not near the border of Russia, then you're right, my statements were factually incorrect. As to the systems in Poland, they are not the entire missile shield merely a small portion. It's the system as a whole that is a threat to Russia's stability gained through MAD and to deny that is to deny the facts. We've positioned ourselves militarily in a manner which certainly makes Russia uneasy. Toss in our constant rhetoric about Iran and it means nothing more than an even bigger buildup in the region. You say we're nowhere near any type of WW, but tell me what transpires after Russia makes good on threats to attack Poland over the system? What will our response be? This situation is nothing less than a cinder in the tinder box and the slightest breeze could set a blaze out of the control of anyone. Ruskies are notorious for their paranoia but our actions are not doing anything to quell that fear.

Are you seriously suggesting the US is planning a ground assault into Russia through Turkey/Georgia or perhaps even Iran/Armenia/Azerbaijan with the forces deployed in Iraq?

No, definitely not especially with current troop levels. However, if we continue our buildup in the region this may not be as far fetched as it seems now.

The entire ABM program consists of 20 missiles with a not so hot track record. There is simply no practical way anyone could consider the Russian nuclear arsenal negated by this.

Do you really believe for one second that you have all the specifics on this system or it's effectiveness? By the publicly available information you may be correct, but cmon, this is a military program and subject to said military's secrets. Neither you or I know what this system is really capable of and certainly not what it will be capable of in 3 to 5 years.

Russia won't attack Poland, there is far too much risk for a negligible reward.

How can you be so sure? Cooler heads most likely will prevail, but there's always that what if factor. One action can be taken as an aggressive move and the whole thing could turn out of hand in an instant. Hell, maybe Russia intends to make good on their threat just to ensure that our plans don't fall into place the way we want them to. They know they can be self sufficient if need be so they may look at this as their only chance to stop us from dominating the globe. No one knows what they're thinking or what may happen. The only thing that's certain is we're engaging in a pretty dangerous game right now.

Our troop levels in Iraq are falling last I checked.

The ABM system has had a number of very public failures. Significant portions of Congress are also skeptical about pouring huge amount of money into a system that's having these problems. Continued funding for an even larger system would have to be backed by marked improvements in the KV's effectiveness.

Best case scenario for Russia is that they'd take out he ABM site and cause the Polish government to fall. Worst case scenario is a full out thermonuclear war with NATO. This is not a hard decision.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Russia is simply being paranoid Russia. The system is no threat at all to Russia. Perhaps jp would prefer to live in Russia, seems he likes anyone else more than the US. Too bad the other guy got banned. He was spot on.

Not yet, but it might be. Wouldn't you prefer that it was and that Russia was impotent? Once the precedent is set, maybe it's 10 now and then Iran or NK get some more rockets and suddenly we need 30 or 50. Sneak in a few hundred more when it's dark and we're good to go.

Or, we don't do it when it's dark. What will Russia REALLY do if the US starts putting defensive missiles in NATO countries? It cannot attack militarily without going nuclear, and will it really sign its own death warrant as a nuclear war would do? Play this out, take it a few moves further and it's not difficult to see why Russia is worried about a shield, even if right now it's of no worry.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

peacekeeping ended in 1994 yet the Russian soldiers stayed?

widespread hostilities ended, not peacekeeping.

Is there still an active UN mandate for peacekeeping?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JS80
Let me rephrase:

Why were Russian troops in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia before the war started?

They were there as part of mixed peacekeeping detachment to prevent hostilities between Ossetians and Georgians, that started in 1988 and ended in 1994.

peacekeeping ended in 1994 yet the Russian soldiers stayed?

Aren't we still in S. Korea, Germany, Philippines, Japan, etc?

You forgot half a dozen or so territories/countries and the point that US troops aren't there as peacekeepers.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because the Earth is a sphere?

When Iran fires a missile it wont take a direct line like you would think on a map. It will traverse towards the north and over the top of Russia coming in more from the East than the SE than you would think. Also I think Poland is the only country atm to accept.

/shrug

sorry, but that explanation doesn't check out, Poland is still too far north... look at the globe for CS... wrong latitude

 

[jpeyton]

Russia is probably on the phone with Raul Castro, negotiating the installation of a "missile shield" on Cuban soil.

Tit for tat.

This all sounds so familiar.

Some of you should really stop playing dumb. This isn't about neutralizing Russia's nuclear arsenal; both sides know a simple missile shield isn't capable of doing that.

This is about spheres of influence, and opening the door to further US military installations on Russia's doorstep. The Russians want to kill this weed before it even sprouts.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Russia is probably on the phone with Raul Castro, negotiating the installation of a "missile shield" on Cuban soil.

Tit for tat.

This all sounds so familiar.

Some of you should really stop playing dumb. This isn't about neutralizing Russia's nuclear arsenal; both sides know a simple missile shield isn't capable of doing that.

This is about spheres of influence, and opening the door to further US military installations on Russia's doorstep. The Russians want to kill this weed before it even sprouts.

you must be lost if you think they are even remotely similar.

One involves nuclear missiles being directed at the US from a very close distance.

The other involves a defense system to shoot down missiles very close to Russia. Russia will not be hit with a bomb due to this.