If you look at it from their point of view: We've got ICBM's pointed at them and they have them pointed at us. If we put up a missile defense system in Europe, it takes away the threat of a counter strike if we decided to launch on them. It will basically putting them in check-mate after all these years. Don't you agree that that's why they're so pissed off about it?
2007-06-07 03:51:55 · 10 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Personally, I don't give a $*** about the Russian point of view, but you've got to understand why this is a big deal to them.
.
2007-06-07 03:52:50 · update #1
So I'm a neo-con sympatizer now for posting this question.
.
ok
.
2007-06-07 04:15:16 · update #2
The missiles they have pointed at us will not come over Europe. They will come over the North Pole and Canada.
2007-06-07 03:55:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In 1987, the United States and the USSR signed the INF Treaty; INF stands for Inter-mediate Range Nuclear Forces. Despite the use of the word "nuclear", the treaty also encompassed the use of ANY type of short- and medium-range missile and, despite the dissolution of the USSR, the treaty is still valid.
- If we put up a missile defense system in Europe,
- it takes away the threat of a counter strike if we
- decided to launch on them
No, a missile defense shield will do nothing to prevent a nuclear counter strike from the Russia. Russia would still be capable of launching a nuclear missile strike directed at the Western half of the United States.
- It will basically putting them in check-mate after all
- these years. Don't you agree that that's why they're
- so pissed off about it?
The problem is that Pres. Bush is once again breaking an international treaty. He has repeatedly violated the Geneva Convention and has been violating the INF Treaty. When he first began campaigning for his presidency, he stated that his number one priority was to develop a missile defense shield. This was in direct violation of the INF Treaty which prohibited the further development of short- and medium-range missiles.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/index.html
The threat of nuclear annihilation is still alive and well today. We have so many gung ho young Americans alive today who grew up playing video games where you don't die after one gun shot. It creates this superman mentality that the US is indestructible. In 1997, we were once again close to an all out nuclear war but it's one of those things that nobody heard about.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_r/980903-cbo.htm
I guess ten years was a long enough wait and I suppose we do need to remind another generation of what it means to live in fear of a nuclear war.
2007-06-07 12:12:50 · answer #2 · answered by Kookiemon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The missle defense in Europe is a cheap way for America to have trip wires in Eastern Europe. Those countries are paranoid about Russia. If it was not the Missle Defense they would want actual troops and we do not have the forces for that.
As for taking the Russian perspective, none of our politicians today trys to view things from the other position. If we had tried to picture how Afghanistan and Iraq would be seen through Iranian eyes we would not have taken out Saddam. We ended up doing the Iran's work for them, they had enemies in both places (they had no real love for the Taliban, a Shi'ite, Sunni thing) and suddenly they are gone. America needs to try to see through other eyes.
2007-06-07 11:05:14 · answer #3 · answered by Tom Sh*t 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are 10 missiles a threat to 3000+ ICBMs being upgraded with new hypersonic vehicles? Of course, not.
But they destroy balance of powers in Europe.
All neo-con sympatizers like you should read Pat Buchanan's.
And get the globe, you mal-educated students. Find Iran and Poland, draw a trajectory.
2007-06-07 10:56:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, I don't agree.
A handful of missiles are not a threat to the thousands upon thousands of ICBMs they've got. Not to mention that the flight path of their ICBMs wouldn't be over the area these interceptors cover anyway.
It has NOTHING to do with Russia's nuclear deterrence.
2007-06-07 11:00:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unless you want the option to attack , I don't see why anyone gets worked up over a missile DEFENSE system. Quite frankly, we don't need their permission to do anything. Just the permission of the country/countries where the system will be in place.
2007-06-07 11:08:30 · answer #6 · answered by kitty_cat_claws_99 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Russia is not a country to be messed with, do you remember MAD (mutually assured destruction) Russia still has control of 40+ thousand nukes, and they have a 10 headed ICBMs, that can reach us. After 911(inside job) it is apparent that our defense system is not going to stop ICBMs, from reaching us, if Russia is attacked they will instantly counterattack, and who knows how many nuclear capable subs they have swimming near our borders.
2007-06-07 11:07:51 · answer #7 · answered by Plumbingfool 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
yeah and then a nuclear sub launches 10 miles off the coast and we are boned anyway.
2007-06-07 10:59:07 · answer #8 · answered by Kevy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course they already claimed to have ICBM's that are missle proof
2007-06-07 10:56:37 · answer #9 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
does it matter anyway Russia won't touch us because we have NATO on our side.
2007-06-07 11:07:00 · answer #10 · answered by Tim B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋