Seems they shouldnt have issues with it unless they have the wrong intentions?
2007-06-21 09:41:28 · 7 answers · asked by Cajun_Hunter67 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The powers that be in Russia now are really remnants of the old USSR which saw all of Eastern Europe as theirs to control. Thus to have an American influence there is not going to be ever viewed as correct. Russia even was opposed to eastern European countries becoming part of NATO.
2007-06-21 09:57:57 · answer #1 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why would they want to be surrounded by a missile shield?? They have every reason to be suspicious, especially when they have proposed an acceptable (to them) counter-proposal which was ignored. The issue is not just the actual missiles which will be installed, but the massive array of radars which will be installed to make this system workable. Radars have a number of uses, only one of which is tracking enemy missiles. The more likely use is for eavesdropping, or spying. The Russian counter-proposal was to install the missile shield in Azerbaijan, in a Russian military base, where the US and Russia would provide joint monitoring of any threats. This proposal however, would mean that the base would have no value for intelligence gathering.
Think about it. Does North Korea or Iran, with their primitive rocket technology really present a threat??? If they were stupid enough to launch a strike, they would be spotted from miles away, firstly through the US spy satellite network. That would leave them open to a devastating counterstrike which would wipe them off the map. Do you really think that sounds like a valid threat??? Give them more credit than that.
2007-06-21 10:03:29 · answer #2 · answered by MikeG 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The US and the U.S.S.R. signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia has been declared the successor to the U.S.S.R. and all rights appertaining thereto.
While many people believe that these treaties were made to prevent the creation and distribution of new nuclear weapons and decrease those in inventory, the treaty also had several clauses and sections dedicated to defensive systems against nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War, the arms race was fueld by two factors, the increasing number of weapons being produced by the other side and the technological advances being made in their delivery and potency. As the stockpiles rose, any technological advancement made toward better weapons or, conversely, better defenses against the other sides potential onslaught only fueled a larger build up by both sides.
Ultimately, nuclear stability was recognized to exist only during a state of mutually assured destruction. If you were 100% confident that should you launch a nuclear weapon in anger against your enemy, both you and your enemy, and all of the earth's inhabitants would be completely annihilated, you would not use them. Therefore, the treaties needed to ensure that this destructive capability was maintained while also being limited.
As a result, any future efforts at developing more advanced weapons or defensive mechanisms would only destabilize the nuclear weapons arms balance, leading to a new arms race and bringing us further to the brink of annihilation.
It also doesn't help that it is being built in Europe. The only threats that would come over Europe are from Russia. Last I checked, the US is the only one to violate the treaty we entered into. Who would you be suspicious of?
2007-06-21 10:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by rmartin1978 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It gives the US a leg up on them. It would be like Russia installing missile shields in Cuba or Mexico or even Canada. Its not a good idea to start up an arms race with Russia again, its very expensive to both sides, and one easy Russia would have to raise money would be to sell their nukes on the international market--we do NOT want that to happen. We do not even want their economy to become unstable from trying to keep up with our military spending. It would be very wise to maintain friendly relations with Russia, for them and for us.
2007-06-21 09:48:11 · answer #4 · answered by jxt299 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cause the proposed location is at the intersection of the great circle missile routes for BOTH iran and china.
2007-06-21 09:51:59 · answer #5 · answered by Wonka 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
what is America's business installing missile shields in Europe?
2007-06-21 09:51:51 · answer #6 · answered by /\ 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Didn't we have a problem with Russian missles being too close to us in the Cuba Crisis?
2007-06-21 09:46:40 · answer #7 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋