Putin has said that it is the equivilent of putting missiles in Cuba (which they could do, if they wanted).
We have already voided the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and Russia is countering by voiding the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Treaty. Bush says it is to prevent Iran from attacking Europe with nuclear weapons, but since Russia has already offered us use of their facilities to counter any threat from Iran, it can only mean that the U.S. wants to be able to limit damage in the event we pre-emptively nuke Russia.
2007-12-09 04:58:15 · 9 answers · asked by BruceN 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If we put anti-missiles in Poland, Russia will counter with IRBMs in Belarus. This is the start of a new arms race. Pro-business politicians aren't upset. It means taxpayer money will be diverted into their pockets. Russia is now in economic shape to compete by building better missiles too.
2007-12-09 05:21:25 · update #1
Sounds like start of Cold War 2. Russia is worried that Missiles put in Poland can attack major parts of Russia with ease. Hope this doesn't materialize and motivate Russia to Build a Military Base nearer home.
I guess if we have good missile systems in our country we are save. The pacific and the atlantic are the best natural defenses we have.
2007-12-09 05:10:16 · answer #1 · answered by Think Sane 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why might they? Cuba's the different direction from our missile silos to Russia. we'd launch over the North Pole from our land-based missile silos to strike Russia. i've got heard Russia threaten to re-set up a protection rigidity presence in Cuba, yet missile defence may well be ineffective there till the assumption improve into to preserve Cuba and perhaps Venezuela from missile attack. If we'd have cherished to wreck objectives in the two u . s . a ., we'd in all probability launch cruise missiles from a submarine located interior the Caribbean - no possibility of an ABM interception, because of the fact the Russians reminded us while they have been busy crapping their pants over the Polish website, and extra fee-effective besides. i might say that the Russians might desire to choose to restore their OFFENSIVE missile bases in Cuba, for the reason that there's no longer something of fee (to the Russians) to preserve. of direction, all of that's meant to impact the persons returned residing house in Russia with the studliness of Putin the 1st. by ability of how, the Iranians have a Russian cruise missile - the Granit Kh-55/As-15, NATO code call "Kent" - with countless 3,000 kilometers. in the past the reformist top minister Yurchenko took workplace interior the Ukraine, 12 Kh-55s have been bought to Iran. placed one on a boat, or certainly one of Cuba's islands, or maybe a small island off our Atlantic coast belonging to a Caribbean u . s . a . (or us), and you may carry the US in possibility. they might carry nuclear warheads. The Russians might % to sell them some nuclear warheads which will mate with the Kh-55, now that they have desperate it is risk-free to tick us off. Cheery theory for the evening.
2016-10-01 05:42:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush wanted Russian support in many important for USA cases
and ignores Russia's opinion in cases which are important for Russia.
And he is incredibly consistent on this way.
It's very reasonable politics.
As the result he will get 0 support and anti-American actions
elsewhere.
By the way - Americans wounder why they so hated in Russia?
Ask Bush, he knows.
2007-12-09 06:37:34 · answer #3 · answered by vasavasa2006 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You have to remember that the missiles are not the real issue.
The real issue is that Russia wants Eastern Europe as part of their 'sphere of influence.' However those nations do not want to be dominated by Russia. This is why they want a US military presence.
And your analysis is flawed. A pre-emptive strike against Russia simply makes no sense. (How would anybody benefit?)
2007-12-09 05:17:30 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The only reason Russia does not want us to protect our self is because they intend on one day attacking us themselves.If they are not a threat to us then why would they object to this?
As for them putting nukes in Cuba,don't make me laugh,It would mean the end to Cuba,by the way Russia and Cuba are no longer comrades in communism,,,right,Fidel says Russians are traitors to the cause now.lol
2007-12-09 05:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by Ronboy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why is he spending our HARD EARNED money protecting other countries anyway?
I probably don't understand this missle defense well enough, but it seems like he's going around buying defensive weapons with our tax payer dollars that will defend the entire freaking free world...
while we have Americans on the Mexican border who are afraid to go out after dark because of the violence that's being allowed to flow over our border.
2007-12-09 05:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by pgb 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, this is a horrible aggressive policy. It is interventionist policy, so being a non-interventionist I oppose it.
2007-12-09 05:09:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, US should focus on its own problems and let Europe focus on theres
2007-12-09 05:05:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
wouldn't you say that it's up to poland whether or not they want missles there?
2007-12-09 05:02:03 · answer #9 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋