US activates controversial missile shield in Romania

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Yet another example of poor strategic planning by our American cousins

Just reinforces the Russian idea of maintaining buffer zones.

Strategic deterrence together with rapid deployment capability would have been much preferred.

As you will probably be aware, positioning radars and listening stations in the East of Turkey was one of the key triggers of the Cuban missile crisis.

We need smarter people at the helm

We do need smarter people at the helm. Ones who don't invade countries and annex their sovereign territory. Ones who don't support maniac dictators and bomb innocent civilians. Ones who don't threaten their former states with legal action to reclaim them.

This is just tit for tat.

your post can be applied to both USA and Russia.

[Grouse]

The Greenland to Azores shield still intrigues me!

Who is this to protect

I am concerned about upsetting the strategic balance

Be careful Russia doesn't get its revenge in first!

That's kinda what this is all about. Trying to keep Russia from going after neighboring countries. Ukraine and Georgia have already experienced this first hand.

But why Greenland to Azores? Why not Norway to Turkey?

[connda]

"It was never, ever about Russia. It was always about ballistic missiles coming out of the Middle Eastern region towards NATO allies and US forces in Europe"

Of course it is. And Russian is as concerned as NATO is about the threat of Middle Eastern ballistic missiles and will be 'assisting' NATO in their efforts by covering NATO's missile shield with a second layer of defensive S-500 missile batteries. See how wonderful it is when West helps East, and East helps West.

[mgjackson69]

Of course it is about "Russia"...and any other country that might target nukes against the US or any allies.

Under what pretenses would Russia call it a "threat"?...Oh, you mean perhaps Russia cannot bully Europe?

[Grouse]

Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work pretty well.

When you destabilse that such as when SDI was mooted in the 80s it creates a dangerous situation.

Last time Russia went broke

I hope they don't go for broke and get retaliation in first

I don't know enough about ballastic missile trajectories but I would guess 200km high travelling at 10km per second? Why Romania? Looks provocative to me.

[craigt3365]

Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work pretty well.

When you destabilse that such as when SDI was mooted in the 80s it creates a dangerous situation.

Last time Russia went broke

I hope they don't go for broke and get retaliation in first

I don't know enough about ballastic missile trajectories but I would guess 200km high travelling at 10km per second? Why Romania? Looks provocative to me.

Who knows the authenticity of this, but if true, is quite scary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-privately-threatened-to-invade-Poland-Romania-and-the-Baltic-states.html

Ukraine and Georgia have been invaded, and parts of their countries annexed. So others in the region are quite nervous. For good reason.

[2fishin2]

So the shield was to prevent missile attacks from the middle east? Right. Well the only nuclear armed power there is Israel. Or are we supposed to believe Iran who doesn't have missiles wants to declare a suicidal war on NATO for some unknown reason?

The missile shield as I've commented before is about giving the US first strike nuclear capability. Now if Russia had a missile shield wouldn't NATO be panicking for exactly the same reason, namely being able to nuke someone without fear of retaliation?

That aside both Chinese and Russians have developed new missiles that will go straight through it any way, so another colossal waste of money. Still good way to help instill fear into the ignorant and ramp up the war machine profits.

1. Missiles shot from the middle east would fly along the route the missile shield is protecting.

2. These missiles are DEFENSIVE, not OFFENSIVE. They dont target any targets they defend from incoming offensive weapons.

3. If you think these weapons cant defend and shoot down Chinese or Russian missiles, you know nothing of weapons.

Actually from your post nothing is said but pure rhetoric and opinion. Not fact by any means.

[Grouse]

So the shield was to prevent missile attacks from the middle east? Right. Well the only nuclear armed power there is Israel. Or are we supposed to believe Iran who doesn't have missiles wants to declare a suicidal war on NATO for some unknown reason?

The missile shield as I've commented before is about giving the US first strike nuclear capability. Now if Russia had a missile shield wouldn't NATO be panicking for exactly the same reason, namely being able to nuke someone without fear of retaliation?

That aside both Chinese and Russians have developed new missiles that will go straight through it any way, so another colossal waste of money. Still good way to help instill fear into the ignorant and ramp up the war machine profits.

1. Missiles shot from the middle east would fly along the route the missile shield is protecting.

2. These missiles are DEFENSIVE, not OFFENSIVE. They dont target any targets they defend from incoming offensive weapons.

3. If you think these weapons cant defend and shoot down Chinese or Russian missiles, you know nothing of weapons.

Actually from your post nothing is said but pure rhetoric and opinion. Not fact by any means.

I'm afraid you misunderstand.

This is Dr Strangelove stuff

If you affect the chances of Russian ICBMs getting through, you upset the balance

Russia MUST then take action to achieve a MAD balance

This is very dangerous stuff. It's not my willy is bigger than yours ( it is BTW). It's a matter of avoiding nuclear anihillation.

Please be careful