Bush & Putin Clash Over Missile Defense

[Pangloss]

I can't tell if this is just pre-G8 political maneuvering or if there's real substance here. I'm not a huge fan of missile defense (marginal effectiveness + marginal need = high profit for the military-industrial complex). But on the other hand, Putin isn't exactly scoring points with me either. (Are we really supposed to believe that he's afraid that we're so upset about his humanitarian and freedom gaffs that we're going to... nuke Moscow?!)

 

I suspect this is really about what "plays in Perm". (Sorry.)

 

What do you all think?

[ecoli]

It is pretty ridiculous. It's hard to believe that Putin actually thinks that the US would nuke him. Nobody wants another cold war with Russia.

 

MY first thought when I read this was: "Aww... Putin's jealous that the terrorists are getting all of america's attention."

[Sayonara]

I have posted one possible explanation on my blog already.

 

Another is that Putin is simply under pressure to appear to be stopping the capitalists from doing the kind of things that Russians probably grumble about in day-to-day life.

 

I think it is fairly clear that Putin KNOWS the missile shield would make a negligible difference in a conflict between Russia and the US. The issue is one of strategic balance, and he makes a good point.

[ParanoiA]

I can't tell if this is just pre-G8 political maneuvering or if there's real substance here. I'm not a huge fan of missile defense (marginal effectiveness + marginal need = high profit for the military-industrial complex). But on the other hand, Putin isn't exactly scoring points with me either. (Are we really supposed to believe that he's afraid that we're so upset about his humanitarian and freedom gaffs that we're going to... nuke Moscow?!)

 

I vote political maneuvering. And I think it's somewhat necessary. Did we actually extend an offer of alliance on the science of missle defense before this? I really don't know. Aforementioned strategic balance sounds right to me. I could see Putin saying something regardless of whether or not the Russian's are genuinely concerned. I think it would be good collaborate with them on missle defense too.

 

Now, I have to admit being shocked at the apathy towards missle defense as well. Current effectiveness = irrelevant. Same thing with embroyonic stem cells. Why should it matter that we suck at it right now? Need = Major. We've pissed off half of the world at this point and half of them have nuclear weapons or are feverishly trying to get them.

 

And we're always talking about how we shouldn't attack and occupy other countries, so why not direct the money and the capitalists to defensive military toys for a change? That'll keep them busy....

[Pangloss]

I just love this headline today being used in a number of newspapers and online sources:

 

"Bush Says Russia No Threat to Europe"

 

Because, you know, if there's one thing we've learned over the years, it's that Bush knows exactly when a country is a threat and when it is not.

[Sayonara]

lol

 

That should scare the hell out of anyone who has so far had any faith in Bush's military and strategic decisions.

 

"THAT is the man who commands our defences? Oh my sweet baby Jesus!"

[Haezed]

What do people think about a limited defense designed to knock down missiles from emerging nuclear powers *cough*Iran*cough*?

[Sisyphus]

What do people think about a limited defense designed to knock down missiles from emerging nuclear powers *cough*Iran*cough*?

 

I would be completely in favor of it if it could realistically be expected to be fully functional and effective within five years, and if it was a joint effort (or at least shared tech) with at least Russia and preferably China as well.

 

If it doesn't work it just makes us less safe, causing hostility and making a "now or never" window for attack before it does work. If it's not a joint effort when it easily could be, it's a nuclear arms race whether we intended it to be or not.

 

Incidentally, I would not share with Israel, though protecting Israel under the shield would be the top priority.

[bombus]

This is about money for the US defense industry

 

The cold war was the most lucrative war ever, and produced no direct US deaths, and the USA defense companies (who rule the USA) miss it. They've tried Iraq as a replacement, but it's so costly in lives the US public are turning against it so they need to re-start the cold war and fast.

 

As a defence system against North Korean nukes it wouldn't work, as they'd have to launch the interceptor missiles BEFORE the North Korean ones! As a defese against non-existent Iraqi weapons its also badly placed.

 

Iraq would also NEVER threaten the USA with nukes as they know they'd be destroyed utterly if they tried. They just want nukes to protect themselves from US aggression. They will NEVER have the capacity to build ICBMs anyway.

 

The whole thing is a big lie, as usual.

 

Oh, and as for Putin's supposed clamp down on freedom, just look at what's been happening in the US with the Patriot Act and in the UK! This is all mostly western spin as well, triggered by Putin's 'confiscation' of the billion dollar industries that were bleeding Russia dry. Putin's popularity in Russia FAR exceeds Bush's, and I'm quite an admirer myself!

[Pangloss]

Oh, and as for Putin's supposed clamp down on freedom, just look at what's been happening in the US with the Patriot Act and in the UK! ... Putin's popularity in Russia FAR exceeds Bush's, and I'm quite an admirer myself!

 

Oh really? Would that be admiration of the fact that he's accused of being in bed with corrupt corporations, has poorly handled the war on terror, or that he's currently threatening to run for re-election even though the Russian constitution forbids him from doing so?

 

Gosh. Kinda sounds like the anti-BUSH refrain to me. Are you sure you're being consistent there, Bombus?

[Realitycheck]

I think this was more about saving face for Russia. Putin has been very critical about Bush's actions, which could have had that effect on Bush, given Bush's temperament about anything and everything. "Within all prudence, it is the diplomatic thing to do to deter other world leader's talk." To put anti-missile armaments right there is really kind of a slap in the face for Russia. I agree, there should be something in place to protect against Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be an adequate defense sooner than later, provided that the incoming missiles are not launched from pick-up trucks.

[Saryctos]

I think this is just a genorational divide bwtween russia and "the west". They stil feel that the US calling them out as "no risk" is an insult when infact that should be a compliment...saying that they're part of the UN 'aka the 'civilized world'' which russia resents as they were the primary force next to the us, which they aren't anymore as the us has become more on the side of the rest of the world contrary to the view of their domestic polotics...russia has to save face you know, and that is showing that they have the power to cause the other super power trouble.... the problem here is transfering the fact that being enemies has made them allies and the fact that they are no longer the under dog, but the acomplise in world security...being someon's bitch is no easy task but russia will have to submit sometime, but I doubt they will considering their willingness to 'pose a threat' to the west to save face... If russia can't succeed in afghanistan* why should anyone else?

 

 

This is indeed a trying time for russia as they attempt to merge into the 'western' aka UN culture and become one of the important factors in world peace, rather than world compeditors. Their actions now more than ever shall reflect their intentions.

[bombus]

Oh really? Would that be admiration of the fact that he's accused of being in bed with corrupt corporations, has poorly handled the war on terror, or that he's currently threatening to run for re-election even though the Russian constitution forbids him from doing so?

 

Gosh. Kinda sounds like the anti-BUSH refrain to me. Are you sure you're being consistent there, Bombus?

 

Putin effectively confiscated those corrupt corporations so that the profits now go into the Russian economy rather than billionaire's pockets. The Beslan incident was a no-win situation. The terrorists could not be reasoned with and would have killed everyone. As far as running for re-election, if the people want him they should have the right to amend the consititution, else it is not democracy! The reason the US puts a maximum term on US Presidents is to limit democracy. In the US if a president has already served two terms they gotta go, even if the public wants them to stay - that ain't really democracy.

 

I'm not really anti-Bush. He's just a brainless front-man for the real rulers of the world.

 

But to get back on subject, this is about $$$. It always is. If not, why doesn't the US offer to collaborate with Russia on the project?

 

Iran are no threat to the West unless we make them enemies. I have no beef with Iranians myself, and Iran is far more stable than Pakistan.

 

Why is nobody complaining about Brazil's attempt to get nukes?

 

Don't believe the hype!

[Sisyphus]

Bombus, bombus, bombus....

 

This is about money for the US defense industry

 

The cold war was the most lucrative war ever' date=' and produced no direct US deaths, and the USA defense companies (who rule the USA) miss it. They've tried Iraq as a replacement, but it's so costly in lives the US public are turning against it so they need to re-start the cold war and fast.[/quote']

 

A rant against the military-industrial complex doesn't answer the question. I happen to agree that it's out of control. However, that doesn't bear on the question of whether this particular project is good or bad.

 

As a defence system against North Korean nukes it wouldn't work, as they'd have to launch the interceptor missiles BEFORE the North Korean ones! As a defese against non-existent Iraqi weapons its also badly placed.

 

The argument is it doesn't work, then? Ok, that's not really in dispute. Eventually it will work. Also, you mean Iran, right?

 

Iraq would also NEVER threaten the USA with nukes as they know they'd be destroyed utterly if they tried. They just want nukes to protect themselves from US aggression.

 

MAD was really our only defense during the Cold War, and it worked then, that's true. But then we were talking about one nation whose leaders were rational human beings. (And even then we came close a few times, like the Cuban Missle Crisis) Now we're talking about several nations whose leaders do not act rationally and frequently talk about martyrdom.

 

They will NEVER have the capacity to build ICBMs anyway.

 

I have no idea what you're basing that on, so I can't really respond to it beyond saying it seems like obviously something you couldn't reasonably say... Anyway, you don't need an ICBM to reach Israel.

 

Oh, and as for Putin's supposed clamp down on freedom, just look at what's been happening in the US with the Patriot Act and in the UK! This is all mostly western spin as well, triggered by Putin's 'confiscation' of the billion dollar industries that were bleeding Russia dry. Putin's popularity in Russia FAR exceeds Bush's, and I'm quite an admirer myself!

 

Putin is a thug. 85% of his top advisors are military (Gorbachev had 15%). He funds gangs of youth nationalists to violently break up protests. He tries to bully and dominate an empire that no longer exists. Why don't you look up his popularity in the former Soviet Bloc but outside Russia?

 

As far as running for re-election, if the people want him they should have the right to amend the consititution, else it is not democracy! The reason the US puts a maximum term on US Presidents is to limit democracy. In the US if a president has already served two terms they gotta go, even if the public wants them to stay - that ain't really democracy.

 

Um, no. Term limits exist to preserve democracy, by preventing one person from becoming too powerful. Without them you get stuff like a 100 year old segregationist in the U.S. Senate in the year 2003, just because he's been solidifying his power for 60 years and nobody can possibly unseat him.

 

Iran are no threat to the West unless we make them enemies. I have no beef with Iranians myself,

 

You have no beef with oppressive theocracies that talk casually and often about holy war and genocide? Um, really?

[Pangloss]

I think this is just a genorational divide bwtween russia and "the west". They stil feel that the US calling them out as "no risk" is an insult when infact that should be a compliment...saying that they're part of the UN 'aka the 'civilized world'' which russia resents as they were the primary force next to the us, which they aren't anymore as the us has become more on the side of the rest of the world contrary to the view of their domestic polotics...russia has to save face you know, and that is showing that they have the power to cause the other super power trouble.... the problem here is transfering the fact that being enemies has made them allies and the fact that they are no longer the under dog, but the acomplise in world security...being someon's bitch is no easy task but russia will have to submit sometime, but I doubt they will considering their willingness to 'pose a threat' to the west to save face... If russia can't succeed in afghanistan* why should anyone else?

 

I think that's an interesting assessment. You have some intriguing observations there.

[bombus]

Bombus, bombus, bombus....

 

 

 

A rant against the military-industrial complex doesn't answer the question. I happen to agree that it's out of control. However, that doesn't bear on the question of whether this particular project is good or bad.

 

Well, good or bad must surely include whether it's really needed.

 

 

The argument is it doesn't work, then? Ok, that's not really in dispute. Eventually it will work. Also, you mean Iran, right?

 

It will never work, as nukes can be delivered by boat! yes, I did mean Iran, sorry 'bout that.

 

 

MAD was really our only defense during the Cold War, and it worked then, that's true. But then we were talking about one nation whose leaders were rational human beings. (And even then we came close a few times, like the Cuban Missle Crisis) Now we're talking about several nations whose leaders do not act rationally and frequently talk about martyrdom.

 

Firstly, the whole Soviet threat was made up. The Soviets never intended to invade the West, they just wanted to 'hold their own'. The threat was made up to make money for the arms industry, which had become huge as a result of WW2. Secondly, the idea that Iranian leaders are mad mullahs hell bent on matyrdom is PROPAGANDA! Most of the things the Iranian president is supposed to have said is twisted by translators to mean something quite different to that actually said. Thirdly. if one actually wants 'mad mullahs' in power the US is going the right way about it.

 

I have no idea what you're basing that on, so I can't really respond to it beyond saying it seems like obviously something you couldn't reasonably say... Anyway, you don't need an ICBM to reach Israel.

 

China does not even have ICBMs. They are very hard to make. It's true that Israel could be threatened anyway, but Iran are not going to nuke Israel as they'd get fried and they know it. Agsin, it's all propaganda. You just fall for it every time!

 

 

Putin is a thug. 85% of his top advisors are military (Gorbachev had 15%). He funds gangs of youth nationalists to violently break up protests. He tries to bully and dominate an empire that no longer exists. Why don't you look up his popularity in the former Soviet Bloc but outside Russia?

 

Putin may be acting like a thug, but far less than US presidents do in Central and South America, in Iraq, and in Africa. You just never hear about it 'cos your spoon fed CNN or Fox news all day. Putin has had to act like a thug against the 'Russian Mafia', the Oligarchs, Terrorists, and of course the ever present CIA, who are very very active in Russia and Eastern Europe. It's not pretty, but it's required. Putin also stands up against the multinationals, unlike the weak, impotent western leaders.

 

Um, no. Term limits exist to preserve democracy, by preventing one person from becoming too powerful. Without them you get stuff like a 100 year old segregationist in the U.S. Senate in the year 2003, just because he's been solidifying his power for 60 years and nobody can possibly unseat him.

 

Democracy is rule by the majority. If the majority of a country wants a person to stay in power, who has the right to say no? I understand the purpose of the US rules, but anything that prevents the people making a choice is a limit on democracy.

 

 

You have no beef with oppressive theocracies that talk casually and often about holy war and genocide? Um, really?

 

Again, you listen to and believe the propaganda. It's the USA that is guilty of being an oppressive theocracy, and has committed genocide, and talks of 'forever wars'. Anyway, it's the people of Iran I'm talking about really, not their current government.

[insane_alien]

It will never work, as nukes can be delivered by boat!

 

well, technically they could. you can easily fit a megaton nuke in a small fishing vessel, sail it into the middle of a city with a river in it and detonate. sure, the blast isn't as effective as an air burst but it would work.

[Pangloss]

China does not even have ICBMs. They are very hard to make.

 

China does in fact have ICBMs. The Federation of American Scientists has a page on them here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html

 

You can dismiss that source if you wish (though I wouldn't, as it's a generally-accepted expert and objective source on military matters), but I would point out that China also launched a man into orbit in 2003, you may recall. Orbital launch vehicles are similar in capability to ICBMs (in fact ICBMs are arguably an "easier" feat of engineering).

 

Just FYI, I'm ignoring the rest of your post not because I'm denigrating your point of view (which you're perfectly entitled to), but because I prefer to let extremists have all the rope they want. Just more fun that way, and it preserves the respectful nature of discourse. I give you credit for defending your position on Putin, and I respect an extremist who defends his opinion and attempts to be reasonable. When one looks at the same evidence as everyone else but simply comes to a different point of view, that has to be respected. Good luck with that.

[bombus]

I think it is fairly clear that Putin KNOWS the missile shield would make a negligible difference in a conflict between Russia and the US. The issue is one of strategic balance, and he makes a good point.

 

I think the thing is, it WOULD make a difference if Russia did nothing. In order to neutralize its effect, Russia would have to make more nukes, or at the very least, target more nukes towards it.

 

I believe this is exactly what the US Govt. wants, so it can them say, 'Hey, we need more nukes too' or ' we need an even bigger and better defence shield' and it goes on ad infinitum, making the arms industries untold riches! I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

[bombus]

China does in fact have ICBMs. The Federation of American Scientists has a page on them here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html

 

You can dismiss that source if you wish (though I wouldn't, as it's a generally-accepted expert and objective source on military matters), but I would point out that China also launched a man into orbit in 2003, you may recall. Orbital launch vehicles are similar in capability to ICBMs (in fact ICBMs are arguably an "easier" feat of engineering).

 

Just FYI, I'm ignoring the rest of your post not because I'm denigrating your point of view (which you're perfectly entitled to), but because I prefer to let extremists have all the rope they want. Just more fun that way, and it preserves the respectful nature of discourse. I give you credit for defending your position on Putin, and I respect an extremist who defends his opinion and attempts to be reasonable. When one looks at the same evidence as everyone else but simply comes to a different point of view, that has to be respected. Good luck with that.

 

Actually you are right, and China do have the technology to develop ICBMs, but it did take them years to get them, and (unless things have recently changed) they can't yet threaten the US mainland (That's what I was getting confused with). Iran have little hope of developing ICBMs in the next 35 years. The thing is, they can be delivered on the back of a truck or in a container ship (as was mentioned above). ICBMs are not really needed with nukes!

 

It's funny that you think me an extremist just 'cos I give an alternative point of view. Was Gallileo an extremist?

[Pangloss]

Of course he was. What's wrong with being an extremist?

 

Anyway, you have it backwards on Chinese ICBMs. They're not just starting to "develop them now"; they've had the capability since the 1960s.

[Sayonara]

Is Bombus Gallileo?

[bombus]

Of course he was. What's wrong with being an extremist?

 

Anyway, you have it backwards on Chinese ICBMs. They're not just starting to "develop them now"; they've had the capability since the 1960s.

 

Yeah, but they couldn't lob 'em far enough to threaten the US methinks.

[ParanoiA]

Bombus, ICBM = Inter Continental Ballistic Missle....they can lob 'em far enough.

 

It will never work, as nukes can be delivered by boat!

 

Sure it will work. Has the last few hundred years of exponential human advancement given you any clues yet man? It will work great. We can shoot a bullet with a bullet. And it will be fairly easy to do at some point too.

 

And we can already shoot a nuke on a boat...no problems there, that's why we're concentrating on these flyin' ones now...

 

Firstly, the whole Soviet threat was made up. The Soviets never intended to invade the West, they just wanted to 'hold their own'. The threat was made up to make money for the arms industry, which had become huge as a result of WW2.

 

I don't remember anybody saying the soviets intended to invade the west. Now maybe I missed that history lesson, but as I recall there was a lot of tension between the allied powers and russia at the end of WWII and we began checking each other through proxy wars and propaganda. More of a power struggle than an imperial intent. We are both guilty of this, but I would nod to human nature and get past it.

 

After all, WWII was just absolutely horrible for the world - so much dead and suffering, torn up countries. All because we let somebody get out of hand before dealing with them.

 

So what was wrong with basically a war of economies with the soviets rather than physical battle, casualties, dead people? Isn't that more of a pacifist approach?

[Pangloss]

Yeah, but they couldn't lob 'em far enough to threaten the US methinks.

 

Yes they could, since the late 1970s or early 1980s, depending on which sources you believe.

 

BTW, what North Korea has been testing doesn't meet the traditional definition of an ICBM either, if memory serves. But if our sworn enemy deploys a weapon capable of wiping Seattle off the face of the Earth, I think we can be forgiven for calling it an ICBM. Not that it really matters.