Russia Threats Nuclear attack on Poland

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal

 

Russia threatened a nuclear strike against Poland after a landmark deal to site American global anti-missile shields in the country.

 

 

Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia's deputy chief of staff warned Poland "is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent".

 

General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting "the allies of countries having nuclear weapons".

 

He told Russia's Interfax news agency: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

 

Russia's nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.

 

The stand off between the two cold War powers was underlined by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who dismissed US claims that the silo is a deterrent against 'rogue states' like Iran as "a fairy tale". He told reporters at the Black Sea resort of Sochi: "The deployment of new missile defence facilities in Europe is aimed against the Russian Federation."

I think they also said the same about the Ukraine, because they were going to be a part of this shield.

 

I have never liked the idea of a missile shield, especially when the Cold War has been over for almost 20 years. All this is doing is making Russia feel threatened, which could prompt them to launch attacks on their neighbors in the vein of the Georgian conflict. The development has also cost a FORTUNE since Bush and Co. started working on it in 2001, practically as soon as they got into office.

 

We might as well be poking a sleeping bear with a big stick. Eventually it will respond, and I doubt we'll like the outcome.

Uhm, World War 3 anyone?

Just when you thought the Cold War was a thing of the past, this happens.

Uhm, World War 3 anyone?

It probably is. :thumbdown

This is one of the most important international news stories to come out in years.

 

I hate the thought that we are making Russia feel vulnerable and basically daring them to make a move against Poland. I see no way possible that Russia let's us build the shield, we will back up Poland if (more like when, IMO) Russia strikes, and I don't even like to think what will happen next...

 

BTW: Not that I really care, but this helps John McCain's campaign a ton.

So basically Russia is having a hissy fit and is planning to take it out on poland by bombing them

BTW: Not that I really care, but this helps John McCain's campaign a ton.

I don't believe that's the case.

 

The last thing this country needs, anyway, is a man who has a mental capacity and health issues that are more in question than his campaign will admit.

BTW: Not that I really care, but this helps John McCain's campaign a ton.

I don't believe that's the case.

 

The last thing this country needs, anyway, is a man who has a mental capacity and health issues that are more in question than his campaign will admit.

Better than a "rockstar" with little political experience and a platform that...well, besides non-specific "change", really has no platform.(btw-I am neither a republican or democrat, I just think Obama would be an awful president. A pacifist who is on top of that extremely inexperienced is not someone I want leading the country, especially at war time. McCain is the lesser of two evils).

 

Either way, this is posturing. While I am slightly worried about the possible future nuclear strike, our missle defenses in Europe, at sea, and stateside are a strong deterrent. As are our own missles themselves.

 

That said, I have long been a proponent of de-globalizing our military. Units in Korea, the 173rd and USAEUR in Italy and Germany, the middle east, should all be brought home to garrison. Even with all our forces state side we are extremely well adapted to rapid reaction. A Nimitz class carrier and carrier strike group can reach anywhere in the world in days from either Norfolk or California, and the reach of their fighter squadrons decreases that time. A B-2 Spirit doesn't even have foreign garrison, as it flies from Missouri-does it's mission-and flys back to Missouri in one continuous flight. Our entire military is air mobile, although Abrams and Bradleys are best transported by ship. We have 6 airborne brigades in the U.S. Army, not including the Ranger regiment and other SOCOM elements. The 101st and 10th Mountain are tailor made to rapid insertion. About the only base I would want left open would be Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, to keep our peacekeeping efforts there, but I would also routinely rotate in different brigades to act as a reaction force should the need arise.

 

This would greatly improve our image world wide and would be better for our military in the long run.

BTW: Not that I really care, but this helps John McCain's campaign a ton.

I don't believe that's the case.

 

The last thing this country needs, anyway, is a man who has a mental capacity and health issues that are more in question than his campaign will admit.

Better than a "rockstar" with little political experience and a platform that...well, besides non-specific "change", really has no platform.(btw-I am neither a republican or democrat, I just think Obama would be an awful president. A pacifist who is on top of that extremely inexperienced is not someone I want leading the country, especially at war time. McCain is the lesser of two evils).

 

Either way, this is posturing. While I am slightly worried about the possible future nuclear strike, our missle defenses in Europe, at sea, and stateside are a strong deterrent. As are our own missles themselves.

 

That said, I have long been a proponent of de-globalizing our military. Units in Korea, the 173rd and USAEUR in Italy and Germany, the middle east, should all be brought home to garrison. Even with all our forces state side we are extremely well adapted to rapid reaction. A Nimitz class carrier and carrier strike group can reach anywhere in the world in days from either Norfolk or California, and the reach of their fighter squadrons decreases that time. A B-2 Spirit doesn't even have foreign garrison, as it flies from Missouri-does it's mission-and flys back to Missouri in one continuous flight. Our entire military is air mobile, although Abrams and Bradleys are best transported by ship. We have 6 airborne brigades in the U.S. Army, not including the Ranger regiment and other SOCOM elements. The 101st and 10th Mountain are tailor made to rapid insertion. About the only base I would want left open would be Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, to keep our peacekeeping efforts there, but I would also routinely rotate in different brigades to act as a reaction force should the need arise.

 

This would greatly improve our image world wide and would be better for our military in the long run.

 

++++!!! idk if I ever wlecomed you to the boards but welcome!

BTW: Not that I really care, but this helps John McCain's campaign a ton.

I don't believe that's the case.

 

The last thing this country needs, anyway, is a man who has a mental capacity and health issues that are more in question than his campaign will admit.

 

As much as I dont like McCain... he is right. Fear. Just like Bush vs. Kerry... the people will be scared into voting for McCain... and if this turns out to be more serious than it already is... (like a real world war, I doubt that would happen though... but you get me) I seriously would think McCain would be the better choice. If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

It won't escalate into WW3 because although the Russians can bully Georgia (just because we don't care about the poor Georgians, or the Caucasus for that matter, except for perhaps Azerbaijan), they can't challenge the US and the West. I mean, we clearly don't want a war with Russia, but I'm sure that neither do they. That's why we all have nukes so that we don't have to go to war with each other. It serves as a deterrent. And if Russia were to strike Poland, this ain't 1941; no one is gonna sign a Ribbentrop/Molotov treaty. I think the Missile treaty has a clause where we would go in their aid. I do not believe we had such an agreement with Georgia.

It won't escalate into WW3 because although the Russians can bully Georgia (just because we don't care about the poor Georgians, or the Caucasus for that matter, except for perhaps Azerbaijan), they can't challenge the US and the West. I mean, we clearly don't want a war with Russia, but I'm sure that neither do they. That's why we all have nukes so that we don't have to go to war with each other. It serves as a deterrent. And if Russia were to strike Poland, this ain't 1941; no one is gonna sign a Ribbentrop/Molotov treaty. I think the Missile treaty has a clause where we would go in their aid. I do not believe we had such an agreement with Georgia.

It is basically the debate of defense vs. deference. The cold war revolved around deference and that is all this will be too. An act of deference. Of course there was combat with the cold war, but all the thought of bombing and nukes was deference and so is what Russia is ding now.

It won't escalate into WW3 because although the Russians can bully Georgia (just because we don't care about the poor Georgians, or the Caucasus for that matter, except for perhaps Azerbaijan), they can't challenge the US and the West. I mean, we clearly don't want a war with Russia, but I'm sure that neither do they. That's why we all have nukes so that we don't have to go to war with each other. It serves as a deterrent. And if Russia were to strike Poland, this ain't 1941; no one is gonna sign a Ribbentrop/Molotov treaty. I think the Missile treaty has a clause where we would go in their aid. I do not believe we had such an agreement with Georgia.

It is basically the debate of defense vs. deference. The cold war revolved around deference and that is all this will be too. An act of deference. Of course there was combat with the cold war, but all the thought of bombing and nukes was deference and so is what Russia is ding now.

 

Yeah, the Soviet Army and the US Army never actually fought against each other, only against proxies. I don't see why it should be any different, except that perhaps we have more proxies than they do.

Russia knows that if they bomb anybody, it's "On the Beach".

 

Look it up. :mischief

It won't escalate into WW3 because although the Russians can bully Georgia (just because we don't care about the poor Georgians, or the Caucasus for that matter, except for perhaps Azerbaijan), they can't challenge the US and the West. I mean, we clearly don't want a war with Russia, but I'm sure that neither do they. That's why we all have nukes so that we don't have to go to war with each other. It serves as a deterrent. And if Russia were to strike Poland, this ain't 1941; no one is gonna sign a Ribbentrop/Molotov treaty. I think the Missile treaty has a clause where we would go in their aid. I do not believe we had such an agreement with Georgia.

It is basically the debate of defense vs. deference. The cold war revolved around deference and that is all this will be too. An act of deference. Of course there was combat with the cold war, but all the thought of bombing and nukes was deference and so is what Russia is ding now.

 

Yeah, the Soviet Army and the US Army never actually fought against each other, only against proxies. I don't see why it should be any different, except that perhaps we have more proxies than they do.

 

The only difference too is that both were looking for allies. They were exploring the Middle East and Africa to find countries to side with. It is not like that anymore, its completely different now. So I think it would just be a deference from each other. I still think that was part of why the US was so vocal and proud of shooting down the satellite. Showing that they have complete control over their missiles and how good they are.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Russia HAS to make sure none of those countries develop a missile shield system with the United States, otherwise such a system would basically negate (or at the very least reduce) Russia's nuclear superiority with respect to those countries. That kind of move would reduce Russia's sphere of influence dramatically and perhaps fairly permanently. How it decides to stop those countries from developing such a system is a different matter; it does not necessarily have to use nuclear weapons on any such country, just destroy the missile shield system. I would imagine that they're bluffing... they're not going to use nuclear weapons, but they may nevertheless strike.

 

The question becomes: so what will we do if they do attack Poland or Ukraine? Are we going to enter WWIII on behalf of those countries? We have no ability to fight a conventional war with Russia right now (we're spread too thin), so I guess our only options involve bombing Russian targets (which could escalate) or a full out nuclear war.

 

Any way you look at it (whether you hate the Russians or not), we're overstepping some lines with this missile shield system in Poland. We're provoking them.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Russia HAS to make sure none of those countries develop a missile shield system with the United States, otherwise such a system would basically negate (or at the very least reduce) Russia's nuclear superiority with respect to those countries. That kind of move would reduce Russia's sphere of influence dramatically and perhaps fairly permanently. How it decides to stop those countries from developing such a system is a different matter; it does not necessarily have to use nuclear weapons on any such country, just destroy the missile shield system. I would imagine that they're bluffing... they're not going to use nuclear weapons, but they may nevertheless strike.

 

The question becomes: so what will we do if they do attack Poland or Ukraine? Are we going to enter WWIII on behalf of those countries? We have no ability to fight a conventional war with Russia right now (we're spread too thin), so I guess our only options involve bombing Russian targets (which could escalate) or a full out nuclear war.

 

Any way you look at it (whether you hate the Russians or not), we're overstepping some lines with this missile shield system in Poland. We're provoking them.

 

 

That's the way I am looking at it too. People say Russia will never do anything because they know the US would just bomb them back and vice versa, but the way I understand is that this shield effectively 'neuters' any nuke capabilities/threat the Russians hold over the US. So obviously, if the shield does get built, it's extremely positive for the USA, but I just can't see any way that Russia will let that happen.

 

I also have no doubt that the USA will back up Poland if/when Russia attacks. That is part of the deal, and Poland has been an extremely strong ally since the beginning of the Iraq war.

First, before I make my points-this discussion is not about whether we should act militaritly in this matter, but a point of view regarding the confrontation and the causes.

 

The missile shield issue is just what Russia needs to create a justifieable source for their discontent. And of course it feeds right into the American fear of not getting anyone mad at us. With the quantity of warheads that Russia possesses, the shield is a minor reality point but suits the Russian purpose to use a major geopolitical confrontation.

 

Russia has been building for this for awhile and it was inevitable, but the pretext didn't hurt to provide the impetus. Lest we forget Putin is the man who called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" (Robert Kagan-Washington Post 8/11/08-see below). The Georgians have been hit with intermittent missile strikes for some time now from South Ossetia, but no one has really heard about that. Russia has given the S. Ossetian people Russian passports for some time now to establish that any action against them will constitute and action against mother Russia.

 

So much opinion is based on bleeps and blurbs from newscasts, USA today and other small clips that is so useless to debate as the basis of opinions is formulated more from lack of knowledge than by the belief we know the actual facts or what some leader (Putin) of a country with a long history of oppression and violence is thinking.

 

PUTIN MAKES HIS MOVE

Robert Kagan

Washington Post, August 11, 2008

 

The details of who did what to precipitate Russia?s war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany?s invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama.

 

The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union ?the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century? has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world?s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move.

 

Georgia?s unhappy fate is that it borders a new geopolitical fault line that runs along the western and southwestern frontiers of Russia. From the Baltics in the north through Central Europe and the Balkans to the Caucasus and Central Asia, a geopolitical power struggle has emerged between a resurgent and revanchist Russia on one side and the European Union and the United States on the other.

 

Putin?s aggression against Georgia should not be traced only to its NATO aspirations or his pique at Kosovo?s independence. It is primarily a response to the ?color revolutions? in Ukraine and Georgia in 2003 and 2004, when pro-Western governments replaced pro-Russian ones. What the West celebrated as a flowering of democracy the autocratic Putin saw as geopolitical and ideological encirclement.

 

Ever since, Putin has been determined to stop and, if possible, reverse the pro-Western trend on his borders. He seeks not only to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO but also to bring them under Russian control. Beyond that, he seeks to carve out a zone of influence within NATO, with a lesser security status for countries along Russia?s strategic flanks. That is the primary motive behind Moscow?s opposition to U.S. missile defense programs in Poland and the Czech Republic.?

 

The mood is reminiscent of Germany after World War I, when Germans complained about the ?shameful Versailles diktat? imposed on a prostrate Germany by the victorious powers and about the corrupt politicians who stabbed the nation in the back.?

 

But the reality is that on most of these issues it is Russia, not the West or little Georgia, that is doing the pushing. It was Russia that raised a challenge in Kosovo, a place where Moscow had no discernible interests beyond the expressed pan-Slavic solidarity. It was Russia that decided to turn a minor deployment of a few defensive interceptors in Poland, which could not possibly be used against Russia?s vast missile arsenal, into a major geopolitical confrontation. And it is Russia that has precipitated a war against Georgia by encouraging South Ossetian rebels to raise the pressure on Tbilisi and make demands that no Georgian leader could accept. If Saakashvili had not fallen into Putin?s trap this time, something else would have eventually sparked the conflict.?

 

Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia?s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even?though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities?the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives.? [T]he harsh realities of international life that have endured since time immemorial [are back]. The next president had better be ready.

 

(Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, served in the State Department in the Reagan administration.)

Every nation that sits next to Russia knows not to trust the Russians, we would do well to pay attention.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

I don't think its him, I think it is how others will perceive him and try to "take advantage" of us, the United States, and he may not know how ot react, proactively I think he is a storng person, reactionary from everything I have seen he is subpar.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

 

 

What has Obama done that makes you think he is a strong leader on the national level?

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

And you know this how? In his four years in national politics, what has Obama done to show you that he is a leader? Smooth talker? Yes. Can dance around important questions without saying anything committal? Does it better than anyone. Made it through his entire campaign so far without anything resembling a political platform? Surprisingly, yes. But to call him a leader is absurd.

 

I will admit I dont understand the Obama love. He has done nothing at all in his political career to deserve to be at the level that he is at. He has no views on anything. All he does is stress "change" but what exactly he wants to "change" has never been uncovered.

If the world simply isnt at all calm, I cant see Obama being able to handle all of it.

Oh come on. He's a much stronger leader than that.

 

I'm far more worried that McCain will provoke Russia into further action.

And you know this how? In his four years in national politics, what has Obama done to show you that he is a leader? Smooth talker? Yes. Can dance around important questions without saying anything committal? Does it better than anyone. Made it through his entire campaign so far without anything resembling a political platform? Surprisingly, yes. But to call him a leader is absurd.

 

I will admit I dont understand the Obama love. He has done nothing at all in his political career to deserve to be at the level that he is at. He has no views on anything. All he does is stress "change" but what exactly he wants to "change" has never been uncovered.

He has done a good job of working to bring two sides together, whether it was bringing both civil rights groups and police together in order to make recordings of police interrogations mandatory for Chicago, or working with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to crack down on nuclear proliferation. It also helps that he was a Constitutional professor at college for some time before becoming involved in politics.

 

Besides, what has McCain done? He got shot down in an airplane over Vietnam. We get it.

 

It doesn't bother anyone that some of McCain's close friends even say that he would not make a good President because of his bad temper? It bothers me.