Russia: New Icmbs, Old Threat

[JMHX]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia successfully test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple warheads designed to overcome missile defense systems such as the planned U.S. shield in Europe.

At the same time, President Vladimir Putin stepped up his attacks on the missile shield, saying its deployment in Europe would turn the continent into "a powder keg".

Russian military experts said the new missile was part of the "highly effective response" promised earlier this year by President Vladimir Putin to the shield, which is fiercely opposed by Moscow as a threat to its security.

Source

--

Regardless of whether or not the Russian Federation has come out of the Cold War, it would be a grave mistake for the United States not to look at them as an adversary at the least and a threat at the worst. This does not come from their production of ICBMs, but rather their willingness to snub the consensus of the world in order to continue the vision of Russia as all-powerful Bear in Eurasia.

The understanding is simple: during the Cold War, Russia needed the United States as a strategic adversary to continue on with the proud propaganda of Communism. In return, the United States needed Russia as a major political point, a catalyst for continued funding of weapons research and civilian (and latent military) aerospace projects and other advancements. However, after the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States no longer needed the former Soviet Union to advance its own domestic policies - the precedent during the Cold War had been set, and few questioned exorbitant research and development expenditures in weapons technology, civil and military aviation, and the space program.

But Russia still needs the United States. Repeated studies and surveys conducted on ordinary Russians by British and French services show a desire to return to authoritarianism, if not communism, and a strong approval of Vladimir Putin for his strong-arm tactics. Whether or not they conform to western views, Russians support it. This creates a problem when Putin, to the best of his ability, attempts to make an adversary out of the United States once again by repeatedly pushing the envelope to see how far Russia can go. Meek and light response by the United States has emboldened Russia on several fronts:

1. The sale of nuclear information, technology and materials to Islamofascist and rogue states like Iran and North Korea, specifically the information-exchange on nuclear technology between Iran's A.Q. Khan and the Russian Federation. This has also strengthened foreign policy ties between Russia and Iran, culminating in Russia allowing Iran to use portions of its national waters for war-games exercises several years ago. Russia' s willingness to fund rogue and dangerous states with catastrophic missile and nuclear technology has failed to rouse much action in Washington.

2. Willful disregard for the Nunn-Lugar Act, which provides funding and personnel for the securing and destruction of abandoned and underdefended nuclear material in Russia. Nuclear material and weapons that have fallen into disrepair sit in lightly (or in somecases unguarded) facilities in Russia, where they are very obvious targets for rogue terrorist groups. Russia has been more than happy to accept portions of Nunn-Lugar funding, but the response has been lackluster and in most places nonexistant, with the exception of facilities where the United States has made up the majority of the cleanup force.

3. In respose to growing interest from American corporations and investors in Russian companies, Russia has cut off most foreign investment in discretionary companies, and all foreign investment without special permission in utilities such as electricity and oil. The Russian government seeks a protectionist and isolationist corporate and economic policy with the largest creditor in the world while allowing Iranian, Saudi and formerly Iraqi businessmen to buy large stakes in Russian oil and natural gas companies. This bar on commerce hinders both Russia's stagnant economy and America's growing economy by reducing international investment and capital inflows that the Putin government must feel will weaken his hold on ordinary Russians.

These ICBMs, from which the launch and production technology may already have been sold to Iranians, Koreans or any other interested anti-American party, are just one more mark of strong and dangerous anti-Americanism in Russia. These missiles pose a threat simply through their existence, and Washington must take strong steps to condemn these actions and make sure that modern Russian ICBMs do not replace the aging missiles in ex-Soviet silos. These ICBMs have the potential to destabilize Russia and the Eurasian region. They must not do so.

[Gunter45]

At 5/29/07 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: These ICBMs have the potential to destabilize Russia and the Eurasian region. They must not do so.

And what gets me is the fact that Putin is saying that the missile shield is what's going to turn the region into a "powder keg." Of course, he can't very well say he wants to be able to drop the hammer on whoever he wants, but still, he could come up with better reasoning than that.

[MortifiedPenguins]

While I agree with your basic thesis, we must tackle this situation carefully.

Resorting to strong armed tactics might just be what the Russians are looking for.

[bcdemon]

I don't see the issue here. Why is Russia not allowed to defend itself? Personally I don't think anyone should have these weapons. But, if the US and Europe are going to set up a missile defense shield (which I assume is to defend against Russia), Russia has every right to work around it. Let's say Chavez and the rest of South America set up missile defense shield, the US would come up with something to combat it in a heartbeat.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/30/07 01:35 AM, bcdemon wrote: I don't see the issue here. Why is Russia not allowed to defend itself?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You know for a FACT that if this topic was about the US developing a new nuclear warhead delivery system you would be trashing the US right now. Typical for you... just the fact that Russia is not the US and is currently at odds with the US, it's automatically immune to criticism that you yourself would hold against the US.

Personally I don't think anyone should have these weapons. But, if the US and Europe are going to set up a missile defense shield (which I assume is to defend against Russia), Russia has every right to work around it.

Um... the defense shield consists of 10 defensive missiles to counter a limited ballistic missile barrage from a rogue state with limited capability. Even if Russia used missiles it has had since the 60's it would still be able to entirely counter the missile shield. Therefore the missile shield is not directed at Russia.

Pretending it was directed at Russia would be tantamount to accusing a man of being confrontational by donning a plastic helmet in a room full of men armed with machine guns.

Let's say Chavez and the rest of South America set up missile defense shield, the US would come up with something to combat it in a heartbeat.

I don't think so. Because no South American nations possess nukes. But that's entirely different anyway. This is about nuclear war, not a possible conventional war (which you take place in South America). There is ZERO tactical use for an ICBM, it's all strategic... as in under the genre of Mutual Assured Destruction. Developing a new missile to combat a limited defense shield shows that the Russians want the preemptive capability to strike at other nuclear states first. It's not about defense at all, because having ANY sizable nuke arsenal is a deterrent.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/29/07 04:38 PM, JMHX wrote: But Russia still needs the United States. Repeated studies and surveys conducted on ordinary Russians by British and French services show a desire to return to authoritarianism, if not communism, and a strong approval of Vladimir Putin for his strong-arm tactics. Whether or not they conform to western views, Russians support it.

Ive met Russians in the USA with that same exact sentiment. They sure love to take advantage of everything our country offers but they are so hard on Russia still and the "good ole days" of Soviet Communism, when their country was relevant politically, that they will overlook everything they gained by the Soviets fall. I dont get what exactly makes Russians the way they are but they have some massive nationalism that stretches the bounds VERY closely to jingoism.

For instance, I use to know this one kind named Shamil (I think that was how it was spelled) and good lord would he brag about every little thing the Soviets ever did better than the Americans, whether it was some obscure radar outlay or advanced SAM site or whatever. Then I would tell him there is a reason his parents moved from the good ole USSR in 1988 (obviously, when he moved) to the USA but he would hear none of it. It was all about the glory of the motherland and if people had to suffer a little bit because of it, so be it.

People always say how the young are to inexperienced to respect the horrors of war and think only of the glory and honor. I think the problem with the current generation of Russians is corrolary, they are young enough to have memories of glory days of the USSR but not old enough to remember just how terrible that country was under the communists. Of course their transition to capitalism, with some of the most corrupt fools in the world stealing public resources left and right, probably didnt help to make it a very smooth transition either.

These ICBMs, from which the launch and production technology may already have been sold to Iranians, Koreans or any other interested anti-American party, are just one more mark of strong and dangerous anti-Americanism in Russia.

I kind of doubt the North Koreans or Iranians or whatever backward country could afford these things. From the sounds of it they sound pretty advanced. God knows why Russia is sinking all its money into missles again, its not like their arms industry can make much use of it (unless I am very wrong). It just seems like dead end research mone to me.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/29/07 04:40 PM, Gunter45 wrote: And what gets me is the fact that Putin is saying that the missile shield is what's going to turn the region into a "powder keg." Of course, he can't very well say he wants to be able to drop the hammer on whoever he wants, but still, he could come up with better reasoning than that.

Setting up a missle shield I am pretty sure is against the numerous nuclear disarmament treaties signed together by the Russians and Americans. So I am pretty sure they do have grounds for complaint.

And creating a missle shield dangerously shifts the balance of power in international relations away from MAD. If you have one party that is assured to come out of a nuclear conflict in significantly better shape it makes it, possibly, easier to fire the first preemptive shot because they have less at stake with a nuclear shield at their backs. So I cant say I am for a missle shield on the grounds of MAD, the balance of power shifts to drastically.

The creation of the missle shield I am guessing, however, is more for the rogue nation type weapons. If Iran decides to fire one of their rockets into whatever European nation they can hit or something like that, possibly with a nuclear device. For that it is completly understandable. Russia is probably just using this issue now to make it look like the Americans were so concerned with Russian power they created a missle shield when in reality it wasnt even being emplaced because of them. So what we have is a nice little propaganda coup by the Russians if I am reading this all correctly.

[Demosthenez]

Bah, triple post. Was re-reading my post and realized I had a good nugget to add.

At 5/30/07 03:51 AM, Demosthenez wrote: I think the problem with the current generation of Russians is corrolary, they are young enough to have memories of glory days of the USSR but not old enough to remember just how terrible that country was under the communists.

Doesnt hurt that all of the older generations are dying like flys and thus cant transmit their knowledge. Life expantancy for men is 57 years old.

"There is no historical precedent for this anywhere in the world," said Judith Shapiro, an economist who specializes in health demographics at the University of London, referring to the drop in Russian male life expectancy from 64 to 57 in the last four years. "Obviously nobody can quite figure it out. But it is a mystery that needs to be solved soon."

Says it all. Russia is one fucked up place.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/30/07 03:59 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/29/07 04:40 PM, Gunter45 wrote: And what gets me is the fact that Putin is saying that the missile shield is what's going to turn the region into a "powder keg." Of course, he can't very well say he wants to be able to drop the hammer on whoever he wants, but still, he could come up with better reasoning than that.

Setting up a missle shield I am pretty sure is against the numerous nuclear disarmament treaties signed together by the Russians and Americans. So I am pretty sure they do have grounds for complaint.

No, the US pulled out of that treaty over 20 years ago, nullifying the treaty. That means that legally, Russia can develop defensive capability as well. But they don't have the technology or money to do that, so they instead decided to develop new nuke delivery systems to counter it.

And creating a missle shield dangerously shifts the balance of power in international relations away from MAD.

No, it really doesn't. The missile shield is limited in capability to defend against only very small-scale attacks. It can only defend against 10 missiles ideally where it is deployed (so far only in the Pacific), probably less than that. This only makes it capable of defending against an attack from a rogue state that doesn't even fit into the MAD doctrine because it probably only has a limited arsenal.

Also, the defense shield in question that is to be deployed in eastern Europe is specifically meant to counter a threat from Iran. Iran is even further outside of the MAD concept because they are an Islamic Theocracy with an incredibly apocalyptic view of the world. They can't be deterred. Their official slogan is "Death to America" and they emphasize martyrdom in their culture. That's not a country that can be dissuaded from using nukes by the prospect of a retaliatory response that will cause its own destruction. Therefore it is much wiser to be able to defend against them, rather than expect them to have nationalistic, secular ambitions of self-preservation that a country like Russia has.

If you have one party that is assured to come out of a nuclear conflict in significantly better shape it makes it, possibly, easier to fire the first preemptive shot because they have less at stake with a nuclear shield at their backs.

That would be true if the missile shield could counter probably 95% of Russia's nuclear missile stockpile. But it cannot, and it isn't designed to. It's designed for a purely defensive purpose, it really doesn't affect the MAD balance that we have with Russia at all.

Russia is probably just using this issue now to make it look like the Americans were so concerned with Russian power they created a missle shield when in reality it wasnt even being emplaced because of them. So what we have is a nice little propaganda coup by the Russians if I am reading this all correctly.

Most sense you've ever made.

Russia has probably been developing the new ICBM for decades, long before our missile shield was even past research stage. It's just convenient now that since people around the world got wind of the missile shield topic, Russia now decided to test it, when previously, testing it would have been incredibly controversial.

[ErwinR0mmel]

I don't think Russia is seeking a confrontation against or a souring of with the West. If you are to look at the current events in Eastern Europe then it is easy to assume that the Russians are desperate to meet the US in a political battle royale for influence over the other former Soviet territories. But no. Taking a closer look it would seem more likely that Moscow is grwoing concerned over the growing influence the American's are exercising over her former allies. After the fall of the Soviet Union America began to set up shop among the former Soviet republics which greatly alarmed the Russian government, who saw their nation as still a superpower. Russia began to wage a political and propaganda campaign to slow American influence in her own backyard but so far does not wish to escalate things. Russia does not need the US in the mammer you speak of. She needs the US both economically and politically. Hell, from what I've heard Russia is welcoming western companies to do business with her. Not keeping them so as to keep Putins sway over the population. That's why Mr. Putin does not directly refer to the US when he expresses concern over American actions in the region and the world.

And about them ICBMs and nuclear techology. Moscow is resilient on fully cooporating with the West because it is proud and does not wish to seem like an American lapdog. And besides it does not have the resources to do so.

[bcdemon]

At 5/30/07 01:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 5/30/07 01:35 AM, bcdemon wrote: I don't see the issue here. Why is Russia not allowed to defend itself?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You know for a FACT that if this topic was about the US developing a new nuclear warhead delivery system you would be trashing the US right now. Typical for you... just the fact that Russia is not the US and is currently at odds with the US, it's automatically immune to criticism that you yourself would hold against the US.

What the fuck are you talking about? The US already has a similar missile, the Peacekeeper. Which holds 10, 300 kiloton warheads (upgradeable to 475 kt). Russia is just catching up. And I did criticize it, I said nobody should have these WMD. But you can't blame them for wanting to keep up with the Joneses, can you?

Personally I don't think anyone should have these weapons. But, if the US and Europe are going to set up a missile defense shield (which I assume is to defend against Russia), Russia has every right to work around it.

And I was wrong in assuming it was against Russia, it's to protect Europe from an Iranian attack, which may happen by 2015. But that is not to say that it can't be used against Russia.

Developing a new missile to combat a limited defense shield shows that the Russians want the preemptive capability to strike at other nuclear states first.

And the problem with that is?

[Demosthenez]

At 5/30/07 04:23 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, the US pulled out of that treaty over 20 years ago, nullifying the treaty.

I just looked this up and you are wrong, we have only been out of the treaty banning it for less than 5 years. The Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty of 1972 (ABM) was what banned missle defense systems. It had a 30 year life and ended in 2002 when the United States withdrew from it.

No, it really doesn't. The missile shield is limited in capability to defend against only very small-scale attacks. It can only defend against 10 missiles ideally where it is deployed (so far only in the Pacific), probably less than that.

I would like to see a link on this and proof it has no intention of being expanded.

Also, the defense shield in question that is to be deployed in eastern Europe is specifically meant to counter a threat from Iran.

I will not debate Iran. Bring it somewhere else but as it is, all you have are one liners and massive generalizations. So I suggest adding some new material.

That would be true if the missile shield could counter probably 95% of Russia's nuclear missile stockpile.

All a missle shield would have to counter to totally shift the balance of power in MAD would be like 20%-30%. That is 30% less destruction your country is going to suffer if nuclear war is begun and coupling that with a pre-emptive strike, your country can come out of a nuclear war in significantly better shape than the other party. It by all means does not even have to come close to countering most of the missles like you suggest in your scenario.

Most sense you've ever made.

You are an idiot. If you cant debate like an adult when no one is attacking just go fuck off, no one needs to or wants to deal with whatever fucking Napoleon complex you have.

[HighlyIllogical]

This makes me hate Putin even more...

I mean, he was in bed with the oligarchs, he was with the KGB, now this?!

[jhonyrestrepo]

At 5/30/07 03:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: This makes me hate Putin even more...

I mean, he was in bed with the oligarchs, he was with the KGB, now this?!

Vladimir Putin is not loyal to anyone but himself. He probably wants to make of Russia a mighty nation once again, with him being some kind of Emperor.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/30/07 01:37 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/30/07 04:23 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, the US pulled out of that treaty over 20 years ago, nullifying the treaty.

I just looked this up and you are wrong,we have only been out of the treaty banning it for less than 5 years. The Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty of 1972 (ABM) was what banned missle defense systems. It had a 30 year life and ended in 2002 when the United States withdrew from it.

Lovely how you intentionally left out how YOUR original point was wrong. Let me remind you:

Setting up a missle shield I am pretty sure is against the numerous nuclear disarmament treaties signed together by the Russians and Americans. So I am pretty sure they do have grounds for complaint.

The US defense shield is not "against numerous nuclear disarmament treaties". It's not "grounds for complaint". That was your original point that was entirely wrong, so you had to ignore that part and all of a sudden make it about my mistake.

Anyway, what I meant to say was that the US started official development of the missile defense over 20 years ago. Actually it was 24 years ago in 1983 under the Strategic Defense Initiative. I was mistaken that this nullified the treaty. I thought that Reagan had withdrew the US from that treaty, I was mistaken. But my original point still stands, I was correct that the current missile defense is not illegal, and Russia has no right to "complain" about it as you suggested.

No, it really doesn't. The missile shield is limited in capability to defend against only very small-scale attacks. It can only defend against 10 missiles ideally where it is deployed (so far only in the Pacific), probably less than that.

I would like to see a link on this and proof it has no intention of being expanded.

First of all, you can't prove "intention." but you can prove that the capability of the system doesn't match whatever supposed malicious ntentention you think the US has.

So, you should probably familiarize yourself with what the defense shield actually does so you can actually have a clue about what you are talking about for once.

The ground-based interceptors use KINETIC ENERGY to destroy the intended target. The target is the incoming warhead as it separates from the missile, as it reenters the atmosphere. It isn't armed with explosives, and it has one "kill-vehicle" per missile. So each missile can only take out one incoming warhead, not an entire ICBM that has multiple warhead re-entry vehicles.

Now, since the US officially plans to station only 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland (in addition to the 24 or 25 missiles that will be stationed in Alaska and California by the end of the year), there is no way they could be of any real use against a nuclear attack from Russia. Russia has 497 ICMBs, with 1770 warheads between them.

Therefore, to someone who has any clue what they are talking about, It's obviously only meant to counter Iran, due to its limitations as well as it's geographical position. Just like the ones in the Pacific are meant to counter North Korea.

Also, the defense shield in question that is to be deployed in eastern Europe is specifically meant to counter a threat from Iran.

I will not debate Iran. Bring it somewhere else but as it is, all you have are one liners and massive generalizations. So I suggest adding some new material.

Everything I said was entirely correct. But you've provided absolutely zero material, your whole argument revolves the absence of other facts from the other side, you provide zero facts yourself.

That would be true if the missile shield could counter probably 95% of Russia's nuclear missile stockpile.

All a missle shield would have to counter to totally shift the balance of power in MAD would be like 20%-30%.

Holy crap are you just parading your ignorance. You base everything you say on your own speculation rather than facts. Allow me to enlighten you:

In order for the US to counter "20% to 30%" of Russians nuclear arsenal the US would need A LOT more than just Ballistic Missile Defense. Not all nukes are deployed via ICMBs, many are tactical rather than strategic. Out of the 3242 deliveralble nuclear warheads Russia has, 1770 of them are on ICBMs.

But just for fun, lets pretend that Russia would only use ICBM's. Now, since Russia has 1770 warheads aboard its 497 ICBM's as previously shown, the US would need 354-531 interceptor missiles to counter 20-30%.

That would mean that (if other nukes were excluded from the equation, though they wouldn't be in reality) 1239 -1416 warheads would strike the US. That is more than enough to destroy the entire country. Think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those warheads were measured in several kilotons, modern warheads are several megatons (1000 kilotons is a megaton), with the largest bomb ever detonated being 50mt. So think about potentially 100s of thousands of Hiroshima's within US territory, even after "20%-30%" are countered as you suggest is sufficient for an advantage.

Most sense you've ever made.

You are an idiot. If you cant debate like an adult when no one is attacking just go fuck off, no one needs to or wants to deal with whatever fucking Napoleon complex you have.

You actually ARE an idiot. You never know what you're talking about, but you always assume that you do. You repeatedly enter debates with "you are all fucking morons" or some other condescending remark, meanwhile the things you say are totally stupid and uneducated.

Do some research next time.

[Anti-punk]

Come'on guys. If US has 10 rockets in Poland, does it mean they 10 rockets at all?

It's not normal to place your strategical objects so close to our borders. We don't have rockets that can reach you so fast.
And, moreover. Russian nuclear forces are so outdated. We are just putting new models instead of old ones.

P.S. Guy called Shamil isn't Russian =)

[JMHX]

Newest news on Russia: Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are sparking international controversy for their plan to sell uranium enriching centrifuges and nuclear reactors to the authoritarian state of Myanmar, where Generalissimos in charge of all facets of government clamp down on dissent and economic freedoms. Myanmar has also entered into tentative oil-for-technology agreements with Russia and Iran, and has restored diplomatic ties with North Korea. This significantly expands Russia's weapons-trade base.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/31/07 03:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lovely how you intentionally left out how YOUR original point was wrong. Let me remind you:

You are so incredibly childish.

First of all, you can't prove "intention." but you can prove that the capability of the system doesn't match whatever supposed malicious ntentention you think the US has.

The initial GBI site deployment would be 20 interceptor missiles. The GBI seeker is expected to be able to do discrimination against initial simple threat countermeasure and penetration aid, though it would require assistance from ground-based radars or space-based sensors to address more complex and sophisticated targets.

Notice the word "initial?"

Therefore, to someone who has any clue what they are talking about, It's obviously only meant to counter Iran, due to its limitations as well as it's geographical position.

Yes, cellardoor you are indeed the king of looking up news articles and then acting as if you had this knowledge all along. Sorry, next time I will look them up myself and then pretend as if I knew this all along just like you.

Holy crap are you just parading your ignorance. You base everything you say on your own speculation rather than facts. Allow me to enlighten you:

What in anyway did I say anything that was wrong? NMD hugely shift the balance of power in MAD, even if they only counter a couple dozens of a percent? Did I say that is what our NMD capabalities are now? Did I even suggest it? No. It was pure speculation based on what could concievably happen in the future.

That would mean that (if other nukes were excluded from the equation, though they wouldn't be in reality) 1239 -1416 warheads would strike the US.

Apparently you totally missed the part about a pre-emptive strike that was cornerstone to the point I was making. Figures. Read whatever you want into what I have written, its not like you actually care or want to know what I am saying this is just some giant ego masturbation for you.

You repeatedly enter debates with "you are all fucking morons" or some other condescending remark, meanwhile the things you say are totally stupid and uneducated.

OH THE IRONIES. Like I said, I will look up the news articles before and make it look like I am an expert in everything, sort of like my boss hog cellardoor. FOR RIZZLE. Now to post some shit.

One further (broadly-discussed and hotly-debated ) arms ‘control’ implication regards the Russian announcement to withdraw from the START II Treaty (as required by the START II Bill of Ratification law passed by the Duma in April 2000) or from the whole arms control regime in response to unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty by the United States. As Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Duma’s Defence Committee recently observed: “Putin made a very strong commitment, which is on the record, that if the United States unilaterally withdrew [from] the ABM Treaty, Russia will withdraw from START II, and will go in for new MIRVed ICBMs. He also said... that Russia will withdraw from all regimes of arms control, including conventional arms control.”

It is the combination of national and regional BMD components that makes an arms race between the United States and China highly likely. From today’s perspective, an arms build-up will not stop there. China’s nuclear response to a determined and efficient BMD policy is likely to trigger a chain reaction in India, Pakistan, and other countries a well. A sober cost-benefit-analysis has to weigh this frightening perspective against the possibility of increased political US options in China/Taiwan crises. One issue already clear today is that the outlook for arms control is poor. Beijing is already in a position to respond credibly to a US BMD build-up, in this respect it is in a different league to Moscow. The signs are already there, the most visible being perhaps the suspension of the cut-off talks in Geneva, because Beijing seems to think that it needs more weapons-usable material to build more nuclear warheads.

However, it is not only the quantitative dimension of an arms race that is at stake, it is the qualitative as well. This includes the prospects of MIRVed missiles and the end of Beijing’s current minimum deterrence strategy and progress towards war-fighting options. Beijing’s nuclear build-up is certainly not driven by one factor. But the NMD/TMD element could at least accelerate current plans, provide an additional justification for them and make it more difficult to transform China’s traditional role as a rule-breaker to that of constructive rule-maker/taker. While it is clear that China has to recognise that its problematic export policy is part of the proliferation problem and plays into the hands of NMD proponents, a BMD policy that is not used as a bargaining chip is likely to close promising arms control options, i.e. as a test of whether Beijing’s strong advocacy of the ABM Treaty in its currently restrictive form is mere bluff, or a credible first step to adapting the bilateral agreement of 1972 by trilateralising it. While this may sound utopian, the opposite extreme could be both realistic and dangerous, namely that China increases its build-up even more and even faster, if the United States and Russia implemented their cooperative endeavours toward a ‘Trans’-National Missile System.

The global dimension is the most obvious i.e. ‘EU/NATO-Europe’ is well aware of the fact that the threats of worldwide arms races will deeply affect its security and its foreign policy. Therefore, in a rare statement of unanimity, Europe is acting as an entity with regards to NMD. In their spring meeting in Florence, all Foreign Ministers, recognising that they cannot prevent the US from establishing a National Missile Defense System, established conditions for their ‘consent’. Arms control is pivotal in the sense that Ministers warned of the negative implications of arms races and of the break-down of the NPT regime. Most, if not all EU member states would probably be happy if NMD imploded or at least was protracted due to the major technical short-comings that have dogged the programme. The second preference would be a consensus on the ABM Treaty between Washington and Moscow.
-Bernd W. Kubbig

The point about deterrence was simple enough: if successful BMD could provide a risk insurance for a first strike. For this they needed to be coupled with a sophisticated offensive capability. But another reason why MAD gained in plausibility was that no offensive capability could be designed that could take out the totality of the enemy offence, especially as offensive systems were kept safely in submarines. As by itself, BMD could never provide a first strike capability there was always a hankering after defence dominance, in which the nuclear danger is reduced because both sides can protect their societies against attack. Again the problem was always the ease with which the offence could overwhelm the defence, so that for this system to be stable, exceptional and reliable restrictions would be needed on offensive forces, and the defence would still have to be able to cope with any breakout.

Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean attempts to get weapons of mass destruction can be seen as attempts to stop Washington interfering when they throw their weight about in their neighbourhood. China has been rattling missiles in its grumbling crisis with Taiwan, one in which the United States could easily get caught. North Korea knows that its presumed nuclear capacity and missiles is one of its only bargaining cards in its fight for survival.

NMD is therefore naturally viewed as challenging the growing dependence of weaker states on nuclear deterrence as a counter to the overwhelming conventional strength of the West. It does not particularly sustain Western deterrent strategies.
-Lawrence Freedman
There is a shitload of implications in this, especially when we have no knowledge that the missle defense shield will not be expanded.

[Demosthenez]

cellardoor I am just going to say, your problem here is you are looking at this from just the viewpoint of the USA. If you are another leader, like Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad or Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin you have to put yourself in their shoes and think about how this proposed missle shield will conflict with their interests. The missle shield is only in its infancy right now and is experiencing its first deployments. Since there are no treaty requirements restricting further emplacements, all people like Putin can do is saber rattle right now to make it known he is not for that. The solution is not to say "Fuck you" to Putin but get on the ground and talk to him and resolve our differences. Possibly try to include him and Russia in whatever missle defense shield we are implementing. If not that, talk to Putin and use the press to make it abundantly clear we are not doing this to try and limit Russias nuclear capibilities. And make it concrete as HELL we are not going to expand the capibilities any further than the ten missles there now.

I am just saying that unless we make it very clear this shield will be very limited in scope we may resurrect the arms race. And I firmly believe deterrence is not something you want to throw away, especially in a multipolar nuclear world that will in all likelihood become even more multipolar. Our best countermeasure to nucler proliferation and nuclear war is a strong NNPT, not a missle shield.

At 5/31/07 04:02 AM, Anti-punk wrote: P.S. Guy called Shamil isn't Russian =)

He spoke Russian pretty good. Yeah, but I know what you are saying. I saw that one of the big Chechnyan ring leaders was named Shamil (however it is spelled). Shamil Basayev to be exact. Kind of gave me pause to think about the Shamil I knew's nationality when I noticed this. In anywho, like I said the Shamil I knew spoke Russian pretty good, as did his family, so maybe he was another nationality that was just apart of the USSR? Dont know.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/31/07 02:06 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/31/07 03:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lovely how you intentionally left out how YOUR original point was wrong. Let me remind you:

You are so incredibly childish.

You are just as childish, the difference is, I actually know what I'm talking about. You don't, but you want to appear that you do so you keep dodging the actual points of the argument, and keep evolving your point to avoid the defeat of your various false points.

First of all, you can't prove "intention." but you can prove that the capability of the system doesn't match whatever supposed malicious ntentention you think the US has.

The initial GBI site deployment would be 20 interceptor missiles.

That's in the Pacific... that's not referring to the Interceptors to be deployed in Europe, which the US has specifically stated will be only 10 missiles (as I showed). These 10 to be deployed in Poland are the ones being discussed. Russia didn't make such a stink when the interceptors became operation in the Pacific a few years ago.

Therefore, to someone who has any clue what they are talking about, It's obviously only meant to counter Iran, due to its limitations as well as it's geographical position.

Yes, cellardoor you are indeed the king of looking up news articles and then acting as if you had this knowledge all along.

Haha I DID have this knowledge all along, I did an essay on it including a power point presentation for my Military Science class. I'll look for my thumbdrive and I'll be more than happy to email it to you. But what I find incredibly funny is that you requested links, but THEN when I provide them you criticize me for using sites to learn about it to claim I knew it all along. You always do that, you have zero integrity. You keep shifting your argument in order to salvage it.

I say something, you demand links otherwise I'm full of shit to you. When I provide links, you say I didn't really know it until I just looked it up. It's getting ridiculous.

Holy crap are you just parading your ignorance. You base everything you say on your own speculation rather than facts. Allow me to enlighten you:

What in anyway did I say anything that was wrong?

You suggested that countering 20%-30% would have a benefit, when it really wouldn't. Nor would the kinetic interceptors even be efficient if the US DID want to counter an entire missile threat from Russia. Both sides have developed NUCLEAR-TIPPED anti-missile systems in case of an actual full-scale ICBM launch that are more cost effective.

And would you like me to find a link for that, or are you going to accuse me of just linking to it to pretend I knew it all along?

NMD hugely shift the balance of power in MAD, even if they only counter a couple dozens of a percent? Did I say that is what our NMD capabalities are now? Did I even suggest it? No. It was pure speculation based on what could concievably happen in the future.

It was uneducated speculation that was entirely beyond the mark. You gave a random figure, so I provided some numbers to show that the amount you suggested needed to be countered to have some benefit was entirely nonsense. And then you do it again, you avoid the fact that you were entirely wrong.

Both sides have enough nukes to entirely destroy the world many times over, countering 20-30% of Russia's warheads would require hundreds of more missiles, and wouldn't even give a real advantage, nor would it address the thousands of non-ICBM delivery systems that missile defense shield can't counter.

You repeatedly enter debates with "you are all fucking morons" or some other condescending remark, meanwhile the things you say are totally stupid and uneducated.

OH THE IRONIES. Like I said, I will look up the news articles before and make it look like I am an expert in everything, sort of like my boss hog cellardoor.

The funny thing is, I actually AM an expert in the whole thing. I haven't got my Military Science degree yet, but I'm about 30% with my required credits. I'll have a Master's Degree in Military Science in a few years if I go back to school full time after the summer. Now, are you going to question that, just like you did when you called me a liar for saying I had my Bachelors Degree in Business Tech?

Or now, am I just standing on the shoulders of the professors who taught it to me? I'm waiting anxiously for your rebuttal, how creative it will be!

FOR RIZZLE. Now to post some shit.

There is a shitload of implications in this, especially when we have no knowledge that the missle defense shield will not be expanded.

That examines the possible benefit of a missile defense system, but they aren't acknowledging the limitations at all. They are really just discussing what possible strategic purpose it could have ideally, they aren't really comparing the actual capability of the missiles with the unmentioned level of capability that would be required to cause have those implications.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/31/07 08:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You are just as childish, the difference is, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Yes, your arguments in lapis's "Is Moderate Islam Possible" thread certainly proved that. Taqiyya again, hmm?

You keep shifting your argument in order to salvage it.

I asked for a link because I DIDNT KNOW THIS SHIT. What the fuck argument have I shifted? And seriously, fuck this, I am not getting into a flame war with you. The fuck does this shit always have to happen this way with you? I didnt attack you and you came out of the blue and decided to degrade me and my arguments for no apparent reason. What the fuck point did that serve? What the fuck point did you have to attack me when I wasnt even REFERRING to you? It was Gunter45 I was responding to in case you have a sudden onset of amnesia.

I say something, you demand links otherwise I'm full of shit to you. When I provide links, you say I didn't really know it until I just looked it up. It's getting ridiculous.

I SAID IT ONE TIME. How could something possibly start "getting ridiculous" when I have said that ONE TIME to you? ONE TIME. You want ridiculous? How about you attacking me and continuing to attack me? Well brav-the-fucking-o cellardoor, you indeed are the best on here at inciting stupidly ignorant arguments that devolve into flame wars FOR NO REASON. I said nothing controversial, I said nothing to attack you, and you come out of the blue blasting. Brav-the-fucking-o, cellar.

You suggested that countering 20%-30% would have a benefit, when it really wouldn't.

Central to this managed system of deterrence from the early 1970's onwards was the Anti-Ballistic Missile or ABM Treaty, the one treaty that involved a curtailment of technological innovation. By preventing the US and USSR from building elaborate defensive systems, this treaty paradoxically ensured that nuclear weapons would not be used offensively. States could not attack one another with advantage form behind defensive shields. The ABM Treaty also allowed Britain, China and France some confidence that they could deter adversaries with "minimum deterrents', thereby lessening pressures to expand their capabilities.

...

Instead, the US government veered towards an earlier discarded model of order- that founded upon supremacy and coercion. And Reagan offered the American people a transcendent vision of invulnerability gained through the construction of a defensive missile shied, the Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wards. Among his followers, arms control treaties were accorded little respect, the ABM Treaty being held in particular disdain by the Republican right.

...

All of page 11. Of special note. . .
They culminated in the US Senates's decisive rejection of the Test Ban Treaty in December of 1998; and in the US Congress's passage into law, with presidential support, of the National Missile Defence Act in July 1999 mandating the deployment of missile defenses. These and other developments seemed to confirm that a decisive shift had occurred in the US towards unilateralism, against arms control and against any technological constraint.

...

The scope of missile defence therefore had a direct bearing on the scaling of offensive arsenals. The Clinton administration tried to reassure other nuclear power that the US wished to develop a sufficient capacity to nullify the threat from 'rogue states' without upsetting existing deterrent relations. Unfortunately the signals coming from elsewhere in the US body politic were either ambiguous or betrayed a long-term ambition to nullify the Chinese and even the Russian deterrents.

…

In the late 1990s, the United States therefore edged, despite strong international protest and obvious risk, towards a different conception of order, one entailing: A system of deterrence augmented by defensive shields against ballistic missiles: in short, a system of protection (largely involving self-protection) that blended strategic offence and defence.
William Walker

And would you like me to find a link for that, or are you going to accuse me of just linking to it to pretend I knew it all along?

You wont be able to find one because it is my opinion against yours. You are to damned arrogant to realize that so you just throw around banal insults. Dime a dozen, bro.

It was uneducated speculation that was entirely beyond the mark. You gave a random figure, so I provided some numbers to show that the amount you suggested needed to be countered to have some benefit was entirely nonsense. And then you do it again, you avoid the fact that you were entirely wrong.

ITS AN OPINION. Please explain to me how just because you have an opinion and it is different from mine that you are somehow correct? Please, “enlighten me” as you so love to do.

In short (well, too late for that), according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 19,354 "incorporated places" in the United States. Link

Now with a first strike added into the equation that destroys the enemies satellites, radar installations, nuclear silos, and whatever the fuck else they can hit, even a limited nuclear defense system comes hugely into play that drastically shifts the balance of power away from MAD. Now the effects of the typical nuclear blast can hit around a diameter of 40 miles with incredible destructive force (1256 square miles unless I have done my math terribly). We have a total area of 3.8 million square miles of possible destruction. Now with the 1770 warheads you pointed out that is a total area of 2.2 million square miles (again if the math is correct). Now that is a fucking lot and you then have to consider their submarines. I am guessing a decent amount of them are being tailed by American subs (on account of our subs being loads better than theirs) or are in port, slightly nullifying their effect. Their air power can be completely nullified by our own, no reason to factor that in. Now factor in the possible first strike capability in a nuclear war and factor in those weapons becoming nonexistent. Now factor in a very limited defense shield (that can still be upgraded) and factor in those weapons becoming nonexistent. Now factor in multiple warheads are probably being launched at each urban area, limiting their total area of effect. Now factor in some of these warheads are likely being targeted at our allied nations across the globe. It is still an incredibly bleak picture but it by no means has no effect on the equation; it completely rebalances MAD. Away from defense to offense.

Not that I think we will ever go to nuclear war with anyone who could bring as many assets to fight us as Russia can. And no, I do not think we will go to nuclear war with Russia unless they start it or we have some giant clusterfuck some time in the future.

The funny thing is, I actually AM an expert in the whole thing.

Oh, the humilities, also. A college student an expert. HOLD TEH PRESSES.

[Demosthenez]

For future reference.

1) cellardoor, you argue like an angry little pissant. An angry little pissant that has been castrated. You jump into shit and start throwing body blows for no reason and then like to shift the focus when people respond like you are suprised people get pissed. NO THE FUCKING WAY, you attack people and they respond. NEVER would have seen that coming. You cant take the damned highground when you are the ignorant motherfucker who started the shit in the first place.

2) An easy way to respond here that would have avoided the flame war would be "I respectfuly disagree" if you want to go the super highminded route. Or "No, I think that is totally wrong" if you want to go the slightly more arrogant route that is still quite equitable. Or go your route and respond overbearing, pompous, and arrogant as fuck like you are some sort of demi-God unleashed on the poor 'lil peseants to teach them right from wrong. Of course, they are to ignorant to appreciate the good you are doing them by "enlightening them" no?

3) If it is possible for you to respond like an adult in at least some cases dont fucking come here. You do nothing, you further no intellectual arguments, you just start shit simply because you can, much like a psychopath with a knife. I by no means do not, nor have I ever, claimed I can be a bastion of maturity or intellectual honesty. I regularly insult people and start flame wars over opinions I have no respect for. I have hot button issues. The difference between you and me (I saw you try to compare your actions to mine earlier, dont think I missed it), however, is I dont hold stupid grudges for ever and incite flame wars in every fucking thread I am in for no reason. I drop grudges, rebuild bridges I may have burned, and can at least act maturily in some instances. I may be reviled among certain people, but I am not universally reviled by every motherfucking person on here like you are. Super left, super right, moderate, crazy, doesnt fucking matter, there is no one in your camp, everyone think you are a pompous and overbearing motherfucker and has no respect for your opinions because of it. You may have interesting information and a good brain to share but it is lost in your flood of insults, pomposity, and arrogance. It would take a damn good editor to ever salvage any shit you have ever written on here to an acceptable level of discourse.

4) People wouldnt be as inflexible as they are with you if you wouldnt fucking talk down to everyone like you do. Know what would have happened if you didnt insult me? I might have even fucking agreed with you (probably not, I really do think I am right in this case but you never know). Know what happened as a result of your arrogance? I became more inflexible. Ever heard of the euphemism "shooting yourself in the foot?" Look at your fucking posts if you want to know what Im talking about.

5) You are, bar none, the worst debator on here. Even moronic little noobies who cant spell or use grammar can debate better than you. Why? You are about as flexible as a bar of steel. Debate is give and take not insult and piss people the fuck off as much as you can. Unless you are just doing this because you have some need to be right. I am sure there is some pschological reason for this and I am willing to bet more than once it has manifisted itself negatively in your life and that you are damn well aware of it. I am because I have noticed that about myself before and I am not even CLOSE to as inflexible and arrogant as you. Or maybe you are so unaware of your faults (or repress them so much) you think you are a normal human being. Who knows? And before you say "Im not like this except on the forums" I will preemptively respond I will not believe you. Peoples entire demeanors do not suddenly change because they are on the internet, certain characteristics may become highligthed and more pronounced but they dont appear out of nowhere.

Point is, fuck you, fuck your arrogance, fuck your bad attitude, fuck your shit, and fuck this shit.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/31/07 10:41 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/31/07 08:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You are just as childish, the difference is, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Yes, your arguments in lapis's "Is Moderate Islam Possible" thread certainly proved that. Taqiyya again, hmm?

Um... what makes you think I was wrong? Lapis himself even conceded that Taqiyyah could play a role. And that thread was discussing our OPINIONS hense the QUESTION in the title. What we were just now debating in this thread was actual rational, tangible information.

I said nothing to attack you, and you come out of the blue blasting. Brav-the-fucking-o, cellar.

You questioned my knowledge in an incredibly snarky way. Therefore I reacted.

You suggested that countering 20%-30% would have a benefit, when it really wouldn't.

In the late 1990s, the United States therefore edged, despite strong international protest and obvious risk, towards a different conception of order, one entailing: A system of deterrence augmented by defensive shields against ballistic missiles: in short, a system of protection (largely involving self-protection) that blended strategic offence and defence.
William Walker (quotes)

First of all, that is an essay of someones opinion there is little to no facts inside of it. As you can tell by the fact that it repeatedly criticizes American policies, it doesn't do what you used it for. It doesn't show that the CURRENT missile defense program even ties into that. It also doesn't show that 20%-30% of missiles being countered as tipping the balance in a nuclear war.

Besides, it's dated to 2000 and covers the ABM TREATY! Which as you even said ended in 2002. Therefore it doesn't apply AT ALL to the current ground-based interceptors that weren't even made known to the public back then.

And would you like me to find a link for that, or are you going to accuse me of just linking to it to pretend I knew it all along?

You wont be able to find one because it is my opinion against yours. You are to damned arrogant to realize that so you just throw around banal insults. Dime a dozen, bro.

I was talking about nuclear-armed anti-ballistic missile systems, that both the US and Russia have developed. Therefore if the US really wanted to gain an edge for some preemptive nuclear strike, why wouldn't much more effective nuclear counter measures be used, if the US would be triggering a nuclear war anyway?

You're not trying to understand this. The Missile shield interceptors that are currently being discussed are 10 missiles... to be deployed in Europe. They don't post a threat to Russia, they CAN'T pose a threat to Russia. Russia only exploited the attention the Missile Shield system got in order to cushion themselves for the criticism they would get for developed new ICBMs.

In short (well, too late for that), according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 19,354 "incorporated places" in the United States. Link

Haha and how many of them are within nuke blast/fallout range of eachother? Probably a shit load of them. For instance just where I live there is Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia Tukwilla, Sea-tac, Everett, Kirkland (and probably 100 other) cities and "incorporated areas" within a 30 mile from Seattle. You nuke Seattle, you fuck up Washington state.

Now with a first strike added into the equation that destroys the enemies satellites, radar installations, nuclear silos, and whatever the fuck else they can hit, even a limited nuclear defense system comes hugely into play that drastically shifts the balance of power away from MAD.

That's your opinion, that is wrong. 10 missiles... in Europe. 25 missiles in the pacific... that is only 35 of the 1770 warheads that Russia can launch via ICBM. Now, if the US really wanted to counter a strike from Russia, wouldn't we place those missiles somewhere like in Canada or the arctic that are actually BETWEEN us and Russia? The fastest route from Russia to the mainland US is North to South, don't let a map fool you, take a look at a globe.

Now the effects of the typical nuclear blast can hit around a diameter of 40 miles with incredible destructive force (1256 square miles unless I have done my math terribly). We have a total area of 3.8 million square miles of possible destruction. Now with the 1770 warheads you pointed out that is a total area of 2.2 million square miles (again if the math is correct).

Pfft.. are you ignoring something called nuclear fallout? The WHOLE YUS doesn't have to be covered with the actual nuclear blast in order to be destroyed. A nuke on each major city would more than accomplish the total destruction of the US, then several years of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland...

It is still an incredibly bleak picture but it by no means has no effect on the equation; it completely rebalances MAD. Away from defense to offense.

... even if 20% to 30% of Russians ICBMs were countered, the US would still cease to exist. Therefore, the 10 missiles in Europe that could only counter 1/117th of Russia's warheads, isn't going to do shit.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/31/07 11:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You questioned my knowledge in an incredibly snarky way. Therefore I reacted.

I asked for a source. Whatever you read into it is your own problem. Maybe a lesson in not jumping to conclusions?

First of all, that is an essay of someones opinion there is little to no facts inside of it.

This is where it is from. And if you have ever read Foreign Affairs before, it is the same thing. It is mostly opinion that is based upon competing philosophies in the international relations crowd.

Besides, it's dated to 2000 and covers the ABM TREATY! Which as you even said ended in 2002. Therefore it doesn't apply AT ALL to the current ground-based interceptors that weren't even made known to the public back then.

As I said earlier, everything is factored in. Even this limited system we are implementing in the Pacific could totally counter Chinas ICBM threat. And since their subs are either loud and nuclear or quiet and diesel (they have to surface and thus risk detection from radar and satellites) their submarine potential is SEVERLY limited compared to our own. And also as I said there is no promise this will not be expanded and the rhetoric that has been happening for the past 20 years all points to the fact the USA is pushing for a more substantial missile defense system. At least that is what it could look like to other countries that are concerned about protecting their own interests.

You're not trying to understand this. The Missile shield interceptors that are currently being discussed are 10 missiles... to be deployed in Europe. They don't post a threat to Russia, they CAN'T pose a threat to Russia. Russia only exploited the attention the Missile Shield system got in order to cushion themselves for the criticism they would get for developed new ICBMs.

This whole thing could just be endemic about the USA pulling out of the ABM and paranoia from Russia if these could possibly be first steps to bypassing their nuclear deterrent. I dont know, I am just saying Russia obviously has a reason for what they are doing and it could be just the charade and propaganda option you are proposing (that I also initially believed, now that I have thought more about it I am not as sure) or a more nuanced concern about the increasing threat of losing their nuclear deterrent.

You nuke Seattle, you fuck up Washington state.

I know, I was just pointing out there are a lot of places and a lot of targets.

That's your opinion, that is wrong. 10 missiles... in Europe. 25 missiles in the pacific... that is only 35 of the 1770 warheads that Russia can launch via ICBM. Now, if the US really wanted to counter a strike from Russia, wouldn't we place those missiles somewhere like in Canada or the arctic that are actually BETWEEN us and Russia? The fastest route from Russia to the mainland US is North to South, don't let a map fool you, take a look at a globe.

How do you know there already isnt plans for installing missile defense installations up there already? Or in Alaska? We dont and thats the point, neither do the Russians. What they do see is that if anyone has the capability to do anything like that the US does. What they do see is that we are taking our baby steps to install a very limited missile defense shield that has no promise of staying limited. They would be right to be wary of this, especially considering our withdrawal from the AMB Treaty.
Anywho. . . And take this as it is I guess. I could of sworn I heard more on this recently, like within the past year or so but I guess I was wrong.

Pfft.. are you ignoring something called nuclear fallout? The WHOLE YUS doesn't have to be covered with the actual nuclear blast in order to be destroyed. A nuke on each major city would more than accomplish the total destruction of the US, then several years of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland...

I was just going by the fatality figures proposed in the link. And I think you are severly discounting our ability to bounce back from something like that. Im sure the government has some sort of super contigency plan for something like that, something that would at least salvage a portion of our nation.

[CheGuevara72]

THe Russians are probably trying something like this to consolidate their power once and for all. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet States after Afghanistan with so much money spent on the arms race instead of helping the pople they've been plagued with purisings and economic problems something like this would probably discourage revolutions like in Chechnya.

[JMHX]

The newest update, it appears Russia's leadership along with directors of the state-owned Gazprom gas production facility have revoked British Petroleum's license to extract and transport gas in Russia. It is expected that BP's shares will be bought up by Gazprom, making it the sole monopolist in the Russian natural gas and oil industry.

[Liopleurodon]

Smart timing on the part of the Sovie...err, Russians.

The army is rebuilding quickly, the navy is getting new submarine classes - and thanks to Putin they can carry all the old battleflags (And yes, he told the Red Army they can call themselves the Red Army again.

And with the US bogged down in Iraq, being bled white and drained of cash, it's a perfect time to project Russian power again. It's all about rebuilding Russian pride and foreign influence, as far as I can tell.

[JMHX]

At 6/2/07 01:01 AM, Liopleurodon wrote: Smart timing on the part of the Sovie...err, Russians.

Stalinist slip?