Comments on: Russian Missile Tests - Beginning of a new Cold War?

By: Internationalist

Internationalist — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:20:24 +0000

Russia should deploy an ABM in Venezuela and Cuba, then. Maybe the threat to them is from Mexico?

* CHUCKLE *

By: G.Vinod

G.Vinod — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:53:56 +0000

The U.S is pushing the Russians into another cold war like situation by
its planned missile defence shield at Poland and Checz republic.
By doing so, the U.S is also going to divide Europe as it did in the past.
Even after the end of Cold war we see the U.S military bases coming up
at many places across the globe in the name of war against terror. Russia is
a great nuclear power and hence their concerns on U.S missile shield should
not be put aside by the U.S. The American government also should stop preaching
other countries on Democracy and stop behaving like a Police. The world is not
unipolar anymore.

By: Titus Abraham

Titus Abraham — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:54:28 +0000

A very old posts.. but as like aby and others say… A first strike wont be able to wipe out any of the mobile Silos… and the AB

By: Bharat

Bharat — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:26:40 +0000

Interesting. Perhaps getting re-acquainted with reality is on the to-do list? Where is your claim coming from?

By: nofal

nofal — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:15:00 +0000

russia are buffin just like the cold war us technology kills any russian ballistic missile when it comes to cold wars russia has an eye for cheap weapons and real war destroyed ussr.

By: Bharat

Bharat — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:50:54 +0000

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5935

I did not make any claims, whatsoever. I only paraphrased the key note in the article in question.

By: Bharat

Bharat — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:46:52 +0000

I am not making any claims, whatsoever. I just restated in somewhat of a summary of the article available on Global Research, and it does include various Putin statement attesting to this result. Unless my interpretation is slighted, I believe the idea of the article was to show that a nuclear first strike would eliminate most of Russian nuclear weapons and the missile defense would take care of whatever small retaliatory capability that wasn’t destroyed.

I only recited the idea already in existence and maybe it is flawed, but given the desire of the United States to wage wars and the reasons behind it, I do not think this would be too far out.

Go to Global Research; see for yourself. Then, we can talk.

By: Aby

Aby — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:25:17 +0000

I would keep miles away from such dubious claims if I were you, especially as it is very far fetched and unrealistic and tends to demonise the whole nation of America. Over 44% of Russia’s active nuclear arsenal is based on mobile (Topol M), submarine (Skiff and Stingray) and hardened silos (Voevoda) which cannot be eliminated in a first strike. One has to dry up oceans, burn down all forests and dig up a whole country to possible find all of these mobile missiles.

Furthermore ABM systems are not very useful for protecting against MIRVs on a whole country, particularly when one does not know where the MIRVs might strike. Missile defence systems are effective only against countries with a small and unsophisticated arsenal. It leaves a lot to chance, unless a breakthrough mind reading technology comes around, neither Russia nor US would be mad to try a first strike. I could only assume that the claim is made by someone using doomsday conspiracy theories rather than basing it on realistic and fact based evidences. I hope you could post the link so that my assumptions can be confirmed.

By: Bharat

Bharat — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:50:29 +0000

According to Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, having an operational missile defense shield would enable the United States to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia, effectively eliminating 90%+ of Russian nuclear arsenal. What little retaliatory strike capability would be left could easily be handled by the ABM shield. This would, in effect, put the U.S. in a position of nuclear primacy, what some interesting American (can’t remember his name, sorry) coined with the “policy of compellance” as opposed to the “policy of deterrence”. Given the fact that the United States remains the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, I do not believe that this analysis is too far off.

What about you folks?

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:33:56 +0000

@ ericoak - I will not bore with with the technicalities of aerospace and radar interception considering you seem to be a lay person on military technology or political strategy. In short and simple terms, if the missile shield is deployed in Czechoslovakia and Poland, the field of the radar waves would invade Russian airspace which is determinable to Russian security. If the US were to pursue the ABM shield jointly with Russia, for instance in Azerbaijan, both sides would have been winners (in case the actual US objective is to prevent missile attacks from rogue states). But considering US reluctance to accept this alternative win-win idea, one wonders what the real motive is. Add to this the minor stage of Iran’s missile program for such a massive ABM deployment and also the futility of US ABM systems against future missile systems which will most likely have more lethal MIRV capabilities.

If you choose to be objective and shed the nationalist American stance perhaps this news piece would help you understand it better. It takes out all the technical jargon so that a layman could understand and it comes from BBC, a global authoritative news agency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm