Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russia Cautions US On NMD  
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 710 times:

As most of you will know, George Bush is keen to implement the NMD system, citing the ABM treaty as an anachronism, which the US cannot realistically be expected to count on, in the face of changing strategies in geopolitics.

In Bush's mind, the ABM is simply not suited to protecting the US from foreign aggression in this day and age.

Some Russian officials claim the US risks kick-starting another arms race, and that it has not fully studied the consequences of it's plans, as regards NMD.

Europe, as usual, is divided. Unsurprisingly, the French don't like it, but the British do.

The rest are probably rolling their eyes!!  Insane Big grin

Here is an extract from the BBC:

Russia has warned that US President George W Bush's commitment to scrapping a landmark arms control treaty and creating a US anti-missile defence shield could lead to escalating global tensions.
Mr Bush on Tuesday described the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which limits missile defence systems, as a thing of the past.

But while Moscow reacted positively to proposed cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, Russian officials warned of a new arms race if Mr Bush carries out his intention to abandon the ABM treaty.



Mr Bush said the treaty with Russia was now a barrier to American and global security.

In a speech strong on rhetoric but thin on detail, Mr Bush outlined his vision of a missile defence programme to counter the threat from rogue states equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

"We must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM treaty," the president said.

"This treaty does not recognise the present or point us to the future. It enshrines the past."

Consultation

He also tried to reassure international critics by announcing a high-level delegation to consult with allies in Europe and Asia.

He had already outlined his plans to the leaders of Britain, Canada, France and Germany and on Tuesday he called the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to reassure him ahead of the speech.

But Moscow remains apprehensive. Russian military and diplomatic sources - quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency - re-iterated Russian warnings of the dangers of scrapping the ABM treaty.

"Many in Washington understand that the destruction of ABM and deploying an anti-missile shield could undermine the system of strategic stability which exists in the world today and lead to a new arms race," the sources said.


National Missile Defence: What it is:

-A fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defence system including a space-based detection system

-Upgraded early warning radar
Able to destroy ballistic missiles

-No defence against sustained missile attack

-Expected to include space and sea-based defence


Nato Secretary-General George Robertson welcomed Mr Bush's commitment to consult closely with allies on the anti-missile defence scheme.

"The president is right to focus on these new challenges, and I welcome his commitment to close consultation with the allies," he said in a statement.

'Invitation to proliferation'

China stressed in a report by its official Xinhua news agency that Beijing was "hostile" to a missile defence plan.



Even among US allies, many object to the system

It quoted analysts as saying such a system "will not only spark a new arms race... but will also threaten world peace and security in the 21st century".

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says China may modernise its own nuclear arsenal if it goes ahead.

Several Western countries also fear a missile defence system could disrupt the arms status quo between the US and Russia.

French President Jacques Chirac has called it an "invitation to proliferation".

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he hoped the ABM treaty would not be scrapped.

"In promoting respect for the rule of law in international affairs, there is a need to consolidate and build upon existing disarmament and non-proliferation agreements," he said.

'Son of Star Wars'

Britain, which along with Denmark will be a base for some of the early warning systems, welcomed the plan.

The US Defense Department venue for Mr Bush's speech was the same as that used by former President Bill Clinton eight months ago to announce that he did not think technology was sufficiently advanced to commit to missile defence.

But the so-called "Son of Star Wars" programme was a key Bush campaign pledge.



We may have areas of difference with Russia, but we must not be strategic adversaries

George W Bush
Giving no details of the number of missiles or the programme's budget, Mr Bush challenged critics who say the anti-missile programme is costly and unproven by acknowledging that the technology is far from perfect.

"We know that some approaches will not work, but we will be able to build on our successes," he told an audience at the Pentagon's National Defense University.

This has been a "FYI" post.

CP




18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTWA From Iran, joined Sep 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 682 times:

Screw what Russia thinks. They arent the USSR anymore. Their a poor nation. They need to get a grip.

TWA


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 682 times:

I tend to agree that the ABM treaty is out of date. At that time only a few major powers had nukes, and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was enough to keep things under control.

That is no longer the case however. Some jackass like Saddam, or bin Laden, or other could get himself a rudimentary nuclear device if he really tried.

My problem with NMD is that I find it unlikely that Saddam or some other nut would be so crazy as to make an overt launch of a missile. Such a launch would be immediately spotted, and retaliation would be on its way right quick. Plus, it assumes that the "rogue" has not only acquired a nuke, but also a long range missile system, which is just as difficult to obtain.

I think a rogue state or terrorist would prefer to sneak the nuke into a U.S harbor (or other country) in the hold of a cargo ship or a civilian transport plane. That way, it will be much more difficult for the target to figure out where the strike came from. They might develop a pretty good idea, but a western country could never launch a retaliatory strike unless they were absolutely sure (like they SAW the launch from that country).

So my problem with NWD is that it does not shut all the doors, even if it does work as designed.

Charles


User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 675 times:

I must admit I am a little bit concerned about Bush's attitude to foreign policy, with his 'This is what I am going to do and you can take it or leave it' attitude. The US can do what it likes as far as protecting its citizens is concerned, just don't ask to have part of the NMD system located in the UK (as is planned) because if that is the case then Bush can go and stick his system up his backside.

Also, if he goes ahead with the system I trust the US will not be hypocritical enough to complain about nuclear proliferation in countries such as China...



I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineMls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3076 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 674 times:


We should make it a global NMD, that way a missile could be shot down no matter where it came from or where it's headed.

And since the US will have to foot most of the $$bill, build it to protect the US first and then lag behind on the rest of the system for a few decades.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 654 times:

I say let the americans build their crappy system if they want to!

The rest of the world is going to follow suit as well. Now tHe US has no moral authority to lecture about other countries acquiring Weapons.



User currently offlineNicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 648 times:

Your little missile thingy toy isn't even working and probably never will, maybe you guys need to change the bateries? The only thing it can blow up is mosquitos, if even! Big grin

Get a life, cold war really is over!

Nicolas


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 645 times:

Gentlemen!!!! Big grin

I didn't really want to turn this thread into another long fight, which eventually might get deleted.....

This is just to see what different people's opinions are on the issue.

Just because it is the US we are talking about, does not mean we non-US contributors should disagree automatically  Insane

The question is whether they really need NMD (are they being prudent) or are they being paranoid?

The latest from my country (Britain) is that we would ideally like some concrete facts about what exactly the US has planned (since the Early Warning system will be placed in our countryside).

The Conservatives are already fully behind the US on this one (there's a surprise!! Big grin ) and are urging Tony Blair to pledge his support immediately.

I don't have an opinion as yet, and I don't think we have enough information on what exactly the US is going to get out of this, will we be protected too, what will our other allies think? etc.

So I am reserving judgment until the US sends a delegation over here to give us some precise ideas of what exactly they are planning to do & why.

Interesting times lie ahead....

Rgds,
CP


User currently offlineNicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 640 times:

Capt'n I guess it's pretty easy to define my opinion here. I Think the NMD is totally out of proprotion. Like I said, I think some US officials really don't beleive that the cold war is over. The sad thing is that with their stupid actions of going ahead with their mostiquo (sp?) blower they are going to put the whole world back into that cold war state of mind.

Now what really pisses me of is that approximatelly 80% of the canadian population lives within 40km from the US border. Now if the yanks wants to play GI joes with Sadam or whoever they want, guess who will also bite the dust? CANADA.

Nicolas


User currently offlineNicolaki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 638 times:

LOT767-300ER: [...]dirtiest smelliest hellhole on this planet![...]
Opps I though you were talking about your mouth! Big grin

I guess it's just another of your uneducated, mouthy, lousy and filthy post. Gosh i can't belive you have another 662 like that!


User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 629 times:

I don't really see how a national missle defense shield will be of any benefit. It will only increase international tensions, and quite frankly, I don't want to see the North Koreans or Iraqis attempting to test the durability of the system.

I am bemused as well as amused by the fact that Bush repeatedly described the ABM treaty as an anochronism while he is unwittingly perpetuating an anochronism by conjuring up a cold-war era pipe dream that will do nothing but waste time, resources and international tolerance for an administration that is skating on extremely thin ice.




Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineKolobokman From Russia, joined Oct 2000, 1180 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 625 times:

You expect Russians to pay the old USSR debt back to you, and at the same time you say that the ABM treaty is outdated because the country doesn't exist anymore...

Make a choice! Either forget the debt and cancel the treaty, or stick to your promisses and agreements!

You can save time and nerves...just flush your 60+billions down the toilet... This crap is not going to work anyway.
It's safer for the so called "rouge state" to ship a nuclear warhead to the US in a cargo compartment of a ship (airplane!) and detonate it somewhere on the east coast...
Rouge state: "HEY, DON'T BLAME US! IRAN DID IT! or IRAQ DID IT! or N. KOREA DID IT!"  Insane



If you choose to flush the money, use my toilet.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 Innocent PEACE ON EARTH Innocent



I can neither confirm, nor deny above post
User currently offlineTG 612 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 623 times:

According to DOGBERT, people passing on information with "FYI" have too much time and do not become a member of the DNRC.

Be aware ...  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 622 times:

I think Cfalk is right about his assertions that so-called rogue states would 'transport' a nuke then detonate it, rather than launch an ICBM, which would be immediately detected and have a return one following within minutes.

Whatever reasons Bush (whacked) is doing this, (and more than likely not has something to do with pacifying the armed forces) him and his cronies need to be a lot more diplomatic than the current "bull in a china shop" way of dictating these things to other nations.

The NMD would perhaps be a better prospect if it was developed and put in place to protect the entire planet. Although the expense would be horrendous, and it would take years for all parties concerned to agree.

It's frightening enough that there is enough nuclear weapons floating around the planet to completely destory all life on it already. Why make ridiculous policy statements that are more than likely going to create an arms race all over again?

***NO NUKES***

Cheers,

mb


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 609 times:

LOT, I think you're confused about who the moron is here. Nicolaki wasn't dissing you, he was giving you a reality check.

User currently offlineDG_pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 856 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 607 times:

Our country, our money, our problems...if you are worried about an arms race, then you build a shield too.

I know we have the money to...do you? Perhaps that is what you are worried about??


User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 605 times:

LOT, if you can't figure it out, then the point has already been made!


Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineDoomfox From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 603 times:

I don't know about this. I haven't heard or know enough about this to make a educated stand on this yet.

But, if Bush wants to make this to save our citizens from foreign attacks, he should also not take such a big tax cut to hurt our countries poor and uneducated.

He just isn't making much sense to me right now. Take money away from pediatric research with tax cuts and build more missiles? Something isn't right.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for protecting our country, but I don't think that Bush is going about this the right way. I sure don't think we should get other national powerhouses angry right now. One of the quickest ways out of a depression is a war, right?


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 600 times:

BREAKING NEWS !!!!

This just in: USA cautions Russia on cautioning the USA.


 Insane


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Update Us On A Problem You Posted Here posted Sun Jun 25 2006 04:59:35 by KLM672
Cheap Refundable Tickets From Russia To US? posted Sun Apr 30 2006 03:01:40 by Mir
How The Heck There Enough Oil For Us On Earth? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 05:41:24 by Iowaman
WTO Rules Against US On Steel Tariffs posted Fri Jul 11 2003 17:31:44 by N79969
To Those Who Bash The US On This Day... posted Thu Sep 12 2002 03:09:09 by B-OTCH
Newsweek: US On It's Way To 2nd Vietnam - Colombia posted Tue Sep 10 2002 05:35:59 by Bigo747
US Congress To Vote On Mandatory Paid Vacation Act posted Thu May 21 2009 16:59:47 by StasisLAX
My Essay On US Airways- Feedback Please! posted Thu Apr 9 2009 13:49:20 by Braniff747SP
US Tycoon Sir Allen Stanford On Fraud Charges posted Tue Feb 17 2009 09:22:08 by OA260
Some Episodes On 1940s' Europe (and Allied US)? posted Sat Sep 13 2008 20:13:35 by Smolt