Russia warns U.S. stepping up shield plans: agency

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Russia have a problem with trust.

Well so do we, tbh.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Russia have a problem with trust.

Well so do we, tbh.

True.

[GaryC 7]

You'd only be justified in buying a bullet proof vest if you were working under the assumption that I intend to shoot you. To me however - I might regard your buying the vest as prelude to your intending to shoot me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's illogical about it? You have to believe that there's a threat in the first place to justify defending yourself against it.

But this is rather simplistic when it comes to international defense treaties that are mostly to do with geopolitics.

[GaryC 7]

What's illogical about it? You have to believe that there's a threat in the first place to justify defending yourself against it.

But this is rather simplistic when it comes to international defense treaties that are mostly to do with geopolitics.

Let me see, Russia has the largest nuclear strike force in the world. They have been building their military. They object to a purely defensive shield. You don't see a threat there? Again, logic fail on a massive scale.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's illogical about it? You have to believe that there's a threat in the first place to justify defending yourself against it.

But this is rather simplistic when it comes to international defense treaties that are mostly to do with geopolitics.

Let me see, Russia has the largest nuclear strike force in the world. They have been building their military. They object to a purely defensive shield. You don't see a threat there? Again, logic fail on a massive scale.

That's not the same question Gary.

Again - you have to perceive a threat to defend against it, but the terms "threat" and "defense" are subjective and based on biased world views - without any consideration of the geopolitics that underpin those positions.

[NickD 203]

Russia has other problems:

"No country faces as severe a population decline as Russia. Disease, accidental death, and a decline in healthy newborns are to blame. In fact, deaths in Russia outnumber births, and most of those who die are in the 20-49 age group, the most productive segment of the population. Leading experts on the subject say such a population decline has a devastating impact on the workforce, military recruitment and family formation."

"According to the most recent forecasts, Russia's population of 143 million people is expected to decrease by 22 percent between now and the year 2050. If the figures are borne out, Russia could lose up to 42 percent of its active working population."

Rest is at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/200...ae7740361097272

Russia sure has a surplus of women dying to get out, especially in the over 35 year old class, told me the guys were drunk and most are dead right after 40. If we can just keep us from going to hell, time will cure the Russian problem, won't be a Russia.

[alienlovechild 75]

Again - you have to perceive a threat to defend against it, but the terms "threat" and "defense" are subjective and based on biased world views - without any consideration of the geopolitics that underpin those positions.

You may be right but you can't put your finger on the proper response.

A nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent if mutually assured destruction (MAD) is still the probable outcome. If the Russians think their ICBM, SLBM and bombers can't get through after an American first strike, then the Russia nuke arsenal is worthless. Both sides must assume their missiles are effective enough to deter the other side from launching a first strike in the first place.

The reality is no American shield is going to stop the huge array of Russian missiles and delivery systems. A shield can only make sense against a limited number of missiles such as N. Korea or Iran could possess in the future. Secondly, anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe won't do much against Russia missiles with a tradjectory over the Artic Ocean. They only make sense against maybe theater level nukes from Russia not the "crowd pleasers".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - you have to perceive a threat to defend against it, but the terms "threat" and "defense" are subjective and based on biased world views - without any consideration of the geopolitics that underpin those positions.

You may be right but you can't put your finger on the proper response.

A nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent if mutually assured destruction (MAD) is still the probable outcome. If the Russians think their ICBM, SLBM and bombers can't get through after an American first strike, then the Russia nuke arsenal is worthless. Both sides must assume their missiles are effective enough to deter the other side from launching a first strike in the first place.

The reality is no American shield is going to stop the huge array of Russian missiles and delivery systems. A shield can only make sense against a limited number of missiles such as N. Korea or Iran could possess in the future. Secondly, anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe won't do much against Russia missiles with a tradjectory over the Artic Ocean. They only make sense against maybe theater level nukes from Russia not the "crowd pleasers".

Why thank you, your magesterialness!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Private Pike

[alienlovechild 75]

Why thank you, your magesterialness!

I must give credit, even partial credit, when it is due.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why thank you, your magesterialness!

I must give credit, even partial credit, when it is due.

Why must you?

[alienlovechild 75]

Why thank you, your magesterialness!

I must give credit, even partial credit, when it is due.

Why must you?

If one is inclined to be to critical of other posters, one must be equally able to point out when a poster is in the right. It's just not sporting otherwise, Old Chap. It's not cricket,kosher or halal.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's not cricket,kosher or halal.

?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why thank you, your magesterialness!

I must give credit, even partial credit, when it is due.

Why must you?

If one is inclined to be to critical of other posters, one must be equally able to point out when a poster is in the right. It's just not sporting otherwise, Old Chap. It's not cricket,kosher or halal.

Nothing wrong with criticism, assuming of course that you read the arguments you're responding to correctly.

Otherwise when one dresses up ones response with the royal "we", one runs the very real risk of looking like a #######.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Private Pike

[GaryC 7]

President Obama and I have at least one thing in common. He said that he would like to have a nuclear free world. We have tried the diplomatic/treaty route and although it did help with reducing some of the weapons it will never work for eliminating them. MAD worked when it was the US VS the USSR because both sides knew what would happen if they ever attacked. Unfortunatly MAD no longer works because we have unstable governments like Iran and N. Korea about to aquire them and the launch vehicles to deliver them. There is also the wild card of a stateless group getting their hands on a nuke.

I have a radical idea. How about we work towards creating a really effective defense? If we could render all nukes ineffective then that would remove the incentive to build them and protect ourselves from the stray radical that has nothing to lose. I would much rather spend money on that than spending money on new nukes and delivery systems to counter the Russians. If we could make a real defense THEN we could negotiate with Russia and anyone else with nukes to eliminate them. If they can't use them they would be much more likely to give them up.

I know someone will say that a foolproof defense can't be made. I disagree. In 25 years we went from the first nuke to having enough weapons and ways of delivering them to wipe out the planet. One would think that if we put the same effort into a defense we could do it.