backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 190 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Oct 6 at 8:42 AM

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, pictured here next to a Topol M nuclear missile, announced the latest escalation. He accuses the U.S. of playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship.  (Source: Sun UK)

Russia remains defiant against the Western world, for which it has great mistrust. Its new nuclear campaign seeks to expand its nuclear presence on land, in the air, and by sea.  (Source: AFP)
Russia is planning to expand its nuclear firepower

Amid constant fears of the economic and military pressures from China, the increasingly militaristic demeanor of Russia has been largely overlooked.  While China has been allegedly waging cyber war against the U.S. and others, Russia, manifested its aggressions by recently invading neighbor Georgia.

Infuriated at the U.S. and NATO's support of Georgia, Russia's leadership is announcing plans of a massive new nuclear armament campaign -- and it says the new campaign is the fault of the U.S.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced last week that by 2020, Russia would have a new "guaranteed nuclear deterrent system" in place.  Plans for the system will be submitted by Russia's top generals in December, and are expected to include new nuclear subs and a new "system of aerospace defense".  It is unclear whether this means a defensive anti-nuke system such as the U.S. missile shield, or an expanded nuclear arsenal.

In his announcement, President Medvedev pointed a finger at the U.S., saying that the U.S. was to blame for the recent military escalation.  He accused the U.S.'s deployment of a defensive missile shield to Poland as an attempt to start a new arms race.  He vowed, "We must guarantee nuclear deterrence under various political and military conditions by 2020."

His wide-reaching new plans also include trying to "achieve dominance in airspace".  Russia's aging air force is advanced, but significantly trails the U.S.'s top fighter lines.  Further, he said that "new types of armaments" from nukes to traditional payloads also might be on the agenda.

The nuclear subs and defense system will be the integral part of the campaign, he stated.  He announced, "We plan to start serial production of warships, primarily nuclear-powered submarines carrying cruise missiles and multifunctional submarines.  We will develop an aerospace defense system, as well."

U.S. officials expressed relative apathy for Russia's latest posturing.  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Russia's new campaign would not change the balance of power.  She called the U.S. nuclear deterrent "capable" and "robust" and said, "The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures."

Russia remains adamant that the U.S. is plotting against it.  It says the placement of missile-detecting radar in the Czech Republic and a missile shield is a U.S. conspiracy to establish "a ring of steel" around Russia.  Russia said it will be "forced to react".

The nation has long carried out a relatively ambitious program of weapons development.  Late last year DailyTech reported that Russia had developed the "father of all bombs", the largest traditional payload in existence.  More recently it was in the news for testing a new type of nuclear missile.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:10:00 AM , Rating: 4
Sigh.

Again Condi opens her mouth and spews forth something silly.

Of course its not going to change the nuclear balance of power... That isn't even what they are attempting, not even close. Putin warned the west years ago that if they went ahead with essentially Star Wars 2 (yeah its ground based so sue me) that Russia would change their nuclear strategy to nullify the anti-ballistic missile shield. Why? Cause the ABM shield is the destabilizing force upon the Nuclear Balance of power, not more nukes.

Anyone as supposedly versed in international relations as Dr. Rice knows in her small little ice cold heart that more nukes don't change anything. The amount of nuclear overkill between just the two major nuclear powers is so extravagant that a few thousand more won't substantially change anything. (who has them might, but that beyond the scope of this rant)

What is a game changer is the notion of scrapping the ABM treaties, which Bush did, and then attempting to institute a system where by one would be combatant can defend against a first strike / retaliatory strike of the other. This then would allow a notion that MAD no longer applies, and in such a case the Nuclear Balance is trashed. Important here is the notion that it doesn't even really have to work, instead it simply has to change the view of the masses / government into one of a possibility of survival.

So Condi, you're right that it won't change the nuclear balance, however, it isn't their idea to change any balance; instead it is the desire not to see the balance change that prompts their actions. Further, if you attribute and re-emergence of Russian power as 'the Cold War' then your a blathering idiot. NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. I believe that American history holds that this action almost started World War 3.

You'd think the 'west' or more specifically the U.S might learn from their own history when thinking about possible repercussions of placing new arms systems very close to a cagey adversary? Or perhaps that cancelling treaties who's purpose was stability and an arms draw down; may cause the other party to rearm.

Putin is powerful and popular in Russia. While not universally loved and supported, he is known for bringing Russia back to a state of power and pride after the lost decade (post Soviet Union). That is a very powerful image in a country that was 'a super power', and had been brought to its knees which engenders domestic support. Part of this strength image is from standing up to the west, and part of that is in reassuming the role that even a perfectly democratic capitalist Russia would have both regionally and globally. (remember democratic doesn't mean agrees with and supports US foreign policy)

To continuously poke a regional / re-entrant global power the way NATO has; is to invite a show of strength... Perhaps even require it.




RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
Edit:

"attribute and re-emergence" should be "attribute any re-emergence"


By paydirt on 9/30/2008 8:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
brinksmanship = expanding your nuclear arsenal.
brinksmanship = turning off the natural gas and oil spigot to Europe.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 3
Russia has a long way to go before they are a threat. The only thing they are doing is trying to put more chips on the table. This doesn't shift the balance of power really since Russia has more nukes than we could shoot down in the first place. It's nothing but propaganda for the masses at home.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Lord 666 on 9/29/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
Their Georgia invasion was just a warm-up. They have been steadly increasing their flybys of US carriers and airspace.

But what is even scarier would be the potential for not a ground war, but a cyberwar with Russia. With all of the idiots with spyware on their machines, these bots can be quickly turned into a DDoS attack or worse from within US network.

The "Axis of Evil" are both growing and waiting patiently for US to exhust resources until a real conflict starts. Venezula and Russia are real close now. Throw in the potential to poison our food and cut off our supply chain from China, and the US will be hard pressed for WWIII.

Who are the US allies at this point? Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland, UK, France, and Iraq.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2008 11:47:52 AM , Rating: 5
Why should Russia be mad about a missile /defense shield/? One that can't even stop them if they wanted to attack Europe, one we've had them openly tour and get the technological briefings about, one that can't be used as a weapon against them. Really, why are they so upset about it? It's obvious it's just an excuse to justify their moves to attempt to become a world super power again and replace the USA.

Seriously, the US has done little against Russia who was laundering billions illegally through Iraq via the oil for food program before we went in (hence why they were resistant, along with France). Oh, I'm sure the US has slighted them a few times, complained about their back sliding on democracy and civil rights, but that's no different than the usual political mud slinging, and Russia has done nothing but antagonize the US since the start of the new millennium.

Really, this sounds like one of those high school spats were everything is blown out of proportion. Except, this time the squabbling couple both process the fire power to blow this planet into the stone age.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By killerroach on 9/29/2008 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Way to go neocons... Piss off the Russians and make them arm our enemies.


Apologies for the snark, but how is that any different than how the Russians have behaved pretty much constantly for the past sixty years, save a couple of years under the doddering Boris Yeltsin?


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By derwin on 9/30/2008 3:13:37 AM , Rating: 5
It benefits Russia, majorly.

This is not your 1970's cold war anymore. This is definitely not your 1980's cold war anymore.
The US is no longer the "protector of freedom" in the world. We are just another superpower flexing nuts like Russia and China. You don't think the rest of the world looked at Iraq like we saw Georga to be? The world is no on our side anymore - not just militarily.

Our economy is in the dumps. Yeah, it will go on; but can it support a major war? Do we even have the infastructure to convert over to massive arms production?
Can it survive another "cold war?" Without the outpour of citizens to aid the cause, the government is left to foot the bill. We are already in growing debt, and our economy has been running on empty for about four years. We only delayed the inevitable when we dropped interest rates into the basement to forstall the recesions we faced in 2003-4, and now no good deed has gone unpunished. We are not manufacuring. We are not providing raw material. We are not even really providing services anymore - India answers our telephone calls now. We are becoming more and more the middle men of the global economy. We don't have to make it happen, we just make it happen through us.
The world is no longer on the dollar standard though. Our military industrial complex has fewer and fewer allies in need of our arms. Our automotive industry is teetering on the brink of nationalization. We produce iron and coal, but in the 21st century, the world is built on much more exotic materials, many of which are imported - such as most of the materials used in modern day batteries. Finally, one of the larger segments of the US economy - the financial services and banking sector - finally bit the bullet this past month.

We have less and less ground to stand on. As our enimies realize that, they are slowly turning the flames under our feet up. The world will not come to our aid as we have theirs - we always did it with more than a modicum of self interest and that has not gone unnoticed. They have the oil. We have their spite.

When these tensions escalate, things get worse for everyone, but now, they get worse faster for the US - which means others benefit.


By rudolphna on 10/1/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
my god that was the most sensible, rational, thing I have heard in YEARS. Everything in that post was absolutely true. Thats a +6 post if I ever saw one. If we keep going the way we are, before long the US will be economically, a 3rd world country. Everything is going overseas, and people just dont care, because it doesnt directly affect them-yet.


By toyotabedzrock on 9/29/2008 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that currently we have no way to defend against the massive number of missiles Russia already has, and submarines can launch closer to our borders allowing very little time for a defensive missile to intercept it. But i believe they feel repressed by the US economically and it is being manifested in actual aggressive actions, almost the way an animal thats trapped would react.

Perhaps we should offer a limited amount of our missile defense technology to Russia? I'd rather see them develop that than additional nuclear weapons.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Regs on 9/29/2008 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.


We don't need missiles in Poland when we have Air Force bases in Germany and Turkey that can deliver a tactical nuke by Air. Our delivery systems are a lot more advanced than Russia's, though still doesn't mean it won't bring a holocaust. And Iran? What are they going to do with a nuke? They'll just have to get 300 angry Iranians together so that they can throw it out us. (Ok that was joke).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 3
Israel will deal with the Iran problem, its not really our concern. Russia is NATO's problem, and in a stand up fight NATO would win but in a nuke-fest its a 50/50 split and Russia knows it. Their ability to wage conventional war against a properly equipped enemy is practically non-existant. Most of their aresenal is concentrated in the nuclear arena anyways.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 11:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states. On the conventional war front, neither side would be all that interested in it because its not nearly as profitable to buy and use up your own weapons, as it is to sell said weapons to others to use.

However, one must remember that neither the U.S or Russia holds near the level of convention force power that they did 20 years ago. Further, the U.s is caught in a two front war, and being global hegemonic police man. As the U.S forms the core and backbone and most appendages of NATO militarily, they would not have a very easy time defeating Russia. Go back to around 1989-92 force levels of the U.S and yea I would say NATO then, could certainly defeat Russia now, conventionally. However, when the U.S could only muster approx 1/4 the land force it used to initially liberate Kuwait, this time in Iraq; things get a bit more murky.

I do find it interesting that you call it the 'Iran problem' when it is equally an 'Israeli Problem'. Like it or not the U.S took out a major regional power when it destroyed Iraq and her military. Iran and Israel now sit as opposing regional powers, and neither has bloodless hands. The recent failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and not even Iran proper, certainly signifies that Israel, less her nuclear armament, is not singularly capable of taking on Iran any more.

Because of this, I would prefer that both had nuclear weapons, as then they can get on with accepting each others existence. Nuclear weapons here would serve to nullify the trump card Israel holds over the region, and would further bang home the point that if they really and truly did go at it, it would result in the destruction of both their economies and states as we know them today. Instead of merely speculating that Israel would lose the conventional exchange and resort to a tactical nuclear exchange, which would result in perhaps WW3, and both states becoming glass; both parties would have certainty that a move to overt war would lead to two chunks of once sand now glass emerging through their own hands.

Honestly, Russia has to respond to NATO pressure, and likewise the U.S has to jump in and add the rhetorical propaganda. Which is sad, as it doesn't really have to be this way.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:19:03 PM , Rating: 4
Ah, someone with a handle on the larger issues in play here, cool lets disect.

quote:
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states.

I would argue that in a MAD situation, one of them would likely nuke China back to the stone age in the process. They might not get off as scott free as we might think.

quote:
On the conventional war front, neither side would be all that interested in it because its not nearly as profitable to buy and use up your own weapons, as it is to sell said weapons to others to use.

True enough, thats why much of the Cold War was the US and Soviets playing through third parties in other countries via arms sales, training, insurgencies, etc..... See: Vietnam, S. Korea, Afganistan to name a few.

quote:
However, one must remember that neither the U.S or Russia holds near the level of convention force power that they did 20 years ago.

Sad but true. America's handicap is mostly in the lack of ground troops. Naval and Airpower we have, but ground troops are a small fraction of what Russia or even China can deploy. Russia lacks a Navy or Air Force worth talking about. Russia can also put out more armored divisions than the U.S. mostly of the T-72 variety. But that's what A-10's and M1A1's are for. It would be an interesting matchup.

quote:
Further, the U.s is caught in a two front war, and being global hegemonic police man.

Yea, we are stuck as the world police. Our ability to interdict Russian military action at this point rests solely with the Air Force and Navy, the Marines and Army are otherwise occupied. Still, we could support NATO ground forces fairly well in the theatre. While we are stretched thin, we still have resources to play with.

quote:
As the U.S forms the core and backbone and most appendages of NATO militarily, they would not have a very easy time defeating Russia. Go back to around 1989-92 force levels of the U.S and yea I would say NATO then, could certainly defeat Russia now, conventionally. However, when the U.S could only muster approx 1/4 the land force it used to initially liberate Kuwait, this time in Iraq; things get a bit more murky.

Yea, we could likely stop Russia from invading any of the NATO members, but it would end in a draw since we lack the troops necessary to push back into Russian held territory. The best we could do is utilize the Navy and Air Force to prevent Russia's use of armor and air power, and then use B-2's and F-22's to take out their supply lines. Conventional aircraft could handle any armor/vehicles they try to bring into play. In an air superiority contest the F-22's and F-15's would dismantle Russian air power in short order. Depending on the degree of Anti-Air ground capabilities its an open question if we could use our air superiority to our advantage or rely on drones/cruise missiles.

quote:
I do find it interesting that you call it the 'Iran problem' when it is equally an 'Israeli Problem'. Like it or not the U.S took out a major regional power when it destroyed Iraq and her military. Iran and Israel now sit as opposing regional powers, and neither has bloodless hands.

Precisely. The only reason I refer to it as the Iran problem is that Iran is the only one that has publically said it would nuke Israel off the map. Israel has only responded that it would take away Iran's nuclear capability. Although I bet they would demonstrate their muscle by taking down a number of infrastructure and military targets in the process.

quote:
The recent failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and not even Iran proper, certainly signifies that Israel, less her nuclear armament, is not singularly capable of taking on Iran any more.

The problem with Hezbollah is that they aren't a country. You can't carpet bomb or annihilate areas without getting alot of civilians in the way. Iran is a country with a standing military that would be the target. We're not talking about counter-insurgency were talking conventional warfare in which case all targets in your country are valid targets of opportunity. I think Israel has the same problems the U.S. is having in Iraq and Afganistan with trying to kill only insurgents with minimal civilian casualties even though they dress as civilians and set up hideouts in civilian areas. This just complicates the job Israel has to do, I think in a straight war Israel wouldn't hold back and wouldn't give a damn about civilians since its more of a traditional country vs country war.

quote:
Because of this, I would prefer that both had nuclear weapons, as then they can get on with accepting each others existence. Nuclear weapons here would serve to nullify the trump card Israel holds over the region, and would further bang home the point that if they really and truly did go at it, it would result in the destruction of both their economies and states as we know them today. Instead of merely speculating that Israel would lose the conventional exchange and resort to a tactical nuclear exchange, which would result in perhaps WW3, and both states becoming glass; both parties would have certainty that a move to overt war would lead to two chunks of once sand now glass emerging through their own hands.

To be blunt, I don't think MAD would stop one of them from lobbing a nuke at the other, and it definately would not stop the other from a nuclear holocaust in response. The only problem I see is that Iran's delivery systems are primitive at best for delivering a sizeable nuke to a target, it would likely be better to move it by truck than missile. Israel I suspect is using U.S. knock-off guidance systems or maybe even U.S. guidance systems and would be able to hit back with deadly accuracy to anywhere in Iran. Iran would also have far fewer nukes than Israel, who likely has hundreds or more.

quote:
Honestly, Russia has to respond to NATO pressure, and likewise the U.S has to jump in and add the rhetorical propaganda. Which is sad, as it doesn't really have to be this way.

Like two rival gangs trash talking before a fight that might not take place. Yes its pretty bad, but thats how international politics works. Russia always seems to respond with or respond to military power, diplomacy has never worked for them historically.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:31:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It would be an interesting matchup.


No it wouldn't. This ain't cod4. Real people die is such conflicts you know.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do all the evil I can before I learn to shun it? Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.


By overzealot on 9/30/2008 8:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
You cut off the first word.
Must I do...

We could use a few more Ghandi's in this world.


By oab on 9/30/2008 8:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you've never wondered "who would win, NATO or the Warsaw Pact?"

Movies, games, books have all been written on that subject.


By Regs on 9/30/2008 8:33:33 AM , Rating: 3
Well, lol, lets put things in perspective.

The budget for the US military last year including Iraq and Afghanistan was 500 billion dollars. That is the size of half of Russia's entire GDP. Russia has to keep putting these machines into storage, and they can't even afford to man them. 1,000 tanks in storage vs.. one GPS guided bomb = you do the math. China and Russia have a lot of men on reserve, mostly because farming rice is more lucrative than joining their military. Of course if we attack them, they'll more than love to fight for free.

Our standing army is well trained and its leadership has a lot of experience in conflict. Our army would likely double if we ever were attacked (Bombing of Pearl Harbor = "we awoke the sleeping giant").

In other words, the military is just a tool. Though the real force behind the military is the heart of the people.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Tsuwamono on 9/29/2008 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind Canada is still an ally of the USA and NATO. We have a strong desire to help allies in need. Look at WW2, we had a population of 10million people but over a million man military. Now we have 35 million so if we were to use the same percentage(which isn't likely but just for kicks) that would mean a 3.5million man army. Plus the size of the US forces, UK, france, germany, etc. I'm pretty sure NATO would make quick work of a Russian assault.

We probably wouldnt be anywhere near 3.5 million man army anymore but i could see 1.5million realistically in canada if there was a WW3.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm from Canada, personally if you want to start a row with Russia I am moving the hell to Sweden if my country is dumb enough to throw in on a world war.

I'm not enlisting in some grand army of the allies to fight in the last war mankind will probably ever see.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
If they instate a draft you likely won't have a choice. I know if WW3 breaks out I would sign up. I would likely never see front line combat though.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
I would draft dodge all the way, no chance I am going to go die for someones cause.

Chances are I would be 4f anyway for bad knees bad back and generally being adverse to authority.


By mmatis on 9/29/2008 6:25:29 PM , Rating: 3
You'd only have to move to the US and claim conscientious objector status. Osama would be glad to have you.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. There's always someone else to take your place ...


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:17:59 PM , Rating: 1
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?


By oab on 9/30/2008 8:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
Canada has never had a draft, on two occasions in the past 100 years there was conscription, for a two year period each time one in 1917 and one in 1945. In both cases overseas deployment was optional (though encouraged).

I cannot think of any situation where a draft would be required.


By Iketh on 9/29/2008 8:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if my country is dumb enough to throw in on a world war


like noone has learned a damn thing from pearl harbor...


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By arazok on 9/29/2008 4:35:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states.


Not likely. The Russian nuclear fleet has been neglected for over 20 years. Nuclear warheads are notoriously unstable, requiring lots of maintenance to keep them working. Eventually the plutonium degrades, and they need to be replaced – an expensive endeavor that Russia can hardly afford.

On top of that, the Russian bomber fleet would have it’s ass handed to it by the Americans, and the Americans would have free reign over 100% of Russian territory. Russia’s only hope would be an ICBM launch. These have also been neglected.

In the end, Russia would launch a bunch of ICBM’s, half of which would fail to launch, and of the ones that do, most would fail to detonate. Meanwhile, America would be obliterating every strategic asset in Russia with 100% accuracy. America would have a bloody nose, but Russia would have it’s limbs severed, diced into tiny pieces, and fed to itself on a red white and blue platter.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 6:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
Quite possibly, there is plenty of intel and information that points to Russia having lots of nukes but mostly inoperable and in disarray. Its anyones guess how many can fly, and hit a target, causing detonation. Bombers are no threat, NORAD would pick them up taking off and F-15's and F-22's would be on station before they reached Canadian or Alaskan air space. Their subs are trackable, it's an open secret that the USA can track Russian submarines wherever they go, so I doubt they will be much of a problem. ICBM's and their slick little mobile ICBM's are the wild card here. They could do some heavy damage depending on how many they have on hand ready to fire.


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
War ain't like playing "risk"


By Regs on 10/1/2008 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel will deal with the Iran problem, its not really our concern. Russia is NATO's problem


I'm a little iffy on that statement since we have invested a lot of political capital in Israel over decades. USA has been adamant with diplomatic ties with Israel, making them the wild card or poster child of the middle east. If Iran did, or had the possibility to attack Israel, it would be almost impossible for me to fathom that we wouldn't intervene.


By Ammohunt on 9/29/2008 2:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear weapons maintained by the US are no longer in Europe. Its called the Start II treaty


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By daniyarm on 9/29/2008 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure our delivery systems are a lot more advanced. They have long range strategic bombers, nuclear submarines, and long range missiles with multiple warheads. I don't see how this is any different than what we have.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 3:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's public knowledge that the U.S. weaponry is accurate enough to pick specific door knobs to hit. Russia's are accurate enough to hit a specific city block in theory. They have only ever demonstrated the ability to hit within a mile of the intended target. But when your talking a nuke, accuracy deviation hardly matters. For conventional weapons, Russia is not accurate to say the least.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By mmatis on 9/29/2008 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
As the saying goes, "Close only counts in horseshoes and nukes..."


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
As the saying goes,"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By TA152H on 9/29/2008 10:29:44 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, Putin is a real genius.

The Soviet Union fell apart because they tried to match the U.S. in armaments when their economy was half the size of the United States' economy. Now they will do it with their mutilated half country?

Russia is much smaller, economically, than the Soviet Union, and they can't possibly engage the United States on anything approaching equality. Their people will pay a price they can not, their economy will tank, and they will have more turmoil if they even attempt to match the United States. It's not like the times have changed and the Russians simply need the will to revert to their own form. Huge parts of their country are gone, and, Ukraine is openly hostile to them. They also lost Eastern Europe. So who are their allies?

The United States has a huge economy, as does Western Europe. As I always tell my foreign friends, the United States may not be perfect, but what do you think the world would be like if the Soviet Union had been the only super power that remained? One hint, you wouldn't have them trying to promote democracy in the world. If you look at history there was never a time one country was so dominant, yet the effects of countries that were powerful at the time were far less benign than the United States. Humans are not perfect, and therefore countries are not, but judged by historical measures of abuse by powerful countries (and sometimes even less powerful countries), the United States passes with an A.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By DASQ on 9/29/2008 10:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
To put it short, they're trying to achieve a United States armament on a Canada budget.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
Well, Russia is also going about it in the traditional manner. The U.S. military is focusing on smaller, faster response, stealthy, and always watching. Russia is going with the iron fist approach again with large things that go boom and do lots of collateral damage. Precision and tactical strikes are not in Russia's vocabulary and it never has been.


By Jimbo1234 on 9/29/2008 2:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you're also familiar with the phrase "If brute force isn't working, you're not using enough."


By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your point being that less precise also equals less costly, I assume.

Very true. But they also may be talking about missile defense themselves (it's not perfectly clear). That is the kind of small, fast response, always watching type of system that has very high development costs, high deployment costs, and high maintenance and manning costs. Maybe not as big as their nuclear readiness costs, but it's not chump change, either.

Still, I think Russia can handle a decent amount of Defense spending at the moment - energy prices are good now, and besides, Defense spending is a way to boost a slagging economy - see US Depression/WWII.


By Ammohunt on 9/29/2008 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention Russia still believes in the spoils of war. I.E. the looting an pillaging of Georgia.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings.


By brenatevi on 9/29/2008 10:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Violence has been a time honored tool since the first caveman hit another caveman with a rock just to shut him up. It worked then, so why stop using it?


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
Putin is not going to start building stockpiles of nukes professor... The key to his thinking is a "disproportionate" response. What this suggests to me is supplying weapons to any country that weakens the US sphere of influence. That means Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc. I think the Russians are fully aware that an arms race would not benefit them.


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.


By Cunthor666 on 9/29/2008 10:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia is much smaller, economically, than the Soviet Union, and they can't possibly engage the United States on anything approaching equality. Their people will pay a price they can not, their economy will tank, and they will have more turmoil if they even attempt to match the United States.


You are watching the news right? You know, the economy crisis thing in US...?

Russia has re-emerged as a superpower the moment Georgians attacked South Ossetian region, and anyone who thinks Russia is not a threat to US is being just ignorant. What makes you think that Russians won't stop trading oil and gas in USD if push came to shove?

Give them five to ten years, and bipolar system of power will be restored - assuming China doesn't get any bigger in that time.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By theapparition on 9/29/2008 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.

Bad analogy.

Russia equiped Cuba with nuclear misiles aimed directly at the US, designed as a offensive weapon. We are proposing equiping Poland (and they are supporting it) with defensive non-nuclear weapons. Big difference.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By raghavny80 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
For my 2 cents, I'd also add that the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good analogy when talking about how Russian nukes in Cuba changed the balance of power in the arms race. The problem with the ABM system is that it changes the balance of power in the whole MAD equation.

If you want to unbalance an equation, you can add to one side or you can subtract from the other. Instead of adding offensive capabilities to the U.S. side, the U.S. has unbalanced the equation by subtracting offensive capabilities from the Russian side. The net effect is the same, though.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Grast on 9/29/2008 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 4
Firstly, the ABM issue is an excuse by the Russians to justify their military build-up. The ABM being deployed in Europe has 12. That is right 12 interceptors. The ABM system is designed to nullify rogue and single shot missle launches. It was never designed nor capble of nullifing the nuclear capability of the Soviets... Opps I mean Russians.

Secondly, Bush exited the ABM treaties because the Russions were not keeping up their end of the bargan. Additionally at the time, the Russians were unable to economically fund their army. It made sense at that time to consider rogue states with nuclear capability the bigger threat.

Until Putin came into power, the Russians were quite civilized.

Get off of your retoric, Russians wants another arms race. I say we give it to them.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 11:49:42 AM , Rating: 1
I'm up for it. We'll win.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 4
We'll win in the long run but it will require a build up of forces around the world by the U.S. and NATO. Technology wise we have Russia beat 10:1, but Russia has a knack for using the zerg rush strategy.


By Radnor on 9/29/2008 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, like the Dead Hand.

That's nuclear carpet bombing. I think it is the vodka really. Its like sniping with a shotgun.


By TerranMagistrate on 9/29/2008 7:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's ok, we'll wax 'em with our protoss-like precision weaponry.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 9:45:15 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately I seem to recall the Protoss losing their homeworld to the Zerg Swarm........


By TerranMagistrate on 9/30/2008 12:39:02 AM , Rating: 3
Well if you take out the Overmind (Putin) like you're supposed to, there won't be any worries about that. Or just mass carriers, that NEVER fails. :)


By raghavny80 on 9/29/2008 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."


By Josett on 9/29/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sigh. Again Condi opens her mouth and spews forth something silly. (...) To continuously poke a regional / re-entrant global power the way NATO has; is to invite a show of strength... Perhaps even require it.


Still the best analysis in this thread.

Seems that most posters are unaware that 'there's life' beyond the USA borders... and, that the 'colour' of a given empire is only as lively as it lasts.


By jhb116 on 9/29/2008 10:50:40 PM , Rating: 3
So your age long rant (in blog time) has established you as an anti- Dr. Rice fan at best, "hate all things Republican" at worst.

The ABM treaty, or lack there of, has little, if anything, to do with the current state of affairs. Russian/Soviet Union and US had ABM technology well before the US scrapped ABM.

The most likely real problem is that Russia probably feels surrounded by NATO on the West and China in the East. I will agree that this administration needs to spend some time working with the Russians and the next administration needs to spend alot of time repairing relations with the Russia.


The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
Did anyone else think for a moment or two that Russia might have given a thought to retaking Georgia last month? Given Putin's drumbeat of nationalistic pride, that move would have gone a long way towards taking Russia up a notch. The only thing that prevents him from doing so is the threat of a potentially nuclear response from the US. MAD is no longer guaranteed with our new ABM system. That may be the only reason they did not take Georgia, or Ukraine for that matter. Russia could care less about western sanctions against it; they have enough liquidity to do essentially anything they want. I personally do not believe that we would engage Russia with nuclear weapons, we just don't have the balls to do so. At worst, we would rely upon NATO to send a sternly worded letter that they would laugh at (which is exactly was has happened).

I believe it is a very real possibility that Putin will indeed attempt to broaden his borders and retake previously held states. Sad to say, I think he will get away with it if he choses to do so, as the West does not have the stomach for the the level of engagement that would occur trying to stop him. His fury at the ABM system almost telegraphs his future intentions.




RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 10:24:44 AM , Rating: 3
"West does not have the stomach for the the level of engagement"

To prove that point, why would we invade Iraq to stop alledged WMDs, when we have known WMDs in the hands of a beligerant N.Korea and we do nothing? One is a battle (we think) we can win, the other is a battle that would be too bloody for our tastes (due to China's likely involvement).


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 11:59:19 AM , Rating: 3
I never said they were evil and dangerous, simply interested in regaining their national pride and hightening their status on the world stage. Losing so many of their former territories to the west is a big blow to both of those goals. They may be able to regain these areas without firing a shot by, as you suggested, increasing their dependence upon Russia for resources.

I am concerned about what would happen if a democratic state, such as Georgia, were to be forcibly retaken by Russia. I don't think that there would be much NATO or the US could do about it without sparking a massive mess. Their membership into NATO will likely be delayed indefinitely for this reason, since we would be compelled by charter to defend them.

What part of any of this involves me 'screaming my head off'? You need not worry about me 'using my brain', for I am a f*cking noob, and will be downrated into submission in short order.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I never said they were evil and dangerous, simply interested in regaining their national pride and hightening their status on the world stage.


This is actually the key to where we diverge on our opinions. I think that all of this can be done without acquiring any additional territory.
For example, they started strategic bomber flights again. Is that a threat to anyone? Nope, but it sends a message that they are a force to be reckoned with. They've also sent advisers to China to help with the Chinese space program, and I'm sure the Chinese spacewalk would not be done without them. Does a Chinese spacewalk change the balance of power in space? Of course not, they've only cought up by 40 years. But it has the effect of combining Russia and China against the US.
It's all a game with perception. And they can make themselves look powerful without doing much at all. The reason I overreacted to your comment is the implication that they will resort to imperialism. I find that dubious.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By James Wood Carter on 9/29/2008 7:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
I Think China has no choice but to get its help from Russia unless they want to do it themselves - which is unlikely since there is help available. Since US refuse to help out in that sense - But its quickly changing as US has laxed its ban in space coperations.
Relations between Russia and China isn't strong as many like to think - its mostly for strategic reasons just as any country would form close ties as long as they both benefit from it. I presume that if US formed closer ties with China we would be better off - which btw seems to be the current direction unless Mccain steps into office
I seriously doubt China would intervene with other people's wars unless it has its stakes on the line. Seriously i'm sick of reading aobut fears of China this and that since 1978 China has focused much more on its economic reforms than on foreign conflicts and they'll probably continue to do so. They will also continue their space program perhaps not just to compete but of the gains from all the R&D as well as national pride. just look at their faces when they saw their own home bred astraunouts sucessfully returned - hehe some even cried.
Anyway i see that comming years ties between Russia and China would be less important and that our (USA) ties with China would be more valued.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Ringold on 9/30/2008 2:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I presume that if US formed closer ties with China we would be better off - which btw seems to be the current direction unless Mccain steps into office


I know you dislike all things Republican, but it was bipartisan congressional verbal attacks on China with threats of what would've amounted to a trade war a year or two ago that lead to a 1000 some economists of both parties to sign a petition to attempt to stop what they feared would be the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the new century. Our relationship with China depends almost entirely upon trade relations. Despite your partisanship, surely you can understand by looking at both candidates websites and listening to campaign speeches that McCain is the free trader while Obama is the one who features trade bashing as a standard issue stump speech item.

I mean, hell, McCain will probably lose Michigan if for no other reason than because he reliably goes there and tells them their jobs are gone, free trade is good, get the hell over it and retrain for new jobs. Thats as pro-China/trade as a politician can get. McCain's entire campaign may flop because of his free market beliefs; the right beliefs to have but at the wrong time politically.

Anyway, I agree, stronger US-China ties will become more important, if for no other reason than because they're going to become huge.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Grast on 9/29/2008 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry,

But your statement regarding the ABM system is incorrect. The ABM system in europe will only have 12 interceptors. The ABM was designed to eliminate the threat of single launches from rogue states or groups. The ABM poses no threat to changeing the balance of power for MAD.

ABM is an excuse by the Russians to bolster their military build-up.

Later..


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 1
Oh I agree entirely, however, it is their perception of the ABM's capabilities that destabilizes MAD.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Jim28 on 9/30/2008 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Whose perception? The russians are very smart, they know what this abm system can do and what it can't in thorough detail.

The only MAD changing perceptions are false ones, and the fact that they are playing on like perceptions all over the world.
If this system were a capable SDI type of system, then yes MAD is changed. You can't credibly tell me that the removal of 12 warheads out of several thousand affects the balance of power with MAD.

Like the previous poster said. This is an excuse nthing more. It is aboout strategic goals and controlling the energy supplies of Europe.


Of course it's our fault...
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2008 8:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
Why hasn't Putin been assassed? Who nerfed the CIA?




RE: Of course it's our fault...
By kiwik on 9/29/2008 8:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
Because the FSB (Russia's KGB) is watching for BLU spies approaching the VIP.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By filipenko on 9/29/2008 9:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
And because once you open that door, there will always be some KGB boys waiting for some presidents, too...Perhaps on their own ranches.

September 11th? Just imagine what kind of terror could be instigated by the organized secret forces of a giant country...


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Funny in a sense; see Afghanistan part n-1 (n being present conflict). Except there 'The West' backed the 'Taliban' or what would become the Taliban, and the 'Soviets' backed the 'Northern Alliance' (Afghanistan Communist Party). Further, 'terrorists' were 'Freedom Fighters', and Osama bin laden was a 'friend' and not an 'enemy'.

The resultant mess played a major role in bankrupting the USSR, and furthering the 'failed state' status of Afghanistan that gave a group called 'Al-Queda' a base of operations, military training, weapons, etc.

Hmm... funny that. Amazing when events play out that fall out of one's control. Especially when involving the 'secret' forces of a large country. Funnier still when the next party fails to learn any lessons from the first attempt. Hubris is still alive and kicking - perhaps as universal as death and taxes?


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Regs on 9/29/2008 10:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
So, you're saying we should use our time machine and go back and let the USSR topple them? The future always changes, but the past will always stay the same.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 4
Funny, history books always seem to change depending upon the storyteller...


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Regs on 10/1/2008 7:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent point. Though no matter what truth you use, it's easy to say "should-of, could-of, would-of", when we know what the unpredictable consequences it could of lead to in the future. The solutions are always more easier to figure out when the problem is no longer relevant.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Ringold on 9/30/2008 2:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except there 'The West' backed the 'Taliban'


Historical inaccuracy to make a partisan point?

The West 'backed' the Mujahideen, which the Taliban overthrew. The Northern Alliance, according to all the references I can find, or more accurately perhaps the UIF, appears to of been the remnants of the mujahideen, not the old Soviet lackeys. I'm not sure where your characterizations come from, except perhaps it applies the maximum possible anti-US spin.


Very low...
By filipenko on 9/29/2008 8:54:07 AM , Rating: 1
What a shallow article. It states that Russia is agressive towards someone, and that it invaded Georgia, where Gerogian troops attacked first on Russian peacekeeping forces. What would be the American response if someone attacked their troops in Iraq or in Kosovo?

Also, it states that Russia is instigating new cold war. False again, US is instigating it with nuclear shields and by refusing to sign morratorium on developing nuclear weapons further..

Never saw any Russian troops invading countries thousands of miles from their homeland just to exploit their natural resources, i.e. oil.




RE: Very low...
By stilltrying on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very low...
By Dribble on 9/29/2008 10:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
That's like saying America invaded Florida. You can't *invade* part of your own Country.


RE: Very low...
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very low...
By bigboxes on 9/29/2008 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The day I recognize Ossentian independence is the day Russia recognizes Chechnian independence. You can't have it both ways. Georgia is a sovergn independent country with S. Ossentia as part of it's territory. To dispute that is ignorant. If there are a lot of Georgians of Russian descent in S. Ossentia doesn't mean that they should join with mother Russia. Any more than the overwhelming number of Americans of Mexican descent in El Paso should join Mexico. Acutally, what Russia has traditionally done is conquer nearby countries and then move their own people in to dilute the local natives (similar to China and Tibet).

I'm not saying that the Americans haven't pushed the Russians into a corner. It's just that this cry of poor ethnic Russians is an excuse and not the real reason for the invasion.


RE: Very low...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
You just defeated your own arguement. Chechnya is part of Russia, so if you're ok with part of Russia getting their independence, then you should be ok with what you claim to be part of Georgia to get theirs. You also conveniently neglected to reply about Kosovo... why is ok for Kosovo to be independent, but not Ok for Osetia? There's no logic there.
But the "poor ethnic Russians" as you put it are only an excuse for the media. This is just a demonstration to Sakashvili that he should stay put and not mess with the status quo.