backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 198 comment(s) - last by crafty.. on Jul 11 at 3:06 AM

An X-band radar tracking station.
Russia threatens military response.

The U.S. announced a "landmark" agreement with the Czech Republic to expand its missile defense system into the region.  The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, was signed today in Prague.  Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, described the deal as an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world".

Last year, the U.S. announced its long-awaited missile defense shield -- a.k.a. "Star Wars" -- was functional and ready to defend parts of the nation from attack.  Since then, effort has focused on expanding system capabilities.  The Czech agreement will allow sitting of an advanced tracking radar station in the nation, to allow early detection and interception of missile launches.

The U.S.'s top diplomat called the agreement essential for long-term security. "Ballistic missile proliferation", said Ms. Rice, "is not an imaginary threat".  She pointed to efforts by Iran to build longer-range missiles capable of reaching most of Europe.

Response from other nations was quick to follow.  Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action.   A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods".  The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.

The U.S. has said the defense system was not aimed at Russia, and in the past has suggested Russian inspectors could visit radar and interceptor sites themselves.  

Poland is the next bone of contention, with the U.S. hoping to site interceptor missiles there.  Talks with the Polish government have stalled, however, and the U.S. has suggested Lithuania may be an alternate site.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
..."I'm afraid of Americans." And seriously, after reading some of the posts here, I'm truly afraid of Americans; but not all of them, myself included. I'm only afraid of the Americans that bleed red white and blue, and not simply red, the color that ALL people bleed. The 'My country right or wrong' crowd that posts on heated political articles such as this one, need to put a little more thought into what they are saying when it comes to the 'us vs. them' attitude in the nuclear arms context.

What we are dealing with here is essentially an end game. The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best. The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species. We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world. We can no longer afford to view the world through an 'us vs them' lens.

I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up' or that 'they' (being the terrorists, whoever and whatever a terrorist is) want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms (of which are being sold down the river by 'our' congress and 'our' president who so zealously want to 'protect' our freedoms and cite them as a cause to defend our nation, while concurrently undermining them). To you who do accuse me of being a 'terrorist sympathizer' in so many words, I have this to say to you: I love my country MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL and refuse to allow myself or my friends, family, and fellow countrymen to be ruled by fear and state terror.

This is the fucking United States of America! We were conceived in the midst of intellectual and philosophical criticism of government and the status quo, to the likes of which we have yet to see again (the Civil Rights era seems to be the closest we've come to something tantamount, yet wholly inadequate, to our revolution). Questioning the government and its official policy IS WHAT WE DO! We cannot, and never have been able to rely on our media, our traditional educational institutions, nor the popular understanding of our history IE: America as a beacon on a hill, America as the benevolent giant - and one can substitute the word 'giant' for 'empire' any time they like - or any other feel good 'my country right or wrong' invocation. No, our revolution didn't come from following a well-trodden path, but from ideas of liberty, and equality that went beyond that of mere rhetoric.

Of course, this is all a work in progress. We have never truly achieved the ideals that sparked our revolution during the nascent era of our democratic republic, nor will we ever achieve those ideals; they are not ideals to be achieved, but to be aspired to.

These are the ideals that will guide us through a seemingly hopeless national and world situation. As long as we can hold onto that which we KNOW is good and decent, we can prevail in even the most cynical of times. I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity, in the people, that is sometimes overshadowed by those few, the 'movers and shakers' of the world, or as Bob Dylan put it, "The Masters of the Universe," who distort humanity for their own cynical gain. As long as we can recognize this, there is still hope for us to be able to break the shackles of fear and terror that these cynics use to frame our view of reality.

So please, when we speak of ICBM's, mutually assured destruction, missile defense systems, and terror, remember that these are all the tools of fear that have brought us to the precipice of our own destruction. If we do not recognize these weapons of mass destruction and mass distraction for what they are, and rail against them for what they are, then perhaps the twilight of our existence is truly upon us. I hope that is not the case, and I hope that those of you who pound your chests and speak so forcefully, realize that the game you are playing has an ending, and there are no winners.




RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 4:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
'My country right or wrong'


Ultimately, if one lives in America, then one lives in America. Not Uganda. So there is only one logical hope a person can have for his country of residence, particularly if you bothered to quote Stephen Decatur entirely: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

In fact, I think you fundamentally don't understand the quote. One can very easily criticize their country while not being against their country, which is really what the quote is saying. No fair-weather friends, no fair-weather patriots.

quote:
The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best.


That's not what this system is about, which appears to be a misunderstanding.. possibly a deliberate one. There is no way the system can handle a nuclear war between stable superpowers with large arsenals. It is designed exclusively to intercept a small launch by a small rogue state.

quote:
The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species.


Open a textbook. Like it or not, with respect to superpowers, it has worked. Rational countries understand that to use such a system is to lose by default. Again, this system has nothing to do with that balance anyway.

quote:
We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world.


Wonderful rhetorical flair, but "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," because as much as liberals may want to think the world is anywhere close to being in a situation where everybody can sit down and have a big group hug, it is not. Until such a glorious liberal day arrives where all national sovereignty is yielded to the United Nations (much like how national sovereignty in Europe has slowly been transferred to Brussels), sovereign leaders have a responsibiltiy to those citizens living in their country to look after their security interests. In case you failed to notice, rogue states aside, China is an upcoming superpower of its own and appears to have no intention of playing high-minded political softball.

quote:
I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up'


Not a "pussy," simply misguided and ignorant of the history of the past 100 years.

quote:
want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms


Why does Kim Jong Il do anything? For all we know, he just gets kicks out of watching his people starve. Such a warped mind can't be understood. Thankfully, he's in the process of being disarmed.

What of Iran? I don't know why a Persian state would seek the annihilation of Israel, I thought Israel's beef was with Arab nations, but they repeatedly say that is their goal, and they fund terrorist groups and back satellite nations (Syria) that actively undermine the Israeli state. This system seeks to protect against such an attack, the exact reason for it being meaningless.

quote:
This is the fucking United States of America!


FUCK YEAH!!

Unfortunately, the rest of that paragraph was intellectually inconsistent with the second paragraph. You take the European intellectual anti-nationalist and collectivist approach in the 2nd paragraph, then try to invoke nationalism and rugged individualism here. George Washington would've looked after America first and foremost. As for the missile defense scheme, I believe he would've supported it, on the following logic: While it was possible to isolationist in the 18th century, due to the globalized nature of the economy and the long reach of military power, it is not today. It is critical, then, to have allies, and protect those allies. Israel and, as part of NATO, Europe, and Japan are staunch, long-time allies. Therefore, a system of defense in their benefit and ours make sense.

Also, the Civil Rights movement was an odd thing to bring up. Things like affirmative action have created reverse discrimination, not equality, at least in day to day life.

quote:
I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity


Could have fooled me on the first point, and the point of missile defense, indeed the entire military, is protection against what history suggests is a brutal world. You can't look at history and glean from it only what you want, and you can't look at China's militancy or the nasty state of Africa and glean what you want there either.

In fact, the supposition that humans are in fact intelligent animals and no more is by far an easier position to defend than anything else.

Ultimately, I don't even know what you're suggesting be done. Remain completely naked to the whims of foreign and unstable regimes? Iran, for example, is by no means ruled by the will of its people (who would likely never use nuclear weapons). Unilateral disarmament? Surely you know then that would simply put America in a position of weakness; we could never defend ourselves to any great extent against the aggression of a nuclear power for fear of nuclear reprisal.

To correct one last misstatement, it was ICBM's that brought us to that precipice, and MAD that kept us from going over. Just like this Iraq-retreat nonsense, my view to nuclear weapons is similar; we are where we are, and must now proceed in the way that serves our interests best. Unilateral disarmament is not that way.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
It's fun to cherry pick and tear apart a posting based on its 'ignorance' or misguided and uninformed historical accounts that you arbitrarily label as being such. I could, of course do the same to you, which is pretty much all that I’ve seen within this forum so far, but I won't...at least not too much.

It's also fun to pull out the good old 'you're just a liberal who doesn't know what you're talking about' card and slap that on the table. By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical. Does that frighten you? I actually just wanted to say that for the sake of a little bravado. I personally don’t like labels that attempt to place someone within a single political paradigm, but apparently you do.

I’m going to continue to use the ‘radical’ line for this next little bit, because it certainly more accurately applies. The revolutionary thinkers of our nation's conception who envisioned something better than that of existence under the rule of the British Monarchy, were radical...for the time…even though the majority of those 'revolutionary' thinkers were a part of the 'gentleman's' class and certainly cared more for their wealth and prestige than they did for the average rural American (who, by the way, through the means of posterity has fought tooth and nail via organization and unionization as well as political upheaval to obtain what we now call universal suffrage, an 8 hour workday, job safety requirements, healthcare, higher wages, social security etc.). If you would like to read a bit more about our revolutionary history from someone who was not associated with the gentlemen class of yesteryear, then pick up “Common Sense,” “The Rights of Man,” and “The Age of Reason” from Thomas Paine. Those will be nice starters for you.

I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history. Maybe after that, you could even graduate to reading Noam Chomsky. If you do, read Hegemony or Survival and get back to me on that one. Oh, and speaking of 'rogue states' which you had implicitly mentioned by citing Iran in your response to my post, read "Rogue States" by Noam Chomsky as well. I'm sure you'll love that one....and it may even cause you to bleed red white and blue from your eyeballs. By the way, you labeling China as being militant, clearly suggests to me that you cannot see the forest from the trees, my friend. But don't worry, if you try to think hard enough about them, and maybe read the books a second time, you'll once again be able to bleed red like the rest of us (and by "the rest of us" I mean the Americans that I'm not afraid of).

I'm sure at first, you'll feel overwhelmingly compelled to label Mr. Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist, possibly even a heretic, but if you give it some time, and take yourself out of your little comfort box that you've built up around you, then you may be able to lose some sleep at night, and actually be concerned about our country and wear its government is taking it... which, by the way, is not a reference to 'my country right or wrong,' but our country the way I would like it to be. Oh and yes, I just 'misquoted' Stephen Decatur again, even though I wasn't trying to capture the essence of what he was saying to begin with (I was simply using it to describe people who can't handle deep criticism of their government, which, I think, deserves a certain degree of criticism right about now). I don’t think you would share that view, considering the fact that you think pulling out of Iraq is nonsense, and that right there, is quite telling of your perspective.

Oh, I just want to say that I’m expecting you to reply and say something about me having a narrow view because all I read is Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, etc, and that I’m just the flipside of what I am criticizing to begin with. If not exactly that, then something in the ballpark. (and yes, that was a sentence fragment, of which I am acknowledging just in case you want to bust out an ad hominem or two…you know, like the ‘liberal and therefore naïve and ignorant’ card that you played)

Oh, and the accusation of me somehow citing 'European anti-nationalism’ within my words - which in itself is funny because you are suggesting that Europe is somehow currently and has been anti-nationalist (maybe you should read a few articles about France’s Jean Marie Le Penn, and now, consult a textbook and read about what nationalism did to Europe mid-twentieth century) - and then using a 'nationalist' approach with my description of what it is to be American, and thereby call me inconsistent, is utter nonsense; especially because you seem to be incorrectly defining my version of what you call ‘nationalist’ and ignoring how it could be implicitly defined from the tone of my post...that is, if the word were to be used at all. I’ll break it down for you so that things are clear: If being nationalist is tantamount to being critical of government rule and state power, then I'm all for it. And that is what I am appealing to with my invocations of ‘nationalism’ and ‘rugged individualism,’ which, once again, are words that you cherry picked from the ether and misused as points of criticism. Criticism of the government, by the way, is a Western democratic ideal, and not an American ideal (and I don't mean to give a certain dichotomy or culture-centric twist to my response by invoking an image of West vs East, when I say ‘Western’ ideal ).

There are plenty of people like me in Europe who do not subscribe to ‘nationalism’ and an ‘us vs them’ world outlook. No, they understand that the danger and violence that exists within the world, as you proclaim to be a truism according to history, is not created and perpetrated by the average person who is not politically well-connected, does not have immense wealth, and does not control a military machine (and industrial complex) - that can only justify itself by doing the one thing that it knows how to do, destroy - , but by a relatively small number of people who have an insatiable appetite for power, and are, as Kurt Vonnegut (God rest his soul, or whatever) labeled them, “sociopaths” (I hope there are Vonnegut fans out there that just got my dual reference, because I’m certain that the person I’m replying to has never read anything by Vonnegut, and if so, utterly failed to grasp Vonnegut’s style or message(s).

I can go on, and I probably should, but I think I have said enough, in a highly condescending manner, to label you as a total cherry-picking-words-from-the-ether ass, worthy of a pat on the back by William “Ad Hominem” O’Reilly. Good day sir.

PS: I don’t have answers for you, and I am not suggesting a single solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. But I DO suggest that we preserve the species, and by doing so, begin to reduce and hopefully altogether eliminate, our and the world’s nuclear arsenal. Take some advice from Robert McNamara; he’d tell you the same. And considering his history, he might be someone you’re more inclined to entertain (that’s assuming that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are too much for your comfort box to handle).


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 8:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history.


I'm not going to bother with a full response, as the above ideology doesn't deserve one. "History doesn't agree with my world view, so I will stick only to the account of history that does." Intellectual debate is, therefore, impossible.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: As David Bowie Said...
By beepandbop on 7/9/2008 10:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're hardly an intellectual. Howard Zinn's book has already been debunked by serious historians and individuals who actually take things like this seriously and aren't a bunch of distorters and historical perverters.
As much truth as Howard Zinn's book might have, which in this case, is substantially limited, he ultimately cannot cover his disdain for America or anything West. I wonder how he would have prefered a culture that did not condone freedom of speech, such as any other culture you will find under the globe. That's not to say these others cultures are substantially inferior, but I have yet to see a culture that condoned individuals voicing their own minds as much as Western civilization has.

Yet Howard Zinn has portrayed the West and America as this evil empire, bereft of any sort of dignity. It was the West that invented human dignity as a ubiquity, rather than the Hindus who applied it only to a select few, or the Chinese who assigned it to bureaucrats and well born men.

I'm not going to read the book because it's "ZOMG Communist" I'm not reading it because it's plain asinine, and there's no point in trying to decipher any other message worth using brain cells.

As for your other points, you took Stephen Dectaur's quote the wrong way, typical of people of your limited caliber, and yet you have the gall to pass yourself off as an intellectual.

What's more aggravating is that you simply say "read Howard Zinn's stuff, he'll fill you in."
That is the mark of no intellectual, merely a brain washed tool who would like to fancy himself intelligent.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/10/2008 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Bro...I may call you bro, yes? You undermined your entire response by letting me in on your little secret there: YOU HAVEN'T READ A PEOPLE'S HISTORY. You're the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. You're accusing me of being uninformed, or misinformed at best, by having READ the book, and then you nonchalantly mention that you haven't read it. Did you not catch this?

Here's another thing. I would like you to do some research and tell me on which page(s) Howard Zinn specifically says that he holds 'disdain' for AMERICA. I think you're confused. He's talking about the GOVERNMENT (the ruling elite) of America, and how the PEOPLE have struggled throughout our history to gain what civil liberties that we have. The military (the strong arm of the ruling elite) doesn't do it (and by 'military' I'm talking about the guys who are calling the shots, not the soldiers who are dying for them), the wealthy and powerful don't do it, and our 3 main branches of government (the arms of the wealthy and powerful), certainly don't do it. It is the common citizenry, with a little organization, a flexible constitution to ground and guide them, and a belief in the democratic process, that achieve a better standard of living by putting pressure on their elected representatives; via the ballot and/or the streets.

You know, Howard Zinn hates America so much, that he went through the trouble of recommending, at the end of the book, ways in which we can improve our democracy. You like democracy, don't you? How about a proportionally representational state and federal election system? (this would truly provide a multi-party system, complete with actual competing ideas and everything...consider it to be the free market of the political system). He covers this. How about a federally mandated publicly financed state and federal election system in order to remove the taint of money from influencing our elected representatives? He covers this as well. The list goes on. I'm not here to give a historical lecture, although you seem to possibly need one. I suppose that's what a college education will give you, depending on what you major in. Of course, you could save money and just start seeking out publications that you know will assault your comfort box. I recommend starting with Z-magazine online. Remember to jump in feet first.

Like I said before, it's difficult to criticize your own government, especially when it has so ubiquitously inserted itself into the idea of America, so as to BECOME America. I, as well as you, have spent my primary educational years being indoctrinated and taught about American history from a government-as-America perspective. It was a monumental challenge to step outside of the comfort box that was built around me from 18 years of 'education.' But, I eventually did it, and have now become the quintessential 'America Hater' that you and any other goon that bleeds red, white, and blue would label me to be. For me, it's people first (excluding the 1% of the population, which owns 40% of the country’s wealth), Constitution second, and government-as-America third...a distant third.

By the way, nuclear weapons are bad, m'kay?


One minor point of contention
By Fluxion on 7/9/2008 3:44:23 AM , Rating: 4
Very nice article masher.

One small point of contentin - the statement:
quote:
Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action. A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods". The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.


I think puts a little too much emphasis on the idea that Russia would actually carry out a military action-type response to counter the missile defense shield in the near-future. As the Russian Foreign Ministry individual's quote alludes to, especially given past Russian statements, their military-technical response is more a long the lines of development of either countermeasures of some kind to neutralize the effect of a kinetic energy kill system, or the development/production of additional delivery systems designed to simply overwhelm the missile defense system.

Thus, while any such development can be considered military action or the military's response to our shield, I think it's more of a passive strategic development in order to try and keep the status quo present, rather than a true military response.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Point taken.


Russian response
By crafty on 7/11/2008 2:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
The Russian governmental response is strong because the US is attempting to further limit Russia's power and influence. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have joined NATO and many of the Warsaw Pact countries(such as the Czech Republic) have also joined. These NATO countries threaten the Russian government's ability to do what it wants to in the Republic of Georgia as well with issues surrounding the breakaway Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as in Chechnya.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and claim that the anti-ICBM system works(it works when the missile tests are rigged). Most modern ICBMs have MIRVs(multiple independent re-entry vehicles) meaning a single missile has multiple targeted warheads. No anti-missile system strength has the ability to counteract these multiple warheads, but the very danger of a anti-missile system will cause there to be alarm bells in Moscow.

The basic problem with this concept is that it is a Cold War idea whose billion dollar budget has been supported over the years by the most ardent of hawks in order to control the nuclear initiative. This in effect makes it highly destabilizing(mutual assured destruction caused a stalemate that anti-missile systems can end) and will ultimately lead to more nuclear proliferation and greater brinkmanship from both sides. The creators of this system are still trying to win the Cold War through nuclear intimidation, and we are not going to be able survive for long with this attitude of attempting to gain leverage by destroying any possible Russian nuclear response to attack. Developing weapons systems that don't function for hundreds of billions of dollars(over the life of the project) and ultimately are destabilizing to world politics are not what I would call a good investment. Arms control and the disposal of fissionable material under programs like Nunn-Lugar are a good idea that are much cheaper and limit proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have to work with people we don't like sometimes even when we don't like it. The stakes are too high not to.




9/11 Worked
By crafty on 7/11/2008 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
Al-Qaeda killed a lot of people so that the US would forcefully respond. The response could be framed as a war against Islam that could bring more recruits to further the fundamentalist Islamic revolution in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda knew it could count on the failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East to help its spread.

Their strategy failed. At first.

Then Bush invaded Iraq. Al-qaeda still is a longshot to ever get anything approaching real power but the invasion of Iraq really helped the spread of their brand of international terrorism. In Iraq they were doing well as long as the US occupation forces were in the area, but once the US started withdrawing from Anbar, the local Sunnis started killing them. Al-Qaeda are a bunch of real zealots that were killing and torturing people for simple things like smoking cigarettes. Their greatest hope involves the US torturing and massacring people in an endless occupation that has neither rhyme nor reason. If al-Qaeda is able to launch another successful terrorist attack in the US, the world response will be nowhere near as sympathetic as it was the first time around. Bush needs to be removed, the occupation of Iraq needs to be ended, Republicans and some Democrats need to come to terms not only with their failed foreign policy but the failed ideology behind it, and most of all our country needs to come back under the rule of law.




What I'd like to know...
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: What I'd like to know...
By AlexWade on 7/8/2008 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
This idea is not new. I remember Reagan talking about star wars and showing some space anti-missile system on TV.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the same system as the original "Star Wars" system from the 70s and 80s. But yes it has been in development for a long time. But Bush pushed the development of the system up to a top priority back in 2001-2002.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
SDI -- Star Wars -- dates from the 1980s actually....and yes, it's the same program. The original focus on beam weapons, though, has switched to kinetic kill vehicles.