1 Topic by The Yell (edited by Chris_Balsz 14-Jun-2009 20:13:31)

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Topic: Special Relationship RIP

LONDON: A planned US missile shield may not strengthen Europe's security and could hurt NATO's interests if deployed in the face of Russian opposition, British members of parliament said yesterday. The United States says the anti-missile system is designed to prevent potential attacks from countries such as Iran, but the plan has outraged Moscow which sees it as a threat.

Russia has urged Washington to drop its plan to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. Both former Soviet satellites are now NATO members. Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, made up of legislators from the main political parties, voiced reservations about the US plan in a report on weapons proliferation. "We are not convinced that, as they are currently envisaged and under current circumstances, the United States' planned ballistic missile defense (BMD) deploy
ments in the Czech Republic and Poland represent a net gain for European security," it said.

We conclude that if the deployments are carried out in the face of opposition from Russia, this could be highly detrimental to NATO's overall security interests," the report said. It did not elaborate but Moscow has threatened to respond to the shield by placing short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. If a ballistic missile defense system in Europe were to be developed at all, it should be as a joint system between the United States, NATO and Russia, the committee said.

The British government's early agreement to allow two Royal Air Force (RAF) bases in Britain to be used as part of the US missile defense system was "regrettable, given that the United States' development of its system involved its abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," the committee said. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2002.


http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTIzMTk1NzE4Nw==

I'd respond but it seems the Brits feel there's no such thing as a unilateral treaty?  US-USSR ABM Treaty = US-UK base arrangements, it's 1:1 and nobody else can feel bad that we don't include them

Maybe I'd better get permission from Moscow to discuss US-UK relations.  After all, if the Special Relationship persists in the face of Russian opposition, that might not be a net gain for European security...

I said when Georgia blew up, we'd see NATO cuddle up to the power that is willing to fight...

PS I know a State Dept official (anonymous) at the time of Brown's visit said there was nothing special about the relationship anymore...turns out that official was likely one of a pair of 30-year spies for Cuba, because one of the spies said something similar in a speech

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 340

Re: Special Relationship RIP

The Special Relationship is BS you only ever hear from London. The US don't care about the UK as long as we back them.

Buddugoliaeth neu Marwolaeth

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

3 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 14-Jun-2009 23:10:48)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> EmperorHez wrote:

> The Special Relationship is BS you only ever hear from London. The US don't care about the UK as long as we back them.>

The US should have a monarch just so they could marry Beatrix to symbolize a special relationship.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Um... a member of the first family could still marry a member of the royal family.  tongue

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Um... a member of the first family could still marry a member of the royal family.  tongue>

But that would symbolize a relationship that would last at most 8 years (or in extremely unlikely circumstances, 10).

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Hmm it would worth it though just to hear the Brits bitch about it

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

7 Reply by BiefstukFriet (edited by BiefstukFriet 19-Jun-2009 13:18:20)

  • Posts: 1,316

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> Justinian I wrote:

> > EmperorHez wrote:

> The Special Relationship is BS you only ever hear from London. The US don't care about the UK as long as we back them.>

The US should have a monarch just so they could marry Beatrix to symbolize a special relationship.


Hmm? Beatrix is the Queen of another kingdom.. tongue Would be cool if we had a "special relationship" with the USA's monarchy. And you'd be better off marying into Dutch royalty anyway.

Je maintiendrai

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

8 Reply by East (edited by Wild Flower Soul 19-Jun-2009 13:33:39)

  • East
  • East
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Tag points: 17

Re: Special Relationship RIP

[not this again]

qsudifhkqsdhfmsklfhjqmlsdfhjqkmsldfhjmqklsfhmqlsfhjqmsklfhqmskjdfhqsfq
sdffdgjfhjdfhgjhsfsdfqgsbsthzgflqkcgjhkgfjnbkmzghkmqrghqmskdghqkmsghnvhdf
qmkjghqmksdjqlskhqkmsdhqmskfhjqmskjdfhqkmsdfjhqmskfhjqkmsjdfhqkm
sjfhqkmsjfhqkmsjfhkqmjsfhqksdjmfhqksjfhqskjdfhnbwfjgqreutyhaerithgfqsd
kjnqsdfqsdfqsdfmkjqhgmkjnqsgkjmhzdflmghjsmdlghjsmdkghmqksdjghq

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

9 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 19-Jun-2009 15:46:33)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> BiefstukFriet wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

> > EmperorHez wrote:

> The Special Relationship is BS you only ever hear from London. The US don't care about the UK as long as we back them.>

The US should have a monarch just so they could marry Beatrix to symbolize a special relationship.


Hmm? Beatrix is the Queen of another kingdom.. tongue Would be cool if we had a "special relationship" with the USA's monarchy. And you'd be better off marying into Dutch royalty anyway.

lol. Yeah, you'd be better off hah. Sorry, I meant Princess Beatrice.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Special Relationship RIP

"[...]I'd respond but it seems the Brits feel there's no such thing as a unilateral treaty?"


  Pretty sure I've already had this argument, with suuoprting evidence and everything. But:

  Did we make a decision without your approval? So what?
We are an independent country capable of independent thought, thoughts like "Wait a minute, Iran doesn't have any missiles that could reach the 'Shield', let alone pass it.

Now if you had planned to put it further south, so it could protect the small part of Greece that is under threat from Irans best (and still experimental) missile, or if you had taken Russia up on it's offer of putting the 'Shield' in southern Russia, actually close enough to Iran to actually cover it, THEN you'd have a point.


  I'd go hunting for that evidence again but frankly I think I'm the only one who's taken this even slightly seriously.

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Special Relationship RIP

"The British government's early agreement to allow two Royal Air Force (RAF) bases in Britain to be used as part of the US missile defense system was "regrettable, given that the United States' development of its system involved its abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," the committee said. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2002. "

The UK was not a party to the ABM treaty, is my point regardign "unilateral" treaties.  That was enacted by the US-USSR without the UK and voided by the US and Russia without the UK.

I would add that whining we don't create a US-NATO-Russian pact to build something Russia has said it won't accept, is either disrespectul of Russia for declaring they can be bent, or disrespectful of the US by sending us to chase wild geese.  Nobody out of high school should wonder which of the two the UK Left meant to annoy.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Yeah Amerika won the cold war. But after Russia made itself a shit hole, it's still fighting it. Their media must be warning of the imminent Amerikan invasion.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Special Relationship RIP

America cannot harm Russia without causing power and gas cuts for most of Europe.

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Stiff upper lip!

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 48

Re: Special Relationship RIP

I used to think that the Americans were just being difficult and pig headed but after looking at a world map it sort of makes sense the decision to have the missiles where they are.

Southern Russia, or at lease the parts that are close to Iran, are sort of in the wrong place, being too close to iran and not in a direct line with Iran. I and guessing that for an efficient interception you would need a bit of time after a launch to get notification, confirmation, and targeting of incoming missiles. The actual part of Russia which is anywhere near Iran is fairly close but just of to the side of the flight path of a missile and would not give enough time to intercept.

the Kazakhstan solution is actually worse as it is to the north of Iran, so that any interceptor missiles would have to chase the offending missile rather than intercept it oncoming, and a failed interception means the enemy missile is getting further away and takes longer (and more difficult) to intercept than an oncoming missile.

Poland is nearly the closest relatively friendly country on any flight path from Iran to Europe. Greece is closer but they are in a pretty dodgy region and would probably annoy Turkey (which could be worse than slightly annoying the russians bacuse it would give ammunition to the Islamic hard-liners in Turkey which they are having a bit of difficulty keeping from power).

Russia's problem is that it wants to maintain a limited nuclear deterrent so it doesn't have to spend quite as much on expensive conventional forces and instead focus on rebuilding on the country. And its not fair to proclaim that just because the cold war is over that Russia should just demilitarise. What they are trying to do is streamline and further professionalise their army, and is using the nuclear deterrent as a temporary safety net while their armed forces are not up to scratch.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Special Relationship RIP

BUT

To me they are saying America can get along fine with moscow so long as we accept a possible Russian bombardment of Bonn, warsaw and Paris

Aint that the deal on the table for 50 years?  If we go for that, aren't we giving up NATO? Technically a foriegn strike on NATO, no matter who starts it, means a state of war exists between us and the dorks who shot at NATO. Is that over, if Russia is the bad guy?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Special Relationship RIP

They don't want to provoke their only real threat with
a useless "defense system" that will be undeniably
a waste of money and only create tensions.

When the U.S. has perfected anti-missile technology
maybe, but the current technology simply isn't effective
enough against Russia.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,557
  • Tag points: 30

Re: Special Relationship RIP

As a citizen of airstrip one I would rather the UK didn't make itself a potential target by being part of the site of a large weapons system and I would also prefer to have better relations with Russia so they don't switch the gas off. Participation in this neo cold war project seems to defeat both of those aims while delivering a defence against an old fashioned threat.

tweehonderd graden, dat is waarom ze me mr. fahrenheit noemen, ik reis aan de snelheid van het licht, ik ga een supersonische man van u maken

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,557
  • Tag points: 30

Re: Special Relationship RIP

"BUT

To me they are saying America can get along fine with moscow so long as we accept a possible Russian bombardment of Bonn, warsaw and Paris

Aint that the deal on the table for 50 years?  If we go for that, aren't we giving up NATO? Technically a foriegn strike on NATO, no matter who starts it, means a state of war exists between us and the dorks who shot at NATO. Is that over, if Russia is the bad guy?"

This is what I think to be the outdated view. There is no longer any great conflict of ideology between Russia and the West and no reason why we would ever be at war with Russia. In that sense, NATO as a counter balance to the Eastern Bloc is outdated. In my opnion a better solution to defend against a possible strike from Russia would just be to get on better with Russia tongue. It's exactly the method we have used to avoid being at war with any other sanely led country for the past 100 years.

tweehonderd graden, dat is waarom ze me mr. fahrenheit noemen, ik reis aan de snelheid van het licht, ik ga een supersonische man van u maken

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Special Relationship RIP

>>This is what I think to be the outdated view. There is no longer any great conflict of ideology between Russia and the West and no reason why we would ever be at war with Russia. In that sense, NATO as a counter balance to the Eastern Bloc is outdated. In my opnion a better solution to defend against a possible strike from Russia would just be to get on better with Russia . It's exactly the method we have used to avoid being at war with any other sanely led country for the past 100 years.<<

1.  You haven't had 100 years of peace
2.  There weren't any great ideological divides between the Central Powers and the UK in 1914

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Ideology is simply a front to justify a country's power structure, and all wars are motivated by political and economic gain. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out yet. But I disagree with Yell, because I don't think Russia will start any wars with Europe, since it would be costly for them to. In fact, a coalition of Western European states, as militarily insignificant as they are to our Empire, could push Russia back by themselves.

The real motives behind the US defense system is not actually defense, but to extend its political influence in to Eastern Europe at Russia's expense.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

22 Reply by Skoe (edited by Morbo the Annihilator 09-Jul-2009 02:10:24)

  • Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> In fact, a coalition of Western European states, as militarily insignificant
> as they are to our Empire, could push Russia back by themselves.

Next time shit hits the fan, there will be no northern hemisphere.


Good for me big_smile. Bad for you.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Special Relationship RIP

Which is why there won't be any "shit hits the fan."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Special Relationship RIP

There will be eventually. Eventually.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Special Relationship RIP

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> They don't want to provoke their only real threat with
a useless "defense system" that will be undeniably
a waste of money and only create tensions.

When the U.S. has perfected anti-missile technology
maybe, but the current technology simply isn't effective
enough against Russia.


i think the fact that its potential pressence is such a big deal to Russia, proves that the defense system isnt as useless and we have be led to beleive, or else Russia wouldnt give a damn where they put it.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points