Nobody runs around and says "yeah, I'm going to conquer this country or station troops in this country for my benefit." No, there's always an element of subtlety involved.

Yeah imagine the nerve of ukraine being able to tell russia "piss off"

Obama told the russians we will always consider their interests

So I guess it depends on what american labor unions want

"You miss the point. It's a matter of subtlety"

the missle defense system is about the least subtle way to extend influence possible, you're a moron.

"The missile defense system is merely an effort to extend US/NATO influence and control in to Eastern Europe"

the US does not need the missle defense system to extend influence and control in eastern europe, which we both agree. how is implementing a multi-billion dollar military system subtle? its the opposite. subtle would be not using it or any military to do it.

my first reaction was "WWI was 70 years ago"

"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."

  As long as you ignore little details like the maximum ranges of the missiles from BOTH sides. (Their ranges have them crossing over Greece... just).
As for Iran's version of the ICBM; American missile sheild uses wrong kind of missiles to stop them... actually now that I think of it I'm sure an ICBM would just "hop" over the Sheild's sphere of influence.
  So, in conclusion: Logical thought leads me to believe that the Missile Shield is the stick with which Little Timmy is poking the bear, to see if it is really dead.

"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."

  Russia's problem is that the entire world honestly believes that the Shield is meant for Iranian missiles, not Russian ones. Russia's problem is that it, from it's point of view, is watching what could be the first step of an invasion plan by it's long time adversary.
Pretty hard to defend yourself from under an enemy missile shield.

__________
__________

"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."

  How about the UK making itself a potential target by being the site of a large listening post, early warning system, the site of a nuclear deterrent system controlled by a country thousands of miles away, or a launching point for any attack/counter-attack against a hostile Russia.

Sorry mate, the decision was made twenty to thirty years before either of us was born, the UK is a target, and always will be as long as we continue to try and relive old glories through our colonial children, children who think they know better, children who hear the words "All Empires must Fall" coming from the thin, wrinkled lips of Brittannia and laugh.

Sure they will

SO WHAT

Since when did we run US policy to suit Russia?

Right, if they don't like it they can count down to WWIII, or shut up.

>>Russia's problem is that it, from it's point of view, is watching what could be the first step of an invasion plan by it's long time adversary.
Pretty hard to defend yourself from under an enemy missile shield.<<

Under the NATO charter and the US constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973, should any foriegn power bombard NATO territory--successfully or not--then the US President can claim a state of war exists and attack that power with such force as he sees fit, for 72 hours without approval from Congress.

Were I President that would mean strategically decisive bombardment of their economy to a point incompatible with a motorized society.  Bomb them to horse-carts.

Without that WILL, you could build the Ultimate Dream Super Psychic Explodo Shield and still lose for the lack of balls to flip ON.

> avogadro wrote:
> "As long as you ignore little details like the maximum ranges of the missiles from BOTH sides."
yeah because Iran's missle technology will never improve.... <

  Which is only relevant in this discussion if America stops improving weapons technology for the next... what, decade? And even then, only if someone outside of the USA figures out the secret behind how fantastically accurate American missiles are. And even then only if the present situation continues for that length of time. And even then only if the USA is stupid enough to allow itself to fall behind a third world country.
  And now for the questionf that's actually relevant...

> "As for Iran's version of the ICBM; American missile sheild uses wrong kind of missiles to stop them... actually now that I think of it I'm sure an ICBM would just "hop" over the Sheild's sphere of influence."
what are you basing this off of? <

Facts. Data. Schematics. You know, actual research. I have posted all of it before, ask our resident Republicans, they all left the thread after I did that, so they may remember.

_____
_____

> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> >>Russia's problem is that it, from it's point of view, is watching what could be the first step of an invasion plan by it's long time adversary.
Pretty hard to defend yourself from under an enemy missile shield.<<

Under the NATO charter and the US constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973, should any foriegn power bombard NATO territory--successfully or not--then the US President can claim a state of war exists and attack that power with such force as he sees fit, for 72 hours without approval from Congress.

Were I President that would mean strategically decisive bombardment of their economy to a point incompatible with a motorized society.  Bomb them to horse-carts.

Without that WILL, you could build the Ultimate Dream Super Psychic Explodo Shield and still lose for the lack of balls to flip ON. <

I don't understand how that relates to my post, sorry, but I do feel that I must point out that each and every time someone has tried to annihlate Russia they have failed either due to their own stupidity or because they don't understand Russian strategy, and I must point out that modern Russian infrastructure was built with all out Nuclear War in mind. America's wasn't.

Why would Russia nuke NATO? We are both old enough to know how Russia works: They push, they test, but they never start; they end.
Just - like - America.

And that's the problem for you isn't it? You know how to deal with every mindset in the world, apart from your own.

"  Which is only relevant in this discussion if America stops improving weapons technology for the next... what, decade? And even then, only if someone outside of the USA figures out the secret behind how fantastically accurate American missiles are. And even then only if the present situation continues for that length of time. And even then only if the USA is stupid enough to allow itself to fall behind a third world country.
  And now for the questionf that's actually relevant..."

nope, the only part that makes it  relevant is if it continues for that length of time. which is very possible. considering it could improve in less then a year if they were able to steal technology from Russia, CHina, or the US.