Russia to target cities with nuclear missiles again

[9sublime]

ROME (Thomson Financial) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has again blasted a planned US missile shield in Europe and warned that Moscow could redeploy missiles aimed at targets on the continent.

'If the US nuclear potential extends across the European territory, we will have to get new targets in Europe,' Putin said in an interview to newspapers from the Group of Eight most industrialised nations.

The interview was due to be published on Monday but the embargo was partially broken by Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. Putin and his peers are meeting for a three-day G8 summit which begins in Germany on Wednesday.

'It will then be up to our military experts to identify which targets will be aimed by ballistic missiles and which ones will be aimed by cruise missiles,' he said.

'We want to re-balance the defence instruments with more efficient offensive equipment but we know that this could lead to a renewed arms race for which we are, however, not responsible.'

Tensions over the plan have helped send relations between the two states to what many analysts call a post-Cold War low just before Putin and US President George W. Bush meet at the Group of Eight summit.

Russia sees the US plan to deploy missile defence hardware in Poland and the Czech Republic, as a threat and dismisses as feeble Washington's insistence that it is aimed at pre-empting possible attacks from the Middle East, especially Iran.

'We cannot allow ourselves not to be worried,' Putin said.

'The missile shield is part of a nuclear system which protects American territory and for the first time in history, elements of this system have been transferred to Europe,' the Russian leader said.

'We are told that this defence system serves against Iranian missiles but no Iranian missile has such a capability. It therefore becomes evident that this concerns us, the Russians.'

[vyo476]

Don't you miss the good old days when people killed people with guns?

[drippinhun]

Thanks Mr. Bush for making the world a safer place. The results of your so-called diplomacy speaks volumes.

[9sublime]

Ha, both excellent points, although you've dripped sarcasm all over my keyboard.

[Sadistic Savior]

I just cant imagine why they would feel threatened if the Missile Defense System doesnt work.

Unless they know something the MDS critics dont...?

[9sublime]

I was discussing this with my father last night, and he gave a good point.

Aiming this missiles? Its not a bottle rocket you point in a direction. Its just putting in co-oridinates and letting one fly. When haven't anyones missiles not been aimed at anyone else? It takes a matter of seconds surely?

And do you think the US and Russia tell the public everything about this? Russia probably still has weapons in Europe.

This seems like Putin fearmongering, but in reality, its just a bit of extra tension.

[palerider]

Thanks Mr. Bush for making the world a safer place. The results of your so-called diplomacy speaks volumes.

You must not be old enough to remember the cold war. These "threats" by putin amount to no more than a somewhat grouchy "good morning" when put in the context of the rehetoric of the cold war. His threat to aim missiles at someone is empty. Any missile that he has that is operational is already aimed at someone.

[drippinhun]

You must not be old enough to remember the cold war. These "threats" by putin amount to no more than a somewhat grouchy "good morning" when put in the context of the rehetoric of the cold war. His threat to aim missiles at someone is empty. Any missile that he has that is operational is already aimed at someone.

Having been born the year before Stalin died, I remember the Cold War vividly. I was in South Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis as the streets and skies here looked like a reenactment out of WWII or the t.v. series Combat.

The shield that Bush is offering could be construed as a threat and is nothing more than a boondoggle for missile contractors. It's another waste of our taxpayer money. But Bush being from an international financing family could give a rat's patooey about our economic health. Put it on their charge card!

[Sadistic Savior]

The shield that Bush is offering could be construed as a threat and is nothing more than a boondoggle for missile contractors. It's another waste of our taxpayer money.

Russia appears to disagree with you. If the Missile Defense System is so worthless, why is Russia throwing such a hissy fit over it? More importantly, why are they going out of their way to adapt their missiles to counter it?

Obviously, THEY believe it works.

You must not be old enough to remember the cold war. These "threats" by putin amount to no more than a somewhat grouchy "good morning" when put in the context of the rehetoric of the cold war. His threat to aim missiles at someone is empty. Any missile that he has that is operational is already aimed at someone.

More than that, what exactly is he going to do? Does anyone here really think Russia is going to commit suicide over this issue?

Yes, he is targeting his missiles. And that is all he will ever do. Regardless of whatever else happens, the fact remains that MAD will hold him in check, even if NMD does not.

The only way Putin will ever launch a strike is if we invade or attack Russia, and everyone knows that will never happen. Therefore his threat is empty.

Russia's pouting is an acceptable exchange for a defense against missile attack.

[palerider]

Having been born the year before Stalin died, I remember the Cold War vividly. I was in South Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis as the streets and skies here looked like a reenactment out of WWII or the t.v. series Combat.

Then you are not adept at putting information you get today into historical context. Is everything, every new bump in the road a whole new experience to you as if you never hit a bump in the road before?

The shield that Bush is offering could be construed as a threat and is nothing more than a boondoggle for missile contractors. It's another waste of our taxpayer money. But Bush being from an international financing family could give a rat's patooey about our economic health. Put it on their charge card!

Is that what you believe? Don't you think that putin has human assets in positions that could give him reasonably accurate information on the progress of our missile shield technology? If it was a boondogle do you believe he would be worried? It was Reagan's go ahead with SDI that delivered the final blow to the old soviet's economy and led to its breakup. He knew it was fesable then and he knows that it is nearly reality now.

[drippinhun]

Then you are not adept at putting information you get today into historical context. Is everything, every new bump in the road a whole new experience to you as if you never hit a bump in the road before?



Is that what you believe? Don't you think that putin has human assets in positions that could give him reasonably accurate information on the progress of our missile shield technology? If it was a boondogle do you believe he would be worried? It was Reagan's go ahead with SDI that delivered the final blow to the old soviet's economy and led to its breakup. He knew it was fesable then and he knows that it is nearly reality now.

Seeing how I always felt the Cold War was a concoction in order to fuel a "military/industrial complex" which became a self-deception on the part of our leaders, I see no need to waste revenue we do not even have on some boogyman. Since you haven't learned from history, it is not surprising to see your acceptance into buying into this bogus need to pursue this venture.

Reagan was not a visionary and even the CIA had written papers in the later part of the 1970s stating that the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse. The so-called Reagan military buildup, before his VP's eventual massive volume of military base closure's once IT became President, was also a waste.

[palerider]

Seeing how I always felt the Cold War was a concoction in order to fuel a "military/industrial complex" which became a self-deception on the part of our leaders, I see no need to waste revenue we do not even have on some boogyman. Since you haven't learned from history, it is not surprising to see your acceptance into buying into this bogus need to pursue this venture.

You don't remember kruschev banging his shoe on his desk at the UN promising to bury us?

[drippinhun]

You don't remember kruschev banging his shoe on his desk at the UN promising to bury us?

He was saying that the working class will destroy capitalism. He was not wise in diplomacy and rather bombastic. That is why he was removed from office within four years.

[palerider]

No. He was saying that he would bury us. And his predecesors didn't change the rhetoric much. Sorry the soviet didn't work out for you but apologizing for them is right up there with apologizing for islam. They killed 30 million of thier own and would have done the same for us if they thought for a minute that they could have won.

[drippinhun]

Andrew Jackson and General Winfield Scott had their share of blood on their hands as well as the Bush1/Clinton/Bush2 Iraq saga. Stalin was a monster, no doubt. But that didn't mean all of their successive leaders were (anymore than what's usual for leaders). But for you to say I'm apologising is the height of childish reasoning. We were talking about what Kruschev said and I stated that the Cold War was more ballyhoo, propaganda and was keading towards it was a way for some people to get rich off of the military when that money could have been better spent or saved.

[palerider]

Andrew Jackson and General Winfield Scott had their share of blood on their hands as well as the Bush1/Clinton/Bush2 Iraq saga. Stalin was a monster, no doubt. But that didn't mean all of their successive leaders were (anymore than what's usual for leaders). But for you to say I'm apologising is the height of childish reasoning. We were talking about what Kruschev said and I stated that the Cold War was more ballyhoo, propaganda and was keading towards it was a way for some people to get rich off of the military when that money could have been better spent or saved.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world. The only reason they never tried for us or our allies is because of the military might we wielded. To believe for a moment that anything but our military kept them from attacking us or our allies is very naive indeed.

[drippinhun]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world. The only reason they never tried for us or our allies is because of the military might we wielded. To believe for a moment that anything but our military kept them from attacking us or our allies is very naive indeed.

They purposefully formed a land buffer after suffering enormous losses during both World Wars.

[palerider]

They purposefully formed a land buffer after suffering enormous losses during both World Wars.

Land buffer? That is what the apologists are calling soviet expansion these days?

[Grond]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world.

Whoa! Soviets never dropped nuclear bombs on an innocent civilians. Soviets never had such amount of military bases around the Globe like the USA had.
So, who has an intention to take over the entire world?:)

[Sadistic Savior]

Whoa! Soviets never dropped nuclear bombs on an innocent civilians.

They were too busy killing their own civilians:

It is believed that with the purges, forced famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the death of as many as 40 million people within the borders of the Soviet Union.

At least we had a legitimate reason for bombing Japan.

So, who has an intention to take over the entire world?

How many slave states does America have? The Soviets had many.

[vyo476]

They were too busy killing their own civilians
Most historians agree today that the good Mr. Stalin was responsible for more civilian deaths than Hitler.



At least we had a legitimate reason for bombing Japan.
Funny story: My grandfather actually worked on the Manhattan Project.



How many slave states does America have? The Soviets had many.

Have? Not all that many. Had? There were a few.

[Sadistic Savior]

Have? Not all that many. Had? There were a few.

Where are they now? Were they nations we invaded after WW2?

[vyo476]

Where are they now? Were they nations we invaded after WW2?

No, they were nations that we used money to support unpopular dictators in.

South Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua (although they never really benefited us with anything)...

I'd call propping up a dictator that the people of the country despised as keeping a slave state. The language is a bit harsh but there it is.

[Sadistic Savior]

No, they were nations that we used money to support unpopular dictators in.

That is not the same thing as a slave state. We did not exercise direct control.

I'd call propping up a dictator that the people of the country despised as keeping a slave state.

I do not agree with your definition. I think it is too broad. "Propping up" is also a bit vague.

[vyo476]

That is not the same thing as a slave state. We did not exercise direct control.


Are we talking Russia using the rest of the republics in the Soviet Union as slave states or the Soviet Union using the Warsaw Pact as a group of slave states? There's a big difference. I was comparing the Soviet Union's treatment of the other Warsaw Pact nations to how we treated certain dictatorships, but Russia's treatment of the rest of the USSR went way beyond anything we ever did. In that respect you're absolutely right - we've never had "slave states" in quite the way the Russians had the Ukraine and Belarus, just for example.

[Sadistic Savior]

Are we talking Russia using the rest of the republics in the Soviet Union as slave states or the Soviet Union using the Warsaw Pact as a group of slave states?

Both. The Soviets directly imposed their will on other nations to their personal benefit.

I was comparing the Soviet Union's treatment of the other Warsaw Pact nations to how we treated certain dictatorships
There was no real distinction between the Warsaw pact nations and the Soviet government. One operated as an arm of the other. That is what made them slave states...they had no option. The Soviets directly controlled the products of their labor.

By contrast, even in situations such as Saddam's Iraq, we only provided him with weapons...and as the Gulf War made obvious, he was not directly controlled by us. And the same is true of every other dictator and oligarchy we have backed.

I am not arguing that such backing was not wrong, just that it did not make those nations slave states.

[Grond]

At least we had a legitimate reason for bombing Japan.

Really? Japanese bombed a Naval base while you bombed two cities, filled by civilians.


How many slave states does America have? The Soviets had many.

What is your definition of a "slave state"?

[Sadistic Savior]

Really? Japanese bombed a Naval base while you bombed two cities, filled by civilians.

We were defending ourselves. That is not true of the Japanese who bombed our naval base.

The initiative was their's. They could have avoided being nuked by surrendering, or by simply not attacking us in the first place. They had a choice. We did not.

What is your definition of a "slave state"?

I have already given it. Please pay attention.

There was no real distinction between the Warsaw pact nations and the Soviet government. One operated as an arm of the other. That is what made them slave states...they had no option. The Soviets directly controlled the products of their labor.

By contrast, even in situations such as Saddam's Iraq, we only provided him with weapons...and as the Gulf War made obvious, he was not directly controlled by us. And the same is true of every other dictator and oligarchy we have backed.

[Abraxis Axis]

No. He was saying that he would bury us. And his predecesors didn't change the rhetoric much. Sorry the soviet didn't work out for you but apologizing for them is right up there with apologizing for islam. They killed 30 million of thier own and would have done the same for us if they thought for a minute that they could have won.

thats it twist it around to something it isnt always the same with you. why is that?

[TVoffBrainOn]

I read Putin's speech. If anybody can find the part where he says he's going to aim missiles at European targets, i'd like to see it. Here are a few excerpts from his speech.

Putin:

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

[9sublime]

Russia has not specifically targeted its missiles at Europe since the end of the Cold War but, asked if it might return to that if the US missile shield plan went ahead, Putin said: "Of course we are returning to those times.

"It is clear that if a part of the US nuclear capability turns up in Europe, and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we are forced to take corresponding steps in response."

"What will those steps be? Naturally, we will have to have new targets in Europe."

[steveox]

I dont think putin wants to turn the clock back to those cold war days.

[Segep]

I don't think anybody does, except for the military contractors who would stand to profit.

[bokile]

everything is possible...

[vyo476]

I dont think putin wants to turn the clock back to those cold war days.

Hell yes he does - it was the last time Russia meant anything substantial to the rest of the world. And so long as it's a "cold" war all he has to do is make lots of noise and point missiles at people - he doesn't have to follow through on anything.

Putin would love another Cold War.

[bokile]

Putin would love another Cold War.

Bush leads some "hot" wars:D :D so I guess Putin should do oposite :D

[drippinhun]

I have located the Bush Adminstration's secret files on the missile plan:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/nick/md5/iframe.html

[bokile]

Funny thing is there is no defense against Russian missiles:D :D