NATO approves expanded missile defense shield

Obama expects more to be made in Saturday's meetings on the future of the war in Afghanistan.

B92

I'll be interested to hear the US president stating Nato's successes in Afganistan.I think he has p-robably achieved as much as previous invaders have namely ZERO.

I think nato's agenda in Afganistan is not about the future of the war(there is no future)but about saving face and continually testing new state of the art lethal weaponry on live targets.
It has to be seen that nato is leaving with their heads held high and not with their heads between their legs which is actual the case.

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43


Now Leonidas, it would be very interesting to hear the answer directly form Russia, since they agreed on the deal.

(Putting aside the Iran-rubbish - maybe a deterrent against China and/or India in the next 10-20 yrs... who knows how things will evolve by then - but looking at the map one can easily figure out where Russia's potential threats could come in the future...)

I just read on BBC that Russia has agreed to cooperate on NATO's program to defend against ballistic missiles. This must be a historic event after so much mistrust.
(Joe, 20 November 2010 19:09

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.

I just read on BBC that Russia has agreed to cooperate on NATO's program to defend against ballistic missiles. This must be a historic event after so much mistrust.

"Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43) "

I agree with you 100%!

The way I see it, the only way for these cunning Yankees to remain indispensable to guillible European governments (and we are to blame for electing them!) is to create and maintain an anti-Iran hysteria about some fake missile threat. Much like the anti-Saddam hysterics about weapons of mass destruction which were never found in the end.

I don't think the Russians are taken in at all. They are just making themselves as indispensable to Nato as they can for greater leverage -- first their airspace to AFghanistan for Nato supplies. Now their cooperation over the missile "threat".

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43)
I do not think anyone anticipated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
The best key to security is to anticipate the unanticipated.

Amer

Three points answering your comment.

Firstly Iran hasn't attacked anybody in the last 200 years.Why they should fire a nuclear missile against europe now?

Secondly, there are no outstanding issues between Europe and Iran.Europe is only involved in the US-Iran dispute because they are US poodles.

Thirdly,the US anti-missile is pie in the sky.Tests to date show that its rate of failure is approaching 50%.Why have it?

'(Putting aside the Iran-rubbish - maybe a deterrent against China and/or India in the next 10-20 yrs... who knows how things will evolve by then - but looking at the map one can easily figure out where Russia's potential threats could come in the future...)
dekk

You are absolutely right. This Iran "thing" is getting boring. On the other hand there were already predictions 40-50 years ago that at one point China can become a real menace to Russia. With smart planning it does not hurt to hedge against all possible scenarios. Better to be safe than sorry.

"Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia? "

Iran doesn't have to actually attack - if there's no defense, all it has to do is have the means to back up a threat. This is probably all it wants, since lobbing even a single nuclear missile at Europe would mean the end of the country, but do you want to take the chance that some Iranian leader with a martyr complex doesn't decide to follow through on a threat? And that it's your country, and not the despised US, they pick for a demonstration project?

What you want to do is lower the chances of their being able to deliver even one successful strike in order to persuade them that it's not worth the effort to develop a nuclear capacity. This is especially important in the case of a country whose leaders talk wildly about destroying a neighboring country, because any nuclear strike is going to provoke retaliation, probably nuclear.

It wouldn't take many nuclear explosions to cause a nuclear winter that would make life almost unlivable all over the world, not just at the strike site. You don't need nuclear armageddon between Russia and Nato for that, just a small-scale local nuclear war would suffice. Put enough particulate matter in the stratosphere - where rain won't wash it out - and it will reduce the sunlight needed to support the agriculture this over-crowded world relies for years if not decades.

Leonidas - if it's the silo-based missiles being developed for stationing in Poland, that's no longer what they're planning to use.

Although as long as they can fiddle with the speed of Iran's centrifuges, there may never be any need for any missiles.

Obama expects more to be made in Saturday's meetings on the future of the war in Afghanistan.

B92

I'll be interested to hear the US president stating Nato's successes in Afganistan.I think he has p-robably achieved as much as previous invaders have namely ZERO.

I think nato's agenda in Afganistan is not about the future of the war(there is no future)but about saving face and continually testing new state of the art lethal weaponry on live targets.
It has to be seen that nato is leaving with their heads held high and not with their heads between their legs which is actual the case.

"Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43) "

I agree with you 100%!

The way I see it, the only way for these cunning Yankees to remain indispensable to guillible European governments (and we are to blame for electing them!) is to create and maintain an anti-Iran hysteria about some fake missile threat. Much like the anti-Saddam hysterics about weapons of mass destruction which were never found in the end.

I don't think the Russians are taken in at all. They are just making themselves as indispensable to Nato as they can for greater leverage -- first their airspace to AFghanistan for Nato supplies. Now their cooperation over the missile "threat".

I just read on BBC that Russia has agreed to cooperate on NATO's program to defend against ballistic missiles. This must be a historic event after so much mistrust.
(Joe, 20 November 2010 19:09

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.

'(Putting aside the Iran-rubbish - maybe a deterrent against China and/or India in the next 10-20 yrs... who knows how things will evolve by then - but looking at the map one can easily figure out where Russia's potential threats could come in the future...)
dekk

You are absolutely right. This Iran "thing" is getting boring. On the other hand there were already predictions 40-50 years ago that at one point China can become a real menace to Russia. With smart planning it does not hurt to hedge against all possible scenarios. Better to be safe than sorry.

I just read on BBC that Russia has agreed to cooperate on NATO's program to defend against ballistic missiles. This must be a historic event after so much mistrust.

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?

Lets be serious joe.
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43)
I do not think anyone anticipated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
The best key to security is to anticipate the unanticipated.

"Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia? "

Iran doesn't have to actually attack - if there's no defense, all it has to do is have the means to back up a threat. This is probably all it wants, since lobbing even a single nuclear missile at Europe would mean the end of the country, but do you want to take the chance that some Iranian leader with a martyr complex doesn't decide to follow through on a threat? And that it's your country, and not the despised US, they pick for a demonstration project?

What you want to do is lower the chances of their being able to deliver even one successful strike in order to persuade them that it's not worth the effort to develop a nuclear capacity. This is especially important in the case of a country whose leaders talk wildly about destroying a neighboring country, because any nuclear strike is going to provoke retaliation, probably nuclear.

It wouldn't take many nuclear explosions to cause a nuclear winter that would make life almost unlivable all over the world, not just at the strike site. You don't need nuclear armageddon between Russia and Nato for that, just a small-scale local nuclear war would suffice. Put enough particulate matter in the stratosphere - where rain won't wash it out - and it will reduce the sunlight needed to support the agriculture this over-crowded world relies for years if not decades.

Defend against who? Are you saying that Iran is going to attack Nato and Russia?
(Leonidas, 20 November 2010 21:43


Now Leonidas, it would be very interesting to hear the answer directly form Russia, since they agreed on the deal.

(Putting aside the Iran-rubbish - maybe a deterrent against China and/or India in the next 10-20 yrs... who knows how things will evolve by then - but looking at the map one can easily figure out where Russia's potential threats could come in the future...)

Amer

Three points answering your comment.

Firstly Iran hasn't attacked anybody in the last 200 years.Why they should fire a nuclear missile against europe now?

Secondly, there are no outstanding issues between Europe and Iran.Europe is only involved in the US-Iran dispute because they are US poodles.

Thirdly,the US anti-missile is pie in the sky.Tests to date show that its rate of failure is approaching 50%.Why have it?

Leonidas - if it's the silo-based missiles being developed for stationing in Poland, that's no longer what they're planning to use.

Although as long as they can fiddle with the speed of Iran's centrifuges, there may never be any need for any missiles.