Should we put a missile defense system in Europe, or for that matter in the US?
Putin: U.S. Missile Defense Plans Would Force Russia to Target Europe
Sunday , June 03, 2007
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe.
The threat, in an interview published Sunday in Italy’s Corriere della Sera and other foreign media, marked one of Putin’s most strident statements to date against the U.S. plans and came just days before he is to join President Bush and other leaders at a Group of Eight summit in Germany.
In the interview, Putin was asked whether the proposed missile defense shield would compel Moscow to direct its own missiles at locations and U.S. military sites in Europe, as during the Cold War.
“If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,” Putin said, according to Corriere. “It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.”
Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes.
Previously, some Russian military officials have said Moscow could aim Russian weapons at Europe-based missile systems.
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek accused Russia on Sunday of misleading the public about the planned missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland to hide Russia’s internal problems.
“Russia needs an outside enemy to hide problems at home,” Topolanek said.
The White House had no comment Sunday on Putin’s new warning, referring instead to the comments of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who was questioned Friday about the missile defense shield in advance of the G-8 summit.
“Of course the deployment that we’re talking about in Europe is not about Russia at all,” Hadley said. “It’s not aimed at Russia. … It’s a very limited capability about other states, like Iran, who are developing ballistic missiles and potentially the weapons of mass destruction that those missiles could deliver.”
The Polish president insisted the missile shield was purely “to prevent attacks, neutralize their effects.”
“But I don’t wonder at Russian present tactics because the issue is whether the Russian state …. will regain influence or not,” Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski told Polish reporters in Rome.
The United States made a formal request in January to place a radar base in a military area southwest of Prague, Czech Republic, and 10 interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland as part of plans for a missile defense shield that Washington says would protect against a potential threat from Iran.
The U.S. plans have brought a strong reaction from Russia, which accuses the United States of threatening Russian territory and of trying to start a new arms race.
Putin was interviewed Friday at his dacha by journalists from each of the G-8 countries, Corriere said.
The three-day summit, Wednesday to Friday at the Baltic Sea resort of Heiligendamm, will bring together leaders of the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and Japan.
I think Europe needs to be the deciding factor even if we are going to man the sites under U.N., European authorization. If it is viewed as “our move,” then it will cause more problems than it solves.
Europe had to decide if a Russian, or other national threat justifies it and requires the defense. We really shouldn’t even have all the troops in Europe we do. Why do we have to pay for their defense with our tax dollars. They currently are experiencing good economic growth in much of Europe. The Euro has risen 60% to the dollar. How about they pay for their own defense using their own military.
Even if we could afford it, which we can’t, it should be their responsibility even if we have to help them to some limited degree (training, sale of weapons to them, and “backup” in case they were attacked, we should stop being the policemen of the world.
Jan
I agree!
Under U.N. control. Missiles for Food?
I agree, move all the troups out of Europe, Iraq needs them.
The missile defense system over there probably is a first layer of defense circles for the US, not EU.
Just like the US wanting to set it up in Canada, who did not want it.
We can afford it, all we have to do is go more into debt or sell more of our country to China. What are you talking about Jan?
I really do think it is a first line of defense for the US, not the EU.
Yes, we should stop being the policement of the world, but are we? Only if it is in our interest. Plenty of countries having major problems that we totally ignore, because they have nothing to offer us, nor have the leaders of those countries “tried to kill my dad”.
If you don’t mind some Canadian Bias, here is a report on how many bases and many locations of U.S. military operations around the world.
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/02/26/938/
Whose to say that Russias missile arent still aimed at European cities from the Communist era.
Putin’s not the danger. Bush and the Neo-Cons are!
Putin is a world danger.
I don’t mind Canada biased.
Mike, I’m sure they are, and also aimed at US.
The question is, do we need this defense over in EU or even here?
I say yes. What say you all?
And remember, we can afford it because Chenney or one of his friends need the money.
Russia doesn’t need missiles even though they have them and I am sure they are aimed at Europe.
They have the oil and natural gas Europe needs for the nations that are close to Russia. They have become dependent on the supply of Russian gas and oil.
Also, Russia currently sells oil in “dollars” and just moving to the euro would make the U.S. dollar weaker to the euro and hurt even us, without every firing a shot. However, they also loan us money as they have paid off most of their cold war debt, I read.
Quote:
“The irony is that the three countries in the world adding to reserves the fastest and thus buying the most U.S. debt now are China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, none of them democracies. … We are increasingly counting on a group of creditors who are not our closest friends but have a bigger and bigger stake in America,” he says.
So America’s debt is growing, and a greater amount is in less reliable hands.
This creates two problems.
First, the value of the dollar is increasingly dependent upon foreigners. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to coercion and blackmail.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2265
==================
That is one reason they are buying so much of our debt. They want to be able to threaten us economically and put pressure on us to not put the missile defense system in. They want Europe and the U.S. catering to them, not them to Europe and the U.S. Besides, they have to do something with all the dollars they get for the sale of oil in dollars. Even when Germany buys oil from Russia, they buy in dollars currently and then Russia has to find a place to put those dollars. U.S. debt is their current choice.
Very interesting Jan. Kind of like the reverse winner of the cold war II.
You are right to a degree. Owe the bank 100K the bank owns you. Owe the bank 100B and you owe the bank. We can just follow the Hugo Chavez play book.
Russia is getting to be a very dangerous player in the world.
Russia is totalitarian and I am sure building its military too, just like China is.
I think we do need a defense system here. But, we are going broke very rapidly just like Russia did during the cold war. We have a few years until it really hits and may even have budget surplus before the “storm” hits. We need to use that time to protect the U.S. here first, both economically and militarily. We have to stop being a nanny for Europe. Their combined GDP is the union is $400 bil. higher than ours
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_official_exchange_rate_2007_0.html
We can use the money to fight the war on terrorism or to beef up the military presence near Iran or put a missile defense system here. We can even supply them with the components if they want it. If we have to have “security” to make sure somebody doesn’t take it apart and sell the technology, fine, but we don’t need large troop presence.
It is one thing to be an ally and another to be their “protector” when they have a higher GDP than we do.
We have a Western & Northern border via the artic, we share with Russia for at least Alaska and I imagine they have the ability for sub and land launched missiles to reach anywhere in the U.S. So does China from their new super quiet subs, I suppose.
I also want a military that is ready to strike but, we have to face the reality we are going broke as a nation. To strike back is one thing, but we have to pull back as much as possible to our own shores and stop being the “protector” that was needed after WW II while Europe rebuilt.
They are telling us we should pull out of Iraq and that they should be getting up to speed on their own defenses by now. That is a few years. Europe has had 5 decades and yet they aren’t ready to take care of themselves?
Same with our bases in other nations around the world. 130 nations, I think somebody reported in another thread, that we are in. 1/4 of our proposed 2008, $2.8 trillion budget is going for the wars and bases we have around the world (doesn’t include Homeland Security but does include the extra money legislated for the war on terror). Another 1/5 for Social Security. over 1/5 for Health and Human services, and another 1/6 for interest on debt ($470 bil.)and Treasury budget.
http://www.freedomworks.org/budget/
============================
To be fair, if we weren’t going broke, I wouldn’t have a bit of trouble putting missile defense in any place we could to protect all nations.
Missiles in East Europe is asinine. And so was bombing Serbia. No better way to get Russia to shift from peaceful endeavors to military spending. Hitler thought he could push his luck. He was wrong. Russian nationalism can be a nasty thing.
preussow in his post #9 states:
“Russia is getting to be a very dangerous player in the world.”
Frankly, I think it would be more accurate to substitute the U.S. for Russia in your statement, now that our foreign policy is controlled by Israel!
Rush and just about everyone else said: “Ronnie won the Cold War.”
They knew nothing.
Do the lawmakers get we are close to 50 trillion in the red?
John, at one of the Mil blogs I frequent the blogger has reported that the US has 2 carrier based attack groups in the Persian gulf and a 3rd with the USS Enterprise is on its way.He is also reporting that Cheney has been visiting with Irans Northern border countries and that Bush is to be meeting with Putin in closed door talks.The Mil blog is suggesting all these talks about Europes Missile shield has to do with a strike against Iran.It makes sense with the troop build up in Iraq and the posturing of the naval attack groups and the promises to the leaders of the ME to deal a blow against a wanna be nuclear Iran. Also he points out that Iran has upped the taking of Americans as hostages and I have noticed that the outspoken Mad Man of Iran has been quieter then usual.
I dont hold that the Bush Administration is as smart to use the immigration issue as smoke screen for this operation but if it is….After all Clinton used the attack on the Libya aspirin factory to deflect the Monica scandal.
In regards to Mike’s post #15, I think the EU missile defense system is first most for the worry of Iran, then NK.
It would be hard for me to think the decision for putting this over in EU had anything to do with a worry of Russia. And, I really can not think that Russia is worried about being attacked by the US.
I also think the system is not a generous gift to EU, but something being put into place because of Iran, maybe to protect the US, maybe to protect EU and get their support if the US wants to get EU support for action against Iran.
Russia has been doing a lot of business with Iran, especially in selling weapons. I think this may be a reason Russia is upset about the system. Or maybe they are using this as an excuse.
Either way, I can’t see Russia attacking EU.
Iran, a different story, which radically changes if the develop nukes. I can see them attacking Israel if they feel like they can’t be retaliated on.
So, do we, the US, need a defensive missile system? If so, where?
We could put explosive rivets in the Levi’s. SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Bill, we already did that. And it was for the rich. That is why N.O. has not only been rebuilt, but for the wealthy only.
But I’m not sure why there is all that violent crime still there? Did they not all drown or can’t afford to come back?
We did give everyone a visa and the offer to move to other places to promote their crimes.
We even did that for people who did not even live there.
What is the going price of the trailers sitting on a flood plane that are detiorating?