New Cold War Looming

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Nato condemns Putin missile vow

Mr Putin says Iran does not pose a threat to the US

Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.
The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.
'Stormy summit'
Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.
It insists the shield is not aimed at Russia.
[Putin] called for a frank dialogue. From my side, it will be frank

French President Nicolas Sarkozy;

"As far as I am aware, the only country speculating about targeting Europe with missiles is the Russian Federation," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said.
"These kind of comments are unhelpful and unwelcome."

The new French president will hold his first talks with Mr Putin at this week's G8 summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm.
"I will listen attentively to him. He called for a frank dialogue. From my side, it will be frank," Mr Sarkozy said.
US President George W Bush is also due to meet Mr Putin at the three-day summit, which starts on Wednesday.
The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow says that if Mr Putin's words are anything to go by, the summit is likely to be stormy.
'Joke of the year'
Mr Putin issued his warning in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of the G8 meeting.
"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we will have to have new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.
Russia has tested a new ballistic missile to restore 'strategic balance'

He said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the US was seeking to shoot down.
"We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.
Top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iran's missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.
Mr Putin said Washington had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.
He hoped US officials would change their minds about the missile plan, and said that if an arms race resulted it would not be Russia's fault.
Last week, Moscow announced it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

TV Report;
BBC Media Selector

Related stories;
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | New era of discord for Russia and West
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Q&A: US missile defence
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Gorbachev criticises US 'empire'
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Russia blames US in missile row
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Russia tests long-range missile
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Russia upgrades nuclear missiles

 

[SteveHd]

Calling it a "cold war" is an overreach. It's a "row" as they say in Europe.

See similar thread: http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/51212-the-bogeyman-is-back.html

 

[B_big dirigible]

Putin doesn't have the resources to engage in another arms race or cold war, and never will. The old Soviet Union didn't, either, but in the "detente" era, the Western states cooperated in the illusion that it did. That illusion persisted until the Reagan era. It won't be easy to recreate it, although much of the Western press may devote serious effort to doing so. If some car bombs in Iraq can be morphed into a "civil war", then portraying a Russian deployment of a few missiles as a new "arms race" or "cold war" should be easy.

 

[dong20]

Putin doesn't have the resources to engage in another arms race or cold war, and never will.

Or the skill. Putin may not who knows about the future. And, on that note, when were you appointed oracle?

].....If some car bombs in Iraq can be morphed into a "civil war", then portraying a Russian deployment of a few missiles as a new "arms race" or "cold war" should be easy.

To be fair, I think the problems in Iraq run a little deeper than 'some car bombs'. Can I have some of your denial pills please, it's been a long day.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Or the skill. Putin may not who knows about the future. And, on that note, when were you appointed oracle?

There is no major Russian economic revival on the horizon, nor a likely influx of unusually skilled labor. Or have you detected hints of one which have evaded everyone else?

To be fair, I think the problems in Iraq run a little deeper than 'some car bombs'. Can I have some of your denial pills please, it's been a long day.

You can devote the effort to be serious or you can bow out. Nobody's interested in mere noise.

The problems in Iraq are very serious - orders of magnitude more serious than those superficial twits who think that difficult projects can be run on tight timetables can even conceive. So? I didn't address a general case of "problems in Iraq." I said that car bombs do not a civil war make. This should be self-evident, yet far too many dunderheads can't seem to grasp it.

The good news is that any faction which resorts to terrorist bombings has thereby implicitly admitted that it's too weak to fight an actual civil war. In fact it's too weak to even run a decent assassination program. So it targets the helpless. Blowing the limbs off helpless passersby never won a war, civil or otherwise. All that a tactic like that can do is scare chickenshits into skedaddling. Since the world is full of chickenshits, that might work - but a civil war, it ain't.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Keep us all scared shitless of am imagined Russian threat and we are putty in Washington's hands. We will scarifice our sons and daughters for men like Bush and Blair who are scoundrels. Feed us football and celebrity tv to keep us occupied at home but even the BBC is diseminating political propaganda now so am expecting to see the death notice of TRUTH in the obituaries any day now. And in response to the above bombing children with napalm in Vitetnam didn't lead to victorty parades in Washington either.

 

[SteveHd]

... even the BBC is diseminating political propaganda now ...

Isn't that the norm for them?

 

[HotBulge]

Russia can hold the threat of disrupting oil and natural gas supplies to various parts of Eurasia, but a calling this heightened tension a "Cold War" is overstated.

Putin's government was invited to join in co-locating missiles at the proposed launch sites and to participate in the monitoring of Nato's defense. Putin is sabre-rattling to demonstrate that the former USSR still has global relevance. It also helps to stir nationalistic pride at home in Russia.

Let Condi go to Moscow to smile, shake hands, and wave as she always does. Then, in a few weeks, Putin will travel over here to vacation in Kennebunkport , Maine at the invitation of Bush Sr & Jr. They'll sip some vodka or Jack Daniels, Bush will "look into Putin's eyes", and all will be well -- as long as Russia saves face.

 

[dong20]

There is no major Russian economic revival on the horizon, nor a likely influx of unusually skilled labor. Or have you detected hints of one which have evaded everyone else?

No, but I don't. But then I'm not foolish enough to say 'never' in such a context.

You can devote the effort to be serious or you can bow out. Nobody's interested in mere noise.

Speak for yourself, seems to me there are plenty of noise lovers around here. But to address your point - no a few car bombings in themselves don't constitute a civil war. I was responding in kind to your equally glib statement which implied that was the depth of the problem. Don't get all indignant based on my reply, cliches may fall on your head.

The problems in Iraq are very serious - orders of magnitude more serious than those superficial twits who think that difficult projects can be run on tight timetables can even conceive. So? I didn't address a general case of "problems in Iraq." I said that car bombs do not a civil war make. This should be self-evident, yet far too many dunderheads can't seem to grasp it.

The good news is that any faction which resorts to terrorist bombings has thereby implicitly admitted that it's too weak to fight an actual civil war. In fact it's too weak to even run a decent assassination program. So it targets the helpless. Blowing the limbs off helpless passersby never won a war, civil or otherwise. All that a tactic like that can do is scare chickenshits into skedaddling. Since the world is full of chickenshits, that might work - but a civil war, it ain't.

I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'civil war'. Two main groups within a nation appear to fighting each other along sectarian and policitical lines, with at least on actively seeking to undermine or unseat the 'elected' government and seize power.

Something similar happened in my neck of the woods. It worked too, for a while at least. Then we got tired of being a republic and ran back to the waiting arms Charles II. Certainly there was a dearth of car bombs in that a case but the aims and mechanics were broadly similar. It was some while ago though.

These are the criteria for civil war I used, yours may differ:

Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?
A. Yes - Both sides dispute the right for the other to govern.

Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?
A. Yes.

Q. Is the state one of the combatants?
A. Hmmm, tricky but on balance I'd say yes, certainly since the Government was 'elected'. There are foreign infuences but it's predominately domestic.

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?
A. Yes

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?
A. Yes

Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity?
A. Yes


You see I'd say that is quite compelling.

It's beyond a few dissidents throwing their toys out of the pram and it's not targeting the US to the exclusion of everyone else. If it's not at least an incipient civil war, what is it?

Way off topic, sorry.

 

[dong20]

Isn't that the norm for them?

Not yet, but give it time. But in the mainstream news arena, consider the alternatives...

 

[SteveHd]

Putin's government was invited to join in co-locating missiles at the proposed launch sites ....

I don't recall that. Maybe it was done and I don't remember.

Putin is sabre-rattling to demonstrate that the former USSR still has global relevance. It also helps to stir nationalistic pride at home in Russia.

Deserved repeating.

 

[HotBulge]

Originally Posted by HotBulge http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif
Putin's government was invited to join in co-locating missiles at the proposed launch sites ....

I don't recall that. Maybe it was done and I don't remember.

In a recent interview with Charlie Rose (I think), Condi said that Putin was invited to co-locate some missiles as part of a joint effort to defend common borders against threats like N. Korea and Iran.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Someone tell me how countries with NO ICBMs would be able to hit America via Poland?

The shield is really a counter to the MAD situation in that it means a Shield protected nation could launch nuclear strikes on any non-protected nation and expect a complete lack of effective retaliation. The real question we should be asking, is do you think Bush is smart enough NOT to nuke North Korea?

*Sigh* White people...

 

[SteveHd]

Someone tell me how countries with NO ICBMs would be able to hit America via Poland?

At present, the middle east doesn't have a missile that can reach USA. So the ABMs proposed for eastern Europe are, I suppose, for "protecting" Europe from a middle east IRBM. Iran has successfully tested an IRBM that could reach southern Europe.

The shield is really a counter to the MAD situation in that it means a Shield protected nation could launch nuclear strikes on any non-protected nation and expect a complete lack of effective retaliation

I not sure I understood that, but, BMD isn't SMD. The hardware is similar, the purpose is different. Only ~100 ABMs are planned. That's no "shield" against Russia's ~2,200 warheads.

The real question we should be asking, is do you think Bush is smart enough NOT to nuke North Korea?

No, the real question we should be asking is: Should the U.S. taxpayers be paying for something that mostly benefits Europe and apparently doesn't want? *I think my answer to that is very clearly implied.*

*Sigh* White people...

Elaborate, please.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

At present, the middle east doesn't have a missile that can reach USA. So the ABMs proposed for eastern Europe are, I suppose, for "protecting" Europe from a middle east IRBM. Iran has successfully tested an IRBM that could reach southern Europe.

Southern Europe is not Eastern Europe...I dunno, maybe we want to nuke commies? Not that I'm saying that I love commies, but then again...

Also, so what if a country can potentially hit another country, is it in Iran's best interest to declare war on..I dunno..erm, Turkey?!?

I not sure I understood that, but, BMD isn't SMD. The hardware is similar, the purpose is different. Only ~100 ABMs are planned. That's no "shield" against Russia's ~2,200 warheads.

As some Russian news writer comments, "Would a missile shield be excepted if one was planted by Russia in Mexico?"

No, the real question we should be asking is: Should the U.S. taxpayers be paying for something that mostly benefits Europe and apparently doesn't want? *I think my answer to that is very clearly implied.*

The US and the Vikings could learn a lot from each other. So how much does it cost to maintain and run all those bases, several wars at once, and of course, lives in blood in current conflicts etc etc...?

You sure are building up tech considering that the only enemies left are 2nd world nations!

Elaborate, please.

I'm black and tbh have a "hate-all" attitude at times, don't mind me.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Anyway, the panic is over regarding a return to US/Russian hostilities...the possible silos are to be aimed at the Middle East, not Russia. So, looks like no end to the Middle East conflict(s) in the near future. Surprise surprise!

 

[SteveHd]

I'm black and tbh have a "hate-all" attitude at times, don't mind me.

That's the only part of your message I understood. I'll take your advice.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

That's the only part of your message I understood. I'll take your advice.

Let me guess, you really think that Bin Laden is out to get you and you're taking offence that a nigger can have an IQ higher than 45 (I know from experience that one's a rarity.) As well as a different political view?

Damn!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hey, you know what, by 2012-15 some really crazy shit will happen. I ain't even going to tell you what it is. (Pretty much the best reason to have a missile shield!)

 

[rob_just_rob]

Mr Putin says Iran does not pose a threat to the US

Well, duh. Why else would the US have spent so much time and money painstakingly building them up to be a threat in the eyes of the naive?

(Step 1: call Iran 'evil' and lump them in with other 'evil' countries who you proceed to invade or threaten to invade. Step 2: Attempt to replace the governments on either side of Iran with pro-US governments. Step 3: Make noises about building permanent military bases on their doorstep. Step 4: Shriek loudly when Iran begins to take some steps to improve its defenses, and when Iran counters the saber-ratting the US has been doing, with some of its own saber-rattling.)

No doubt Russia will be built up as a renewed threat, too. Amazing how it's NOT threatening when the US places weapons and troops on someone else's borders, but it IS threatening when that someone else protests about the US weapons buildup. Doesn't make any sense, but whatever it takes to keep those defense contracts flowing, I guess.

 

[SoFla8]

I'm not stepping into the "hate-all" arena. (wtf?)



I'm certainly no expert on events here, overseas, or anywhere, but I do pay attention.

Even if N.Korea or Iran had missles with the needed range they are years away from producing a package small enough to fit into a nose cone of a missle. Hell, Iran is a few years from having a nuke at all, and N.Korea's tests begged to be verified as nuclear. So we can count those two out of it for a few years unless they buy an ICBM overnight!

So it must be to defend against Russia's missles or a percieved future threat. In any case Putin is always trying to undermine the influence of the US and his provacative missle test was basically a "fuck you, we still have really cool missles and we'll aim them at you. Biatches!" They've always been aimed at us. duh! Who else are they going to aim them at?

I think this missle sheild is a good idea..for everyone. Any system that is designed to prevent a nuke from destroying an entire city is ok with me. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Can Russia, it's former states and the Warsaw Pact countries keep track of all those nukes? I doubt it. They can barely keep from poisoning eachother and stealing gas from pipelines! Fuck it. Give them a few "missle sheild kits" so they'll stop acting like we owe them something.

Poland and the Czechs don't want this missle sheild? What the fuck did they join NATO for? I bet if a hostile army invaded them they'd remember why!