Russia: Countries That Host U.S. Missile Shield Will Be Targets

From FNC:

Poland and the Czech Republic risk being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host elements of the proposed U.S. missile defense system, a top Russian general warned Monday in the latest in a series of increasingly bellicose statements from Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that it wants to deploy missile defense components in Europe to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia could take retaliatory action.

Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, head of Russia’s missile forces, said the U.S. move would upset strategic stability.

“If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step … the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made,” he said.

The United States said last month that it wants to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe to protect the eastern United States and Europe from missiles launched from “rogue nations” in the Middle East. It would be the first such site in Europe.

The Czech government reiterated Monday that the U.S. defense system was not aimed at Russia.

Who cares if it does aim at missile threats from Russia? Does Russia plan on attacking these countries? That is the only threat a defensive missile system provides. I have said it before and I will say it again Russia has it’s long term eye on expanding in Europe again. They are threatening to attack a country for defending itself?

“It is a passive defense against a different threat about which Russia has been informed in detail,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement from Prague. “It is nonsense from a military point of view that Russia could pull out of the treaty banning medium-range missiles and build additional military capabilities as a response to the U.S. missile defense.”

But Solovtsov voiced concerns that Washington, which is planning to deploy 10 interceptors in Poland, could boost their number in the future. He warned that a hypothetical military action could have “grave consequences for all parties involved.”

He also said that it would take only five or six years, or even less, to build new, upgraded versions of missiles scrapped under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty — the 1987 agreement signed by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan banning medium-range missiles.

“It is not difficult to restore their production,” Solovtsov told a news conference. “The missiles were dismantled, but the production technology has remained.”

At a security conference in Munich earlier this month, Putin said the INF treaty was outdated, and that many nations had since developed medium-range missiles eliminated by Russia and the United States. The chief of the military’s General Staff later warned that Moscow’s decision to pull out of the treaty would depend on whether the United States deploys the missile defense components in Europe.

Solovtsov said Russia would not simply copy the Soviet medium-range SS-20 missiles scrapped under the INF treaty but would develop a new missile with improved performance.

He also said Russia would continue gradually replacing Soviet-built intercontinental ballistic missiles with new Topol-M missiles, and would fully rearm around 2016 while maintaining levels under a 2002 arms control treaty signed by Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush. That treaty obliging both sides to cut their strategic nuclear weapons by about two-thirds by 2012, down between 1,700 to 2,200 missiles.

Putin also warned in Munich that Russia could respond to the deployment of U.S. missile defense in Europe by building new, more efficient weapons. He had previously boasted that Russia was developing new missiles that would be impossible for an enemy to intercept.

“It’s possible to deploy such weapons shortly if the situation requires that,” Solovtsov said, though he refused to elaborate.

He also said the military was considering plans for fitting multiple nuclear warheads to its new Topol-M missiles.

I am telling you Russia has long term plans to regain their prior glory, using the technology and money we gave them to bring them out of the ashes.

25 Responses

  1. I am going to sum this up for you ADAM, we should have never given Russia on RED cent, or the technology we gave the. they were our enemy and their evil empire collapsed.

    Now countries have a right to defend themselves against Nuclear attack. This is s direct response to N. Korea and now Iran’s Nuclear ambitions.

    May I also point out it would DEFEND THEM FROM A MISSILE ATTACK FROM THE USA! Or, anyone else for that matter.

    Again, the question posed was a fair one, what reason could Russia have for not liking us deploying a COMPLETELY defensive missile system in their old satellite countries? You are going to have to accept it is defensive, because even Russia accepts that fact.

    Adam you sound like one of those hate America people in this thread and nothing you posted seems like rational thought.

    What other country goes to war, defeats the other country, rebuilds it, gives it a democracy and hands it all back to the people of said enemy country??

    Let me know when you find another besides the USA.

  2. Thanks for joining in Brian. You have a heck of a site here. But what I said about the USA and their policies is that they are ultimately self serving and not altruistic. If I offered that they are a totalitarian régime, it is because they peruse their own ends through power and not through mutual agreement, universally. I say to you that a reading of how aggressive you guys are to my trying to say that aggressiveness breeds problems is a good example.

    You guys are pretty hostile to contrary thought. I guess I should have been more careful. And you are fighting me, not the idea. Interesting tactic. Kind of like the GOP, huh?

    For a good answer to your question “What reason could Russia have for not liking us deploying a COMPLETELY defensive missile system (sic) in their old satellite countries?”, I’ll answer in four letters:

    CUBA

    Listen, I know you guys are flag wavers. I didn’t come here specifically to inflame you; I just posted a thought about Belarus from the perspective of a guy who lives there. You haven’t changed my mind; you have just reminded me who America is. Congrats on your ability to debate as if you wish to include public opinion, as if you are interested in thinking about your situation fully and not just interested in furthering your own personal agenda.

    And by the way, I didn’t come to Belarus because of a girl. Well, maybe I did if you consider my grandmother a girl. I, like many, many people come from this land. This is my heritage, my ancestral homeland. But when I first came here in 1997 I found extremely well spoken, gentle, mannered people. They had an understanding of “best behavior” that seemed to mesh with my own idea of the concept. And, I saw that this was not simply for the rich, but for everyone. I also saw that everyone, not only those who didn’t have a silver spoon in their mouth, were incredibly self sufficient. Everyone here is a mechanic and an electrician. Everybody does their own work. They are givers, not takers. I fell I love with this. Does this make me a bad person?

    I just read that Great Britain is going to spend something like 76 Billion Pounds for 160 nuclear missiles. Putting this together with America’s wanting to place a missile installation in Poland and the Czech Republic means that we are preparing to go to war. I say the aggressors are the Americans and I say that pretty much everyone in the world outside of the US is angry as hell at their policies. Oh, and a check of the Beatroot blog (http://beatroot.blogspot.com/2007/02/poles-dont-want-anti-missile-base.html) offered that Poland is hugely against having the missiles on their territory.

    I placed an entry about this conversation at http://beinghadii.blogspot.com and gave another mention of it on http://www.beinghad.com. I hope it sends a few readers your way. I also added a comment about your piece on Americans getting rejected from going to Canada. I’ve been checking the site daily since I first commented. Like I say, you have made a great website. Thanks for the discussion.

  3. Hi Adam
    In the first place I personally do not believe that any missile defense against nuclear weapons is a viable strategy that actually affords any real protection for anybody anywhere.
    However, I do suspect that this American strategy is in direct response to Russia’s refusal to stop supplying terrorist nations with nuclear capabilities, that is to say that if Russia continues in this irresponsible action, it will be at a cost that will be financially and diplomatically destructive to itself.
    The real fear to me here, is not Russia’s threats, rather it is Russia’s current actions of proliferation.

    The way I see it is, that if, “Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine and all the rest of the former USSR” which you seem to continuously and conveniently lump together when you find it suited to your own comfort, wants to play ball, then the field must be conducive to human life, let alone it’s own welfare.

    I also find it very interesting, how you claim that there was a personal attack placed upon you, when by your own admittance, “I guess I should have been more careful” is a completely off handed dismissal of your own first offensive remarks.

  4. I agree completely with your first thought. I hate that Russia has been sending Uranium to Iran. If they are going to try and make electricity from a reactor, well, what can I tell you: people like having electricity. If they are gonna play nuclear volleyball with Israel, as everyone believes they will, I only hope that G-d strikes them all dead before they do. I was working in Manhattan on September 11th and my first thought was to nuke Mecca as a reprisal. But other than that one particular moment, I hate the thought that we should even consider nuclear arms as part of human existence.

    But in your last two paragraphs, you come after me personally. The “careful” remark, just so you know, was sarcasm. I don’t remember there being any “original offensive remarks” unless you consider my criticizing US policy to be personally offensive to you. And I believe I addressed the idea that in general, I prefer to talk ideas rather than me or you. As a race, humans would probably be growing potatoes on Neptune by now if we would have figured out how to stop beating each other down. Let’s move on to a different topic.

  5. Let me sum this up for peole that think the vulcans have landed and we should all be one world, under one government. that is not reality. every country has their own needs in mind, the USA is no different in that fact. But we go beyond that and try and be altruistic, you have to figure out when. But, never do we intend to conquer and expand our borders to creat an empire. We do allot of good, with MY money and I am sick of people bitching at my country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: