Excellent Russia-Georgia Analysis from George Friedman

Don't buy into the anti-Star Wars propaganda.
Click to expand...

Yet the problem is immense and the tests have repeatedly been more shocking when they work on occasion than when they fail.

Back in the 80s the concept had merit, as did pursuing it. Relations were different with the Soviet Union and aside form such a systems functionality the fear of it working, along with the money needed to combat it, brought the Soviets to the table and helped speed along their economic downfall. Eventually even the Soviets knew it was a flop with Gorbachev giving hardly any attention to it after this was revealed. Not only was the problem near insurmountable at the time but overcoming any defensive system would cost a fraction of the cost of instituting it.

I like the idea of missile defense but see the destabilizing effect it will have in Eastern Europe as significant and possibly more detrimental to national security that the questionable effectiveness of such a system.
 
the Czech Republic was to defend against N. Korea and Iran.
Click to expand...

but could also be used to defend against Russia. What reason do the Russians have to believe we only intend to defend against those other nations? Why would they not expect us to dominate them once such a system is in place?

I am on OUR side here but we need to understand the motivations of those we are dealing with to address the problems properly.
 
Yet the problem is immense and the tests have repeatedly been more shocking when they work on occasion than when they fail.
Click to expand...

And in the '70s, the Sprint missile made 41 successful intercepts out of 48 attempts.

The problem now is 1) we are attempting to get skin kills when we previously relied on neutron flux (the same mechanism the Sovs use for some of their systems), 2) we are attempting to do a massive load more with a lot less (we are looking at a handful of interceptor sites rather than the SAM batteries that used to be common across the US), and 3) we have destroyed our capability to achieve the mission and are trying to rebuild it.

Think of it like this. Can we send an astronaut to the moon next year and bring said astronaut back? Of course not. Would there be massive failures in the attempt? Absolutely.

Could we do it in 1973? Absolutely. The difference is that since 1973, we made a conscious decision to destroy our capability to achieve that mission. We didn't just destroy the tools to do the job, we destroyed the tools to make the tools to do the job.

It's a matter of political will. We defend D.C. with fighters and Stingers, adn the rest of the country just gets fighters. The Russians (it's hard not to call them Soviets these days) defend Moscow with fighters and a full ABM network. And every location that has an S-200, S-300, or S-400 battery nearby (they deploy SAM batteries in quite a few areas) or the naval equivalent has at least a limited ABM capability at this moment, along with a fairly robust fighter screen.
 
Why would they not expect us to dominate them once such a system is in place?
Click to expand...

Because 12 interceptors (which is all that is being discussed if memory serves correctly) would not undermine their ability to launch a first or second strike to any appreciable degree. The response to an AMB system is to swamp the system, which they fully retain the capability to do.

The system being suggested for Eastern Europe will have less impact on deterrence than the S-400 systems the Russians are currently deployed, and exporting to other nations.
 
They have been invaded brutally many times.
Click to expand...

And they've done plenty of invading, of Poland in 1939 after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact split the country at the Vistula, Finland in 1939, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1939-40, Czechoslovokia, 1948 and 1968, Hungary in 1956. Those countries have a lot more to worry about from a re-Sovietizing Russia than Russia has to worry about from them.

You need to understand the Russian perspective better.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly, they're thugs. They want to disarm anyone around them that could oppose their thuggery. They want to be able to continue to threaten Western Europe to get their way.
 
Moreover, a Russian strike on the United States would not fly over eastern Europe.

This is something most people overlook when discussing the missile interceptors in Poland/Czech Republic.

Such a location would give us a good intercept envelope for missiles launched from the middle east.

But Russian missiles, such as the Topol-M, would be launched from the Kola Penninsula over the north pole and over Canada to us.

NOT over eastern europe.

But it serves Russian politics and nationalism to categorize the interceptors as infringements upon their deterrent.
 
But Russian missiles, such as the Topol-M, would be launched from the Kola Penninsula over the north pole and over Canada to us.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the best time to shoot down is on the launch or boost phase, not on its descent. My question is who are they afraid of, no one else in Western Europe has gone to war in 60 years and none are likely too. Ukraine unilaterally disarmed its nukes. All the conceivable threats are eastward. They want to maintain the ability to launch a nice clean surgical nuclear war in order to cow W. Europe into submission if it should strike their fancy. There are still crooks and murderers running the Kremlin.
 
Good point about the path the missiles would follow.

It is nice to call them thugs, simple and easy. It is stupid though to base national policy on such a knuckle dragging theory. I have no problems with the guys who fight them face to face having such an outlook but I want policy decisions made with some intelligence.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly.
Click to expand...
R.A. Heinlein

I would rather have a strong Russia who we can work with which is motivated to and can help keep a lid on Islamic Extremists than have one which will be opposed to our missions throughout the world. There is though, and will continue to be, a strong Russia.
 
Islam is spreading faster through Russia then most of Europe, if anything they will be the Islamic extremists in the next 100 years.
 
Not necessarily, the best time to shoot down is on the launch or boost phase, not on its descent. My question is who are they afraid of, no one else in Western Europe has gone to war in 60 years and none are likely too.
Click to expand...

Yet their defenses which are so vaunted as a justification here are on the descent...

Why hasn't there been a war in Western Europe for 60 years? What prevented such a conflict? Obviously it was nukes.
 
Islam is spreading faster through Russia then most of Europe, if anything they will be the Islamic extremists in the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

Russia has been openly battling Islamic extremists for longer than the United States has been playing the game. Whatever else you can say about the Russians, they won't be siding with Islamic extremism and they play the game with the same fervor the Jihadists do.
 
It is nice to call them thugs, simple and easy. It is stupid though to base national policy on such a knuckle dragging theory. I have no problems with the guys who fight them face to face having such an outlook but I want policy decisions made with some intelligence.
Click to expand...

No, the "stupid, knuckle dragging theory" is to base policy on the good intentions of the Russians. It has never worked, ever. As long as they are an authoritarian (quickly devolving to despotic) regime, it never will work. You claim these poor ol' Rooskies are sitting shaking at the big, bad old Western powers, but have yet to explain why Western Europe should not be the ones afraid.
 
I never said Western Europe shouldn't be afraid. I said it is important to understand their motivations.

I can be afraid of a grizzly bear AND attempt to understand its motivations so as to avoid a confrontation. That does not mean I agree with the bear should it choose to eat me.
 
Did anyone else notice President Bush's use of the phrase "free world" in his speech today?

With these concerns in mind, I have directed a series of steps to demonstrate our solidarity with the Georgian people and bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict. I'm sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France, where she will confer with President Sarkozy. She will then travel to Tbilisi, where she will personally convey America's unwavering support for Georgia's democratic government. On this trip she will continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.
Click to expand...

Remind anyone else of the evil empire days?
 
Bush doesn't really know what he is saying. If you are trying to draw parallels between him and Reagan, I am not going to buy it... Reagan had a brain and a plan.
 
Bush doesn't really know what he is saying.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The language in the speech is very deliberate and bent on reminding people what the world was like during the cold war.
 
The U.S.A. is simply wrongheaded to try to make Georgia, Ukraine, and other such peripheral states its military allies ie. the U.S.A. must wake up and realise that these states are historically in Russia's sphere of influence - and that this influence is not just some relic of the U.S.S.R. and the Cold War - but an influence that goes back deeply for 100's of years.


Just because America is indoctrinated against Russia - doesn't mean it should jump into bed with Georgian or Ukrainian or Romanian NATIONALISM. These countries are not exactly angels themselves - and being tied to them militarily...can be a very problematic and unmanageable situation.


Russia has historically expanded and contracted along its boorder - and likes to have its border buffered by friendly states; it's a delicate balance ie. if a Georgia is harmless on Russia's border, Russia doesn't mind - but when such states start getting aggressive or troublesome - then Russia gets concerned. Russia's concern is legitimate - and it would be wise for the U.S.A. to respect Russia's sphere of influence.


The U.S.A. might hate Putin - but for the U.S.A. to ally itself with some corrupt Georgian demagogue who wants to ethnically cleanse his country of 'Russians' - is a very foolish move on the part of the U.S.A. The U.S.A. would be wiser to form a better relationship with Russia.


If Russia was invading France or Mexico , I'd be a little more sympathetic to the U.S. position. However, when McCain stands up like an idiot and declares that no nation should invade other nations in this day and age and angrily points his finger to Russia...the world just looks at the U.S. invasion of Iraq and wonders how many other Americans are as delusional and dangerously myopic as McCain. Condi Rice's outrage and fingerpointing at Russia - is likewise horrific. She seems to be a kind of warmongering monster - not a legitimate statesman or diplomat.


Russia has consistantly and repeatedly expressed its concerns and fears about Georgia and the need to protect such areas as Ossetia. It is the U.S.A. that is behaving inconsistantly and lashing out with INVASIONS of other countries around the world. The world is watching, and the world is seeing that now Russia is still a superpower, and that the U.S.A. has some Evil Empireness of its own to sort out and exorcize. The Bush Administration has been a disaster.:mad:


Russia has just called the U.S.A.'s bluff, and has successfully challenged the U.S.A.'s leadership. You can thank the current Bush Administration for this
mess. The Bush Adm. has spat in Russia's face since the Bush govt. came to power. Looks like the Bush Govt. just been dealt its final blow.
 
.300H&H,

I agree with some of your statements and completely oppose others. The contention that Russia is a Superpower is a joke. They are a major power within their sphere of influence but have next to ZERO force projection beyond where they can drive a tank to along their borders. That is NOT a superpower.

Your prejudice against Bush is also clouding what could otherwise be a valid analysis.
 
The U.S.A. might hate Putin - but for the U.S.A. to ally itself with some corrupt Georgian demagogue who wants to ethnically cleanse his country of 'Russians' ...
Click to expand...
What, so now Pravda is the paragon of Pulitzer-worthy journalism??

...the world just looks at the U.S. invasion of Iraq and wonders how many other Americans are as delusional and dangerously myopic as McCain.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many other Americans are as delusional and dangerously myopic as people who believe that the US liberation of Iraq is in any way comparable to the Russian invasion of Georgia or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top