Russian general threatens to nuke Poland

[Anaxagoras]

The article. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24193291-401,00.html)

US and Polish officials signed a deal on Thursday for Poland to host a system the US says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations, such as Iran.

But Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike; 100 per cent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.

He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them". General Nogovitsyn also said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems.

President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal "absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier: the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target".

I'm sure that if we tell the Russians they should just get over it, this whole thing will blow over.

[magnet]

Huh? The Russians confirmed that Poland is a potential target in a nuclear exchange. So are all nuclear powers, including United States, China, France, the U.K., Pakistan, India, North Korea, and presumably Israel.

That's not exactly the same as "Russian General threatens to nuke the US, India, and China!" There's nothing to suggest an imminent strike.

[Anti-Bunny]

Very depressing. You would've thought we'd see real reform in Russia after the fall of communism, but things haven't changed much. I have to wonder what a typical Russian really thinks about a missile defense shield a thousand miles away in a country that doesn't even boarder Russia. Oh, right, Russia doesn't consider Belarus or Ukraine to be REAL countries..

[Jakub]

Huh? The Russians confirmed that Poland is a potential target in a nuclear exchange. So are all nuclear powers, including United States, China, France, the U.K., Pakistan, India, North Korea, and presumably Israel.
Poland is not a nuclear power.

[Anaxagoras]

Huh? The Russians confirmed that Poland is a potential target in a nuclear exchange. So are all nuclear powers, including United States, China, France, the U.K., Pakistan, India, North Korea, and presumably Israel.

That's not exactly the same as "Russian General threatens to nuke the US, India, and China!" There's nothing to suggest an imminent strike.

Just out of curiosity.... which part of the article's headline did you find misleading?

To put it another way, what do you think would be a more accurate heading?

[Sarkus]

I agree that it's a bit misleading to say that the "Russians are threatening" Poland. By default, it's very little different from the position Poland put itself in by joining NATO. By hosting the base, Poland is putting itself in a potential crossfire situation, but that is true of any country that hosts a US base.

So, much to do about nothing, IMHO, other than a Russian general being brutally honest.

[magnet]

Poland is not a nuclear power.

Naturally. If they were, I would have written "so are all other nuclear powers ..." Clearly, being a nuclear power is not a necessary condition to being nuked by Russia - or America, for that matter.

Just out of curiosity.... which part of the article's headline did you find misleading?
It's just as misleading as last year's stories about "Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran!!" No kidding! Their whole job is to draw up plans, which is not the same as an intention to attack. They probably have plans to attack France and New Zealand. If not, they should.

I have to wonder what a typical Russian really thinks about a missile defense shield a thousand miles away in a country that doesn't even boarder Russia.
Metric system again? Russia is within four hundred miles (http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-704247%2CB&city4=-4212588%2CS) of Poland. That's less than the distance from Key West to Tallahassee, and certainly within the range of a short-range ballistic missile.

[Jason McCullough]

It's just as misleading as last year's stories about "Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran!!" No kidding! Their whole job is to draw up plans, which is not the same as an intention to attack. They probably have plans to attack France and New Zealand. If not, they should.

I find it continually amazing how people fall for this. Oh yes, they're just doing routine maintenance on the Iran plan, they're definitely not gearing up to attack.

[Sarkus]

I find it continually amazing how people fall for this. Oh yes, they're just doing routine maintenance on the Iran plan, they're definitely not gearing up to attack.

Magnet's point is that the press sensationalizes even the news that such plans exist in the first place. As if a country never thinks about contingencies and makes plans to meet them.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the Pentagon there is a contingency plan to invade Canada.

[CommunistWalrus]

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the Pentagon there is a contingency plan to invade Canada.

There was (http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html), actually! Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html) is a more in-depth article on it.

[Jakub]

Naturally. If they were, I would have written "so are all other nuclear powers ..." Clearly, being a nuclear power is not a necessary condition to being nuked by Russia - or America, for that matter.
I was clarifying.

[Igor Muravyev]

Very depressing. You would've thought we'd see real reform in Russia after the fall of communism, but things haven't changed much. I have to wonder what a typical Russian really thinks about a missile defense shield a thousand miles away in a country that doesn't even boarder Russia. Oh, right, Russia doesn't consider Belarus or Ukraine to be REAL countries..

I don't know where the missile shield will be placed, but the distance between Sokolka, Poland and Sebezh, Russia (two cities I picked which seemed to be fairly close to each other) is a mere 280.7 miles (http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html).

Belarus is also in the CIS.. so in fact the missile shield borders Russia's direct sphere of influence.

[Jakub]

in fact the missile shield borders Russia's direct sphere of influence.
Perhaps Poland doesn't wish to be in Russia's sphere of influence.

[Anti-Bunny]

Metric system again? Russia is within four hundred miles (http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-704247%2CB&city4=-4212588%2CS) of Poland. That's less than the distance from Key West to Tallahassee, and certainly within the range of a short-range ballistic missile.
I didn't say Russia wasn't that close. I said a Russian that is a thousand miles away. Are you telling me a hypothetical Russian that I made up, in my head, and proposed is a thousand miles from the missile shield ISN'T ACTUALLY that far away? Moscow to Warsaw is 717 miles. The logical location of the base is on the Czech republic boarder, where the proposed radar station is also being built, abet in Czech republic. That would be about a 1,000 miles. I think this hypothetical Russian is not very improbable.

My hypothetical Russian's name is Dmitry, fyi.

[magnet]

I was clarifying.

Спасибо.

Oh yes, they're just doing routine maintenance on the Iran plan, they're definitely not gearing up to attack.

Plans are cheap. It's the carrier movements (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/17775.html) that make me nervous.

My hypothetical Russian's name is Dmitry, fyi.

Well, he's your hypothetical Russian, so I guess you can decide what he thinks about the missile shield. But I will postulate that he is equally nonplussed as a hypothetical American in Miami watching a small-scale war unfold in South Ossetia, 6500 miles away.

My hypothetical American is named Xena.

[Aeon221]

Спасибо.



Well, he's your hypothetical Russian, so I guess you can decide what he thinks about the missile shield. But I will postulate that he is equally nonplussed as a hypothetical American in Miami watching a small-scale war unfold in South Ossetia, 6500 miles away.

My hypothetical American is named Xena.

Xena lives in a hole in my basement, there's no way she knows about the war in South Elbonia!

[Lum]

My hypothetical Martian's name is Zed.

[Anti-Bunny]

My hypothetical Russian's name is Dmitry, fyi.

My hypothetical American is named Xena.

My hypothetical Martian's name is Zed.

I sense a hypothetical reality show!

[Jason McCullough]

Magnet's point is that the press sensationalizes even the news that such plans exist in the first place. As if a country never thinks about contingencies and makes plans to meet them.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the Pentagon there is a contingency plan to invade Canada.

Except that in the case, the sensationalization is right. If Seymour Hersh is to be believed, we got awfully close to attacking Iran, and still might.

[hong]

I agree that it's a bit misleading to say that the "Russians are threatening" Poland. By default, it's very little different from the position Poland put itself in by joining NATO. By hosting the base, Poland is putting itself in a potential crossfire situation, but that is true of any country that hosts a US base.

So, much to do about nothing, IMHO, other than a Russian general being brutally honest.

Mind you, in the world of international diplomacy, being brutally honest is also a way to send a message.

[Sarkus]

Except that in the case, the sensationalization is right. If Seymour Hersh is to be believed, we got awfully close to attacking Iran, and still might.

I'm not denying that. But reporting that we have plans is not the same as reporting that we are updating our plans because we're afraid we might use them soon. The press typically fails to see the distinction.

An attack on Iran is my greatest fear for the rest of this administration's term. In fact, I think the election being close might actually be to our benefit. If Bush thinks McCain is going to lose anyway, he may be more likely to order the attack to make sure it gets done. I don't remember where I read it, but there was some indication about the neocon thinking on Iran that suggested the possibility.

[Sarkus]

Mind you, in the world of international diplomacy, being brutally honest is also a way to send a message.

Of course. And it's also typical of the Russians.

Keep in mind that the same circumstances that the Russian general was referring to would also apply to Canada, Australia, etc. If the nukes start flying, there are a number of targets outside the US that would be strategically relevant.

[Chris Nahr]

Some people here already seem to have forgotten that little incident known as "World War 2" in which the USSR annexed the territory of Königsberg and rechristened (remarxed?) it Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad remained with Russia after the collapse of the USSR, continues to house a big Russian navy base, and... shares a border with Poland. Oh, and another border with Lithuania, biggest of the three Baltic states that have already joined NATO.

So the exact distance from Warsaw to some city in Inner Mongolia is perhaps not all that relevant to the presence of an American missile defense system in Poland, or the Russian indignation thereabout.

[bloo]

My hypothetical Martian's name is Zed.

"Zed's dead, baby."

[Robert Sharp]

Well, he's your hypothetical Russian, so I guess you can decide what he thinks about the missile shield. But I will postulate that he is equally nonplussed as a hypothetical American in Miami watching a small-scale war unfold in South Ossetia, 6500 miles away.

My hypothetical American is named Xena.

He's confused? Bewildered? Are you sure you are using nonplussed properly? It doesn't mean apathetic, which is what context suggests you are going for here. The average American doesn't care about Georgia one way or another (including the U.S. State, for that matter).

[Anaxagoras]

It's just as misleading as last year's stories about "Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran!!" No kidding! Their whole job is to draw up plans, which is not the same as an intention to attack. They probably have plans to attack France and New Zealand. If not, they should.


Let me try again.

I didn't ask "How misleading was that headline?" I asked "What should the headline have been so that it was more accurate?"

[magnet]

He's confused? Bewildered? Are you sure you are using nonplussed properly? It doesn't mean apathetic, which is what context suggests you are going for here. The average American doesn't care about Georgia one way or another (including the U.S. State, for that matter).

No, Anti-Bunny suggested that Americans should be shocked (i.e. "nonplussed") by Russia's actions in Georgia, and I was just glibly pointing out that given the proximity it's more likely that Russians would be shocked by our actions in Poland.

You're right that a random person on either side would actually probably be indifferent, which I was also trying to convey via the nonstandard definition. Maybe I was going for too much... at least the names all proved popular!

What should the headline have been so that it was more accurate?
"Poland is exposing itself to nuclear attack, say Russkies"

That is comparable to preferring "Teen gets driver's license, exposing himself to speeding tickets" over "Teen threatened with speeding ticket."

[Anaxagoras]

"Poland is exposing itself to nuclear attack, say Russkies"

That is comparable to preferring "Teen gets driver's license, exposing himself to speeding tickets" over "Teen threatened with speeding ticket."

OK. Now I understand where you're coming from.


No, it's not comparable. When a teen gets a driver's license, there's a slight chance that they'll get a speeding ticket... and even then, they'll only get one if the teen takes an additional action: they go over the speed limit.

Russia was indicating that there's much more than a slight chance of Poland getting nuked, and that chance is directly tied to the issue at hand.

If the article headline is sensationalized, you knee-jerked too far the opposite direction. This isn't a non-declaration, it *is* news, and it is concerning. The problem with your headline is precisely that it fails to capture that Russia's statement is an escalation of sorts, and that the situation is becoming quite volatile. Of course, the problem with the original headline is that it misses the gradations that are the bread and butter of diplomacy.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Russia was indicating that there's much more than a slight chance of Poland getting nuked,

Yeah, but a nuclear war still has to occur in the first place.

[magnet]

Russia was indicating that there's much more than a slight chance of Poland getting nuked, and that chance is directly tied to the issue at hand.

I don't see anything in the article to suggest that Russia is contemplating a nuclear attack on Poland in the short or medium term.

After all, Nogovitsyn elaborated with, "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

So what? I live a few hours from Washington D.C, and I assume that's a first priority target too. Am I being threatened by Nogovitsyn as well?

Note to Grifman:

A new statement from Poland: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal.html)

Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, told The Daily Telegraph the new US missile shield deal, and its timing, was unrelated to Georgia. "It [the deal] is a coincidence," he said. "Georgia made a dramatic backdrop to it, but the timing had nothing to do with Georgia."

[SteveS]

Some people here already seem to have forgotten that little incident known as "World War 2" in which the USSR annexed the territory of Königsberg and rechristened (remarxed?) it Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad remained with Russia after the collapse of the USSR, continues to house a big Russian navy base, and... shares a border with Poland. Oh, and another border with Lithuania, biggest of the three Baltic states that have already joined NATO.

So the exact distance from Warsaw to some city in Inner Mongolia is perhaps not all that relevant to the presence of an American missile defense system in Poland, or the Russian indignation thereabout.

I had no idea the Russians kept that place. It's reminisent of the British and Hong Kong, Kuwait, Belize and such. I'm surprised a military enclave in the midst of NATO hasn't been more news worthy. And now the Russians are threatening to deploy nuclear weapons there, although I would have thought the Baltic fleet was nuclear armed to begin with.

[magnet]

I'm surprised a military enclave in the midst of NATO hasn't been more news worthy.

They don't get a lot of press because Russians do all their waterboarding at home.

[Lum]

It's basically one huge military base. The Russians have had nukes there since 2001.

http://www.slate.com/id/96414/

[arctangent]

The Russians have had nukes there since 2001.

http://www.slate.com/id/96414/

If the Washington Times and 'anonymous sources' in the Clinton administration can be believed, yes. Personally I take both sources with a heaping spoonful of salt.

If true, or or even just perceived as true, this just might possibly be the real reason for the NATO anti-missile system recently agreed to by Poland, or at least a strong talking point for the Bush admin.

[Lum]

Given that it's the site of Russia's main all-weather naval base in Europe, I'd be more surprised if there WEREN'T nuclear weapons stored there.

[ConayR]

Just out of curiosity.... which part of the article's headline did you find misleading?
To put it another way, what do you think would be a more accurate heading?
How about "Russian general states obvious"? Every pole I know (me included) understands consequences of anti-missile system on the Polish soil. What that general said is a no-news and not a threat either. It's just stating facts: Polish gov isn't the brightest bulb in the box

Спасибо.
Assuming that Jakub is Russian is pretty funny, actually.

[Moore]

It's just as misleading as last year's stories about "Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran!!" No kidding! Their whole job is to draw up plans, which is not the same as an intention to attack. They probably have plans to attack France and New Zealand. If not, they should.




NO BLOOD FOR SHEEP!

[Igor Muravyev]

Assuming that Jakub is Russian is pretty funny, actually.

I have a Polish friend named Jakub. I know no Russians named Jakub.

[arctangent]

Given that it's the site of Russia's main all-weather naval base in Europe, I'd be more surprised if there WEREN'T nuclear weapons stored there.

If everyone thinks that Russia has tactical nukes in Kaliningrad, they don't actually have to be there for Russia to enjoy the deterrence value thereof, do they? ;)

Next up on the world stage: Cold War, Part 2. Coming to a planet near you!

[Rward]

What is required to turn the "Missile Defence System" into a "Missile Attack system"?

[extarbags]

What is required to turn the "Missile Defence System" into a "Missile Attack system"?

It would be pretty pointless to do that... if we want to shoot missile at Russia, we can do that from here.

[Hetzer]

It would be pretty pointless to do that... if we want to shoot missile at Russia, we can do that from here.

Its pointless anyway, if you look on the map how many "islamic" missiles do you expect to attack western europe via poland? The only reason to place a missile defense system in poland is to say: fuck you russia. And the answer to that we got in south ossetia where putin said: Yeah? fuck you too.

[Jakub]

Its pointless anyway, if you look on the map how many "islamic" missiles do you expect to attack western europe via poland? The only reason to place a missile defense system in poland is to say: fuck you russia. And the answer to that we got in south ossetia where putin said: Yeah? fuck you too.
Umm, actually, Poland would be close to the flight path from Iran or Pakistan. The world is a globe, the shortest distance between two points looks like it curves.

But yeah, it's a definite "fuck you" towards Russia. The Russians kinda fucked up with Georgia and the comments about Poland, however. Now I expect the Baltics and Ukraine to want to get in on the "fuck you, Russia" action.

[Rward]

It would be pretty pointless to do that... if we want to shoot missile at Russia, we can do that from here.

True that is.

USA be turtling the map (http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/US-military-bases-2001-03.jpg)

[Linoleum]

What is required to turn the "Missile Defence System" into a "Missile Attack system"?

Building a whole separate complex and installing completely new missiles. It's like saying "Hey, what would it take to turn a 787 into a fighter jet?"

[Pogo]

My homeland needs to start rounding up horses.

[Jon Rowe]

Do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[extarbags]

Its pointless anyway, if you look on the map how many "islamic" missiles do you expect to attack western europe via poland? The only reason to place a missile defense system in poland is to say: fuck you russia. And the answer to that we got in south ossetia where putin said: Yeah? fuck you too.

Nah, the point of it is to give latently homosexual right-wing Real Men something to think about when they can't get it up for their wives. Russia perceives it as a big "fuck you" from us to them because the Russian national psyche can no longer fathom a world in which every action is not in some way focused on them.

[Tim Partlett]

http://web.stratfor.com/images/northamerica/art/nkorea-iran-range_209.jpg

From stratfor.

[Jakub]

OMG Tim and I agree on something.

SAVE YOURSELVES.

[AaronSofaer]

That's really interesting, Tim.

Is there more information? Can you maybe select two arbitrary locations and see the flight paths between them, or past them, with bases and countries marked/highlighted?

That would be fricken awesome.

[TheWombat]

Um, does Iran have anything even close to a ballistic missile with that kind of range? I guess you could be planning for the worst case, but it would seem we'd have a lot better chance of keeping Iran from developing reliable ICBM capability that we'd have of stopping them developing some sort of home-grown nuke-in-a-basket or SCUD thingy. Thus making the deployment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe somewhat less than direly necessary.

[Tim Partlett]

Russian complaints about missile defences in Poland being aimed at them are surely just about posturing. They must know that if they wanted to fire missiles at the US, they'd fire them across the Arctic, not across Europe, and that if they wanted to fire at Europe, the missile defence in Poland would be pretty useless in preventing them from doing so.

[Tim Partlett]

Um, does Iran have anything even close to a ballistic missile with that kind of range? I guess you could be planning for the worst case, but it would seem we'd have a lot better chance of keeping Iran from developing reliable ICBM capability that we'd have of stopping them developing some sort of home-grown nuke-in-a-basket or SCUD thingy. Thus making the deployment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe somewhat less than direly necessary.

According to Reuters they launched a dummy satellite into space this weekend.

It takes some years to set up a missile shield. If you think it will actually work, you don't want to be putting it into place after you discover a potential enemy can launch missiles at you.

[extarbags]

Russian complaints about missile defences in Poland being aimed at them are surely just about posturing.

To be fair, the missile defense shield itself is posturing as well, since it doesn't, like, work.

[Pogo]

The reliability of the defense system in shooting down an ICBM right now doesn't justify placing the system. However, it's foolish to think that the reliability of the system won't greatly improve as the bugs are worked out.

I'm not agreeing for or against the system, just responding to that statement.

[Tim Partlett]

To be fair, the missile defense shield itself is posturing as well, since it doesn't, like, work.

Well the hope is that it will work, which is a bit different to pretending something is aimed at you when it clearly isn't.

[Dave Markell]

While Tim's diagram is great--thanks for that, Tim--it ignores two very important points.

1) Iran and Russia are nearly adjacent
2) Russia lies between North Korea and the US

Therefore, while vectors drawn from NK and Iran do indeed pass over BMD sites, so do vectors drawn from many known launching sites within Russia proper. Who, then, is the system really intended to defend against? Isn't "all of them" a reasonable answer? I don't think it's an either/or here, folks.

[Tim Partlett]

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/GRAPHIC0/Spacecraft/russptvu.gif

You ever flown to Europe? Did you notice how the plane flew over Canada and Greenland and not across the Atlantic? That's because the shortest route is straight over the top of the world, not around the side, which is exactly the route that Russian missiles would take on their way to the US. Poland is not on their flightpath.

[Dave Markell]

Sure, but numerous Russian missiles heading for our allies in western Europe would pass over Poland, and some based in the eastern part of Russia aimed for the western US would pass over Alaska. Long ago I saw diagrams of what a projected Soviet first strike on NATO/America would look like. The skies over Poland and Alaska were...busy. :-)

[Tim Partlett]

Some of the USSR bordered on Iran (present day Turkmenistan) and they had silos down there, so I'm not surprised some of their missiles would have passed over Poland back then. I don't think that's the case now. Also they aren't complaining about Alaska, or even the radar station in Canada's Arctic north, which suggests their main beef is US involvement in its sphere of influence, rather than the missile shield itself.

[Hetzer]

http://web.stratfor.com/images/northamerica/art/nkorea-iran-range_209.jpg

From stratfor.

hmmm i stand corrected... iranian missiles would fly over poland...

[TheWombat]

According to Reuters they launched a dummy satellite into space this weekend.

It takes some years to set up a missile shield. If you think it will actually work, you don't want to be putting it into place after you discover a potential enemy can launch missiles at you.

True, but really...I rather find the prospect of Iran developing any sort of ICBM threat to the USA to be...preposterous. I mean, there's no reason to develop the capability to guarantee your own destruction. Any such attack would be guaranteed to bring utter devastation to whomever launced it, while smaller scale nuclear attacks--say, on invading forces or regional foes--actually might have the possibility of not doing so. So, there's simply no corresponding reason to the Cold War-era's stratetic imperatives operating for Iran.

I remain unconvinced that Iran poses that kind of threat to anyone, least of all the USA. Much, much more likely that the Russians would be a threat of that type (again). Which is why I think those who claim the ABM system is really aimed at Moscow have a reasonable case.

[Sarkus]

True, but really...I rather find the prospect of Iran developing any sort of ICBM threat to the USA to be...preposterous. I mean, there's no reason to develop the capability to guarantee your own destruction. Any such attack would be guaranteed to bring utter devastation to whomever launced it, while smaller scale nuclear attacks--say, on invading forces or regional foes--actually might have the possibility of not doing so. So, there's simply no corresponding reason to the Cold War-era's stratetic imperatives operating for Iran.

I remain unconvinced that Iran poses that kind of threat to anyone, least of all the USA. Much, much more likely that the Russians would be a threat of that type (again). Which is why I think those who claim the ABM system is really aimed at Moscow have a reasonable case.

Uhmm, you need to do some research. I'm not in favor of us using force against Iran and think we demonize them unfairly, but that doesn't mean they aren't developing long-range missiles. In fact, all the evidence from credible sources says they are probably less than ten years away from having missiles that could hit the US.

[ConayR]

I have a Polish friend named Jakub. I know no Russians named Jakub.
That's why Magnet's "Спасибо" was IMO silly.

[magnet]

What a coincidence, I know no Russians named Magnet.




... Incidentally, when people use Russian (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1430838&postcount=29) or other languages (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1317846&postcount=1) in conversation, the only assumption they are making is that their audience is well-educated. Which Jakub is.

[ConayR]

What a nice indirect insult. I'm sure educated person wouldn't use "other languages" - perhaps Polish? - if he or she wanted to shine with eloquence when answering to Pole.

[Jakub]

I'm not insulted.

I think.

Should I be?

[Pogo]

Skurwy syn!

[Lum]

Póg mo thóin!

[ConayR]

I'm not insulted.

I think.

Should I be?
I guess not. But I still find it silly (if not ironic) that someone used Russian talking to (presumably) Pole in "Russian general threatens to nuke Poland" thread.

[Tim Partlett]

True, but really...I rather find the prospect of Iran developing any sort of ICBM threat to the USA to be...preposterous. I mean, there's no reason to develop the capability to guarantee your own destruction. Any such attack would be guaranteed to bring utter devastation to whomever launced it, while smaller scale nuclear attacks--say, on invading forces or regional foes--actually might have the possibility of not doing so. So, there's simply no corresponding reason to the Cold War-era's stratetic imperatives operating for Iran.

I agree with you that it could take a very long time to develop the capability, and that there is no advantage gained by Iran to fire nuclear missiles at the US, but I disagree that there is no advantage in Iran developing this technology. Merely having the threat of firing one or two missiles at the US would change the power balance hugely in Iran's favour. If Iran can make them, I think they will.

I remain unconvinced that Iran poses that kind of threat to anyone, least of all the USA. Much, much more likely that the Russians would be a threat of that type (again). Which is why I think those who claim the ABM system is really aimed at Moscow have a reasonable case.

I think that's a non-sequitur. Just because you don't think Iran is, or will ever be, a serious nuclear threat, doesn't strengthen the case of those who think the shield is aimed at the Russians. If I point a gun at a man's head and you don't think he's a serious threat, that doesn't mean I am pointing it at someone else, it could just be that I am mistaken in my judgement.

It seems from the data I've seen that the shield is on the flight path of Iranian and North Korean missiles aimed at the US. Do you have anything that suggests they would block Russian missiles too?

[Jakub]

I guess not. But I still find it silly (if not ironic) that someone used Russian talking to (presumably) Pole in "Russian general threatens to nuke Poland" thread.
I just thought it was cheeky. Plus, all he said was "thanks".

[TheWombat]

Uhmm, you need to do some research. I'm not in favor of us using force against Iran and think we demonize them unfairly, but that doesn't mean they aren't developing long-range missiles. In fact, all the evidence from credible sources says they are probably less than ten years away from having missiles that could hit the US.

I'm not talking about raw technical capability...I'm talking about having the strategic, technical, and political capacity to make that sort of threat seirous enough for us to start destabilizing relationships elsewere to counter it. Lots of countries have ways of attacking us, and we have to pick and choose what we respond to, and how. I find the idea of Iran fielding a demonstrable long-range strategic threat to the US as being very far down the scale of realistic challenges we have to meet right now.

Just having the means to hit a target does make you watch them, but I still remain totally unconvinced that a so-called missile shield in Europe, with all of its political costs, is a reasonable response to prospective and hypothetical Iranian threats.

[TheWombat]

I agree with you that it could take a very long time to develop the capability, and that there is no advantage gained by Iran to fire nuclear missiles at the US, but I disagree that there is no advantage in Iran developing this technology. Merely having the threat of firing one or two missiles at the US would change the power balance hugely in Iran's favour. If Iran can make them, I think they will.

I think we can agree to disagree; I see very little advantage in Iran having that sort of capability. Tactical capability, yes, but strategic nuclear? Not so much. But again, it's a murky area.



I think that's a non-sequitur. Just because you don't think Iran is, or will ever be, a serious nuclear threat, doesn't strengthen the case of those who think the shield is aimed at the Russians. If I point a gun at a man's head and you don't think he's a serious threat, that doesn't mean I am pointing it at someone else, it could just be that I am mistaken in my judgement.

It seems from the data I've seen that the shield is on the flight path of Iranian and North Korean missiles aimed at the US. Do you have anything that suggests they would block Russian missiles too?

I don't think it's a non sequitur, really. As I don't find the logic of a presumptive Iranian threat convincing, particularly, and I do see a lot of posturing vis a vis NATO's relationship with the Russians in Eastern Europe, I find it quite possible that building missile shields in Eastern Europe is partly at least intended to send at least a political message towards Moscow. But it's entirely possible that people really, truly believe such things enhance our security vis a vis North Korea and Iran, so you might be correct there. I still find their logic unconvincing, and the actual political fallout--the guaranteed results--are more tensions with Moscow. Whether that's worth the trade off, I guess we'll see.

[Tim Partlett]

The reason I think it is a non-sequitur, is because I think you are conflating the logic supporting Iran's threat, with the logic supporting the fact that the missile shield is aimed at Iran. Whether Iran is or is not a serious threat doesn't turn the shield in Moscow's direction. The facts, as far as they have been shown, are that the shield clearly intercepts only missiles fired from Iran and North Korea. Russia's missiles would be fired over the Arctic, and not Poland.

It could be argued that they could intercept Russian missiles aimed at Europe, but I'm not convinced. The shield is primarily aimed at intercepting ICBMs, because they have time to track and target these missiles. If Russia fired hundreds of SRBMs at Europe, which it would if it wanted to ensure a successful strike, a missile defence in Poland would not have time to take them out. That's why the US wants forward bases in the first place: because picking them up only as they close in on American shores would be too late.

Russian politicians are well aware of the facts, unlike the general population of USA, Europe or Russia, so I think they are just making a fuss for domestic political purposes, not because they fear the US plans to focus the shield against them.

[TheWombat]

I see your point, but I still think that whether Moscow has a technically compelling reason for objecting to the missile systems in Eastern Europe or not, the fact that they are willing to oppose them so vociferously makes their deployment something to think about carefully--is the marginally useful (at best, IMO) deployment of an ABM system against a presumptive threat that, again IMO, is not terribly likely, worth the angst?

Then again, I'm not a fan of ABM systems in general, though I could be convinced otherwise I suppose.

The reason I think it is a non-sequitur, is because I think you are conflating the logic supporting Iran's threat, with the logic supporting the fact that the missile shield is aimed at Iran. Whether Iran is or is not a serious threat doesn't turn the shield in Moscow's direction. The facts, as far as they have been shown, are that the shield clearly intercepts only missiles fired from Iran and North Korea. Russia's missiles would be fired over the Arctic, and not Poland.

It could be argued that they could intercept Russian missiles aimed at Europe, but I'm not convinced. The shield is primarily aimed at intercepting ICBMs, because they have time to track and target these missiles. If Russia fired hundreds of SRBMs at Europe, which it would if it wanted to ensure a successful strike, a missile defence in Poland would not have time to take them out. That's why the US wants forward bases in the first place: because picking them up only as they close in on American shores would be too late.

Russian politicians are well aware of the facts, unlike the general population of USA, Europe or Russia, so I think they are just making a fuss for domestic political purposes, not because they fear the US plans to focus the shield against them.

[roboczar]

The reason I think it is a non-sequitur, is because I think you are conflating the logic supporting Iran's threat, with the logic supporting the fact that the missile shield is aimed at Iran. Whether Iran is or is not a serious threat doesn't turn the shield in Moscow's direction. The facts, as far as they have been shown, are that the shield clearly intercepts only missiles fired from Iran and North Korea. Russia's missiles would be fired over the Arctic, and not Poland.

I disagree that Poland is a vector for North Korean missiles. Their advantage is in the North Pacific, not over Russia and Central Europe. Iran, Pakistan and India are plausible only under the assumption that Iran has the capability to do so, or that Pakistan/India have the will to do so.

Facts point to all three being highly unlikely in any context within the next 50 years.

It certainly is useful for missiles deployed in central asia, however. Too far south for a meaningful polar trajectory, but pass over CE and the Mediterranean on the way to the US. Just find a globe, get a piece of string and see for yourself. Mark it at the length equivalent to 5,000 - 6,000 miles and you have your suspect launch points.

Russia is certainly right to assume it's targeted at them. Because it is.

[Tim Partlett]

I disagree that Poland is a vector for North Korean missiles.

So would I. Look at the maps posted above. Alaska is the vector for North Korean missiles, Poland for Iran. Amazingly enough it's Alaska and Poland, and other countries on these routes, that are getting the missile bases, and not north America where the most Russian missiles would come.

Why, if the aim was to target Russian missiles, did the US choose Poland over Lithuania as a base? Why not place them in the other Baltic countries who both said they would take them. Why did the US negotiate with Denmark and not Norway or Sweden?

I don't support the missile shield, but it's pretty obvious that any Russian missiles travelling on that vector are coincidence, unless you are paranoid.

[roboczar]

I don't support the missile shield, but it's pretty obvious that any Russian missiles travelling on that vector are coincidence, unless you are paranoid.

The 33 Guards Missile Army at Omsk use that attack vector as well. They control the silo-based and mobile ICBMs in Central Asia. SS-25 and SS-18 class strategic arms are not immune to new ABM technology like the SS-27 missile, which is in forward deployment on a polar vector.

So not paranoia, no. Just a good sense of what Russia's strategic capabilities are.

[roboczar]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Poland is optimal for an (however unlikely) attack from Iran, but the dual-use nature of the placement is largely being passed over. Russia knows better, and is calling us on the bluff.

[Tim Partlett]

I can't buy that "dual use" idea. If the aim of the shield is to block Russian nuclear weapons, why only target a tiny proportion of them that just happen to be on the same vector as potential Iranian missiles. What's the point? The US would stop a few Russian missiles but miss the thousands that pour over the Arctic?

I'm sure the Polish based missiles would target anything Russia fired, but that's obviously not their purpose, any more than the purpose of British ships in the North Sea is to target the Russian Navy. Thinking that just because they could, that means they plan to, is paranoia, especially when there's a clear and obvious alternative threat.

[Sarkus]

I think the Russians are presenting this as a "clear and present" danger for internal consumption, not because they really believe it. The real issue for them is the long-term impact of what happens if the US actually develops a usable missile shield system. It's much like Gorbachev's attempts to stop the "Star Wars" stuff back in the 1980s - if one power has the ability to protect itself from missile based attacks, it potentially changes how people think about the use of nuclear weapons. If there is no mutually assured destruction reality, then what?

In the short term a missile shield is going to be limited, but in the long term it could potentially set-off another arms race.

[roboczar]

Ballistic missiles are most vulnerable in their boost phase, not excluding even the SS-27, which has re-entry phase countermeasures that as far as we know cannot be defeated. The earlier in the boost phase you can deploy your defensive missiles the better, which makes a placement near the borders of Russia and launch platforms in European Russia beneficial to defense. Even with missiles being launched in and around Vladimir oblast on a polar vector, you still have a shot of eliminating them in the early boost phase.

The potential applications to defense by placing the system in Poland are numerous, which is why it's such a good site practically and politically. The initial defense system as planned could be overloaded in an assault, but having one system opens the door to future expansion. Further expansion could limit the ability of Russia's static silo-based arms to reach their targets if destroyed in early boost phase.

[Tim Partlett]

Ballistic missiles are most vulnerable in their boost phase, not excluding even the SS-27, which has re-entry phase countermeasures that as far as we know cannot be defeated. The earlier in the boost phase you can deploy your defensive missiles the better, which makes a placement near the borders of Russia and launch platforms in European Russia beneficial to defense. Even with missiles being launched in and around Vladimir oblast on a polar vector, you still have a shot of eliminating them in the early boost phase.

Excluding Kaliningrad (which isn't nuclear), the nearest point on the Russian border to Poland is 500km. Assuming that the US put their base right on the Belarus border, and the Russians conveniently place all their missiles at the same point on their border for easy destruction, the US defence missiles would still have to travel at an average of 6000km/h to reach the Russian missiles in their 5 minute boost phase window. And that assumes they instantly detect the launch and are able to launch instantly too.

Even in that ridiculously ideal situation, once they had travelled the 500km to the conveniantly located Russian missiles, they'd still have to catch up with them, by which time they would be out of their boost phase and several hundred kilometers en route to the US. The SS-27 is reputed to be the fastest missile in the world, so that would be quite a task to catch up with it.

The current US Patriot missile can manage, at a push, 3600km/h, but unfortunately only has a range of 70km, meaning it would drop down somewhere in the Belarus border region. Even the next generation can only manage Mach 5. The 9000km/h (max) Israeli Arrow could possibly make the 500km in the five minute window, if only it could go further than 90km.

There's a reason these bases have to be on the flight path of the missiles they are trying to take down. Chasing after missiles that are going as fast, or faster, than the missiles they are trying to take them down doesn't allow for firing across thousands of kilometers into the Russian hinterland, where the real Russian missile threat lies.

As I said: believing these missiles are aimed at Russian launches is paranoia.

[Linoleum]

You don't want your counter-missile system to be in strike range of a stealthed cruise missile.

[Sarkus]

Excluding Kaliningrad (which isn't nuclear), the nearest point on the Russian border to Poland is 500km. Assuming that the US put their base right on the Belarus border, and the Russians conveniently place all their missiles at the same point on their border for easy destruction, the US defence missiles would still have to travel at an average of 6000km/h to reach the Russian missiles in their 5 minute boost phase window. And that assumes they instantly detect the launch and are able to launch instantly too.

Even in that ridiculously ideal situation, once they had travelled the 500km to the conveniantly located Russian missiles, they'd still have to catch up with them, by which time they would be out of their boost phase and several hundred kilometers en route to the US. The SS-27 is reputed to be the fastest missile in the world, so that would be quite a task to catch up with it.

The current US Patriot missile can manage, at a push, 3600km/h, but unfortunately only has a range of 70km, meaning it would drop down somewhere in the Belarus border region. Even the next generation can only manage Mach 5. The 9000km/h (max) Israeli Arrow could possibly make the 500km in the five minute window, if only it could go further than 90km.

There's a reason these bases have to be on the flight path of the missiles they are trying to take down. Chasing after missiles that are going as fast, or faster, than the missiles they are trying to take them down doesn't allow for firing across thousands of kilometers into the Russian hinterland, where the real Russian missile threat lies.

As I said: believing these missiles are aimed at Russian launches is paranoia.

I'm not arguing that the base in Poland is aimed at Russian missiles. I do believe that its goal is to deal with Iran/middle east launched missiles.

My point, however, is that once the technology matures it would be pretty easy for the US to deploy other bases that would protect us from other sources. That's what I think the Russians are afraid of, because to counter that they will be pressured to invest into and build their own missile defense system and/or make new missiles that are not vulnerable, etc., and on to a new arms race.

[ConayR]

You don't want your counter-missile system to be in strike range of a stealthed cruise missile.
But even if it is, you get a heads-up on the imminent attack. There are multiple benefits (for USA) from having anti-missile system far from US borders.

[Tim Partlett]

Lol. Sorry about that Sarkus, I quoted you by mistake for some reason. I actually agree with what you said. My reply was definitely not directed at you :).

[Linoleum]

But even if it is, you get a heads-up on the imminent attack. There are multiple benefits (for USA) from having anti-missile system far from US borders.

Not really, maybe a 60 second interval between orbital assets detecting nuclear detonations and ICBM launches...

[ConayR]

How long does it take for a missile to travel from Iran to US? It probably travels with 10-15k mph and distance is about 7k miles. Since it would be ballistic missile it will effectively travel twice the distance so it should take 50-100 minutes from launch to impact. Am I correct? One minute sounds like a reasonable heads-up.

[Sarkus]

How long does it take for a missile to travel from Iran to US? It probably travels with 10-15k mph and distance is about 7k miles. Since it would be ballistic missile it will effectively travel twice the distance so it should take 50-100 minutes from launch to impact. Am I correct? One minute sounds like a reasonable heads-up.

It obviously depends on the missile and how far away it is launched from. However, the typical cold war example was that it would take about 30 minutes from launch detection until the target was hit if the Soviets launched a missile at us. Iranian capabilities would presumbably be less than that at least at first, but modern technology means they could also eventually end up with much faster missiles.

The system currently being deployed in AK and intended for Poland involves hitting a missile while it is outside the atmosphere. A typical ICBM launched from the other side of the world would be out of the atmosphere for up to 25 minutes. The locations in Poland and Alaska would presumably allow for several attempts at shooting down the missile, and also allow for a last ditch attempt to take the missile down with current aircraft and ground based systems (like the Patriot) that try to hit the missile after reentry.

[Grifman]

Спасибо.



Plans are cheap. It's the carrier movements (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/17775.html) that make me nervous.

There are two carriers there now. The Enterprise is replacing one that is scheduled to leave. Did you even bother to read the article?

[magnet]

There are two carriers there now. The Enterprise is replacing one that is scheduled to leave. Did you even bother to read the article?

This is why I was nervous:

The U.S. military added a second aircraft carrier earlier this year when tensions between Washington and Tehran peaked.

[Anti-Bunny]

I think I've defended the shield in the past, but Obama probably made the right move in dumping the missile shield.

[Linoleum]

Unfortunately the US still appears to be committing itself to stationing SM-3 and PAC-3 in Europe.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Ballistic Missile Defense is becoming a Naval issue. I didn't like the system in Europe for political and security reasons. I thought it was a destabilizing force and an unnecessary anchor that would tie us to central Europe but China is now in the process of developing and perhaps even fielding a carrier killing ballistic missile.

We have to develop a counter measure but its going to be mobile and Sea based. Missiles in Poland have a limited utility against this sort of threat.

Latest issue of Proceedings has a good article on the Chinese program.

[Linoleum]

A potential hard counter to that would probably be a variant of SM-3, although the theoretical Chinese warhead is dependent on external real-time targeting information updates. That's both a technical challenge and a weak link, to put it mildly.

[Phil_Stein]

Well, it's good to see this action as a nudge inducing more mellow behavior from Iran.

Oh wait.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

===

Edit:

Huh - it seems that the headline and maybe the tone and/or other stuff in the article changed since the time I first read it. At that time, it was emphasizing re-iterated anti-Holocaust rhetoric and either an attack or a killing (don't remember which) on an opposition figure.

[salwon]

Ah Iran - where the maniacal President gets attacked for not hating Israel enough.

[TheWombat]

The BBC coverage of the "Quds Day" rallies seemed to indicate that Ahmadinijad was in rare form, not only denying the Holocaust but also blaming the Jews for what happened even though he says it didn't happen. BBC also had reports of pretty large opposition demonstrations, whether separate from the main rally or internal to it, where they were calling Ahmadinijad a liar, etc.

[TheWombat]

I suspect the target of the scrapping of the ABM stuff was Moscow, not Tehran. The Iranians didn't seem to care one way or another whether we put missiles in Poland. Where no Jews were killed in WWII, and where, if they WERE killed, they deserved it. According to the Iranian President, at least.


Well, it's good to see this action as a nudge inducing more mellow behavior from Iran.

Oh wait.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

===

Edit:

Huh - it seems that the headline and maybe the tone and/or other stuff in the article changed since the time I first read it. At that time, it was emphasizing re-iterated anti-Holocaust rhetoric and either an attack or a killing (don't remember which) on an opposition figure.

[cesare]

I suspect the target of the scrapping of the ABM stuff was Moscow, not Tehran.

This. The best part was that after jumping up and down for years and insisting that the missile defense was aimed at Iran and not Russia, conservatives then freaked out that plans to scrap the bases was an appeasement of Russia (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/obama_admin_smears_missile_def.asp).

[Jason McCullough]

The CBPP roundup (http://pr.thinkprogress.org/) is fun for the image:

http://images2.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/sidebar.jpg

[Incendiary Lemon]

That's both a technical challenge and a weak link, to put it mildly.

Agreed.

[Tim Partlett]

This. The best part was that after jumping up and down for years and insisting that the missile defense was aimed at Iran and not Russia, conservatives then freaked out that plans to scrap the bases was an appeasement of Russia (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/obama_admin_smears_missile_def.asp).

It is possible for it to be an appeasement of Russia and that they really were aimed at Iran. If your neighbour is insane, and believes your anti-burglar devices are aimed at him, and threatens to smash them up if you don't remove them, then removing them is appeasement.

[schleprock]

It is possible for it to be an appeasement of Russia and that they really were aimed at Iran. If your neighbour is insane, and believes your anti-burglar devices are aimed at him, and threatens to smash them up if you don't remove them, then removing them is appeasement.

It might be. But the problem here is that the Russian objection is pretty rational, rather than being insane.

From what I read -- It sounds like the problem from Russia isn't so much the missiles, as it is the associated support bases and personel. The same system deployed in Alaska comprises installations of hundreds of acres with hardened silos and 200 permanent military personel on site for maintenance/security/operations.

The missile system probably doesn't even work, but permanent US military bases in Poland are a provocative move. It exposes Russia as weak in Eastern Europe and forces them to either answer the provocation in some way or watch their sphere of influence eroded publicly.

I know appeasement has nasty 1939 overtones, but it's still reasonable to fold a pointlessly aggressive position to conserve political and diplomatic influence for more major problems like proliferation.

[TheWombat]

I'd tend to agree. Putin and company aren't my idea of the ideal dinner guests or neighbors either, but there's little to be gained by provoking them for such a paltry return on the investment.

It might be. But the problem here is that the Russian objection is pretty rational, rather than being insane.

From what I read -- It sounds like the problem from Russia isn't so much the missiles, as it is the associated support bases and personel. The same system deployed in Alaska comprises installations of hundreds of acres with hardened silos and 200 permanent military personel on site for maintenance/security/operations.

The missile system probably doesn't even work, but permanent US military bases in Poland are a provocative move. It exposes Russia as weak in Eastern Europe and forces them to either answer the provocation in some way or watch their sphere of influence eroded publicly.

I know appeasement has nasty 1939 overtones, but it's still reasonable to fold a pointlessly aggressive position to conserve political and diplomatic influence for more major problems like proliferation.

[bago]

I'm fairly sure there was a US freakout once when Soviet missiles were placed in a country neighboring the US this one time. It was almost like a provocation of sorts. What was it called again?

[Tim Partlett]

It might be. But the problem here is that the Russian objection is pretty rational, rather than being insane.

Claims that the missiles are aimed at Russia are irrational, which is what I was responding to. Of course it's perfectly rational, if not agreeable, for a nation like Russia to be concerned about superpower developments in what it regards as its "sphere of influence".

Given that the Russian government knows exactly how their missiles reach the US, i.e. not by flying over Poland, I've always been certain that the objections by the Russians were for other reasons, probably uglier ones which they'd not like to express directly, like diverting public opinion away from domestic problems to traditional international bad guys.

[TheWombat]

Claims that the missiles are aimed at Russia are irrational, which is what I was responding to. Of course it's perfectly rational, if not agreeable, for a nation like Russia to be concerned about superpower developments in what it regards as its "sphere of influence".

Given that the Russian government knows exactly how their missiles reach the US, i.e. not by flying over Poland, I've always been certain that the objections by the Russians were for other reasons, probably uglier ones which they'd not like to express directly, like diverting public opinion away from domestic problems to traditional international bad guys.

Oh, I think it's pretty certain that Moscow is using foreign bogeymen to whip up nationalist ire and divert attention from the kleptocracy that seems to be entrenching in power. Nothing new here, of course--it's as old as the Tzars.