Russia threatens military response to US missiles

[OhioChick]

Source: AP

Aug 26, 2:53 PM EDT

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is warning his country may respond to a U.S. missile shield in Europe through military means.

Medvedev says that the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders "will of course create additional tensions."

"We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.

Russian officials have already warned of a military response to the U.S. plans, but the statement by the Russian leader was likely to further aggravate already tense relations with the West. The comments come after Medvedev recognized two Georgian regions as independent nations, prompting criticism from the U.S. and Europe.



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUSSIA_GEORGIA?S...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Oh, that's wonderful!

And I'm more than sure that McCain would continue to make things tense with Russia...

Whereas Obama will defuse the situation promptly.

Damn.

[antisoros]

15. ABM Madness

What will the Russians do, in face of ABM protected nukes? The same thing they threatened during the Euro-missile crisis of the 'eighties: they will produce more rockets with multiple warheads. When both sides recognized the folly of that type of confrontation, the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) began. In addition, pro-missile governments were toppled.

So what will happen now? Pro ABM governments will fall. START talks will begin again. Americans will look at Bush-Cheney as war criminals.

[livetohike]

2. This is eerily like the JFK era.....

I was only eight years old in 1960, but I remember some things and I don't like this. We need Obama, the smart people and the adults in there NOW.

[bjobotts]

17. Yeah but we are the ones trying to put "missiles in Cuba"

[Igel]

22. With a subtle difference.

ABM batteries as planned are small, and if you shoot an AMB missile at Moscow it wouldn't do much damage. ABMs are actually easy to overwhelm, whether the planned ICBM-intercept system or the Patriot system. The Patriots have to be nearby; the other, preferably out of harm's way.

ICBM stockpiles aren't all that small, and don't need to be all that close to be effective. They just have to be close to make sure they're a surprise, that the reaction time from the one being attacked is kept as small as possible to minimize any response. But each ICBM missile aimed at DC would do a lot of damage. A lot.

Imagine being pissed because your neighbor has a handgun in a high-crime area and keeps it on a shelf in the bedroom closet. Your response--since you have a lot more money and power--is to point 20 cruise missiles at the neighbor's house and business, and keep them prepped for launch. After all, both are weapons, both could be used offensively. Would you claim that your reponses are equivalent? Even if the neighbor denies it, but probably does think that it's your kid that's doing the burglaries in the neighborhood, so the gun's protection against him?

I doubt it.

When comparing grapes and elephants as somehow equivalent, at least make sure the elephant's purple.

[SpikeTss]

25. This is not at all the purpose of the missile shield

and if you shoot an AMB missile at Moscow it wouldn't do much damage

The missile shield has two main purposes

The second reason is the ability to use it as an offensive weapon. Foremost as a first strike system against Iran. It's not intended to be used against cities, but rockets and launch platforms. It should guarantee that Iran has very limited or no means of retribution after a first strike from our military. I could also be used against Russia, which - again - makes the missile shield an offensive weapon.

The first reason is of course to steal money from the tax payer - from US - for the benefit of the wealthy pigs in the war industries. It's a system that always works, regardless who's president. The staff of the current administration has of course gathered a lot of experience about the finer mechanisms of stealing our money, which should be used for our own benefit instead being handed over to the greedy pigs in the MIC:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford
Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets
had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know
about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew
about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect
billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the
money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day
work."

[Strelnikov_]

3. This is all happening too fast. The thirteenth b'ak'tun does not end until Dec. 2012 n/t

[Richard D]

6. Well,

Even though it's ending, the time period between now and then will be increasingly conflictive, intense and weird. If you believe that stuff, anyway.

[bluesmail]

4. The DNC is a distraction from the nuclear mess that could result

missiles fired all over the place. Crap.

[madrchsod]

5. blah, blah. blah

dimitry...your masters will stop you from doing anything to disrupt their life styles...

[MadMaddie]

7. Guess ole Condi in all her Russian expertise couldn't have

seen that coming...

I have a Russian friend who says that she is an idiot and she does not understand that the Russian mindset is one of crazy and they have no problem fighting with anyone.

Stupid, Stupid Condi..

[SpiralHawk]

8. Condi = worst Secretary of State ever.

She is a pox upon America. Screws up everything.

Total fail. A true republicon.

[MadMaddie]

10. Agreed!

Not just as a politician but as a human, she was buying shoes while NO drowned!

[Festivito]

12. Stupid nothing. War is what she and the neocons want.

It keeps the military complex running while a Dem presides. Plus all the hatred they've fostered all over the middle east will bring them lots of money.

[bjobotts]

18. They are doing everthing possible to provoke a cokd war for Obama to inherit.

[bjobotts]

19. Can't get enough support for attacking Iran so this next best thing

[Igel]

23. She's more foolish than stupid.

But that goes for the entirety of the State Dept. and most policy-minded academics.

They confuse their world and their tools, their outlooks and reasoned positions, with everybody else's. Communication needs to be culturally appropriate; the US State Dept. has never convinced itself of anything other than believing that it is the ultimate in culturally appropriate. They are solipsistic. They deal themselves out of the game, and talk only to one group--themselves and those like them.

They confuse that group with the totality of people. That the US population makes the same fundamental error is lamentable.

When you see Rice get up and play Putin's game, you'll see the entire State Dept. bail. It'll make for horrible PR, as well, because the assumption will be that culturally appropriate communication to Putin, reported to Americans, must be culturally inappropriate. Vitriolic. Hateful. Because Americans aren't used to talking like that, and, well, we define the universal standard for culturally appropriate. Bush II made the same mistake; his idea of "culturally appropriate" was merely slightly different. Both Putin and Bush II are culturally narrow-minded and can't see past their blindness.

But it needs to be done. There are times when the way to conduct a conversation in another cultural framework is with vitriol, cursing, and the threat of violence, if not violence itself, to establish a working respect. There are times when lies and deceit are so assumed, that their absence is considered deceit or weakness. And there are times when the discussion has to be made without regard for what American "culturally appropriate" standards are.

[StClone]

9. Reagan tore down the wall and let the Russians out.

[CRK7376]

11. Hopefully Bush

will not offer comments such as "Bring em On"...We in the Army are tired after 5-6-7 years of war...

[amandabeech]

13. Both the U.S. and Russia are backing themselves into corners.

It sounds to me like the Russians are threatening an offensive military response, rather than a defensive response to defensive missiles.

That is simply not helpful to anyone.

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I'm not liking this one bit. Shrimp is no Ike, no Jack, no Lyndon or even no Tricky Dick. I hope that there are cooler heads in uniform and in second line positions who could head off any crazy response from Shrub and Darth.

[snot]

14. Seconded.

[Pete2069]

16. Bush Pulling same BS

Bush is pulling the same BS that Russia try with Kennedy and
that created the Cuba missile crisis.
Bush knows that Russia will not hold still for him to
surround them with missiles.
Bush said he was a war president and I be d... , this is the
first truth he told.   McSame has the same actions as Bush ,
but McCain is a little slower in the head.

[Igel]

24. Offensive/defensive. Big/little.

Between two terms big difference.

ICBMs -- offensive weapons. ABM -- defensive weapons. ICMBs destroy much. ABM missiles destroy little.

[NBachers]

20. Hot Damn! Hot Damn! It's the Cold War Again!

Never mind the fact that the missile defense shield is a complete multibillion dollar failure. How do we nullify treaties we've already signed with Poland and the Czech Republic?

These republicon traitors are doing everything they can to sabotage and handcuff the Obama presidency.

[northofdenali]

21. Welcome to the new cold war........

And I have missile sites in my back yard (almost) - courtesy of GWB and the Repuke Machine.

[harun]

26. I think there is actually a fair chance Russia might just fly in and

blow the shit out of those "anti-missile" systems. I mean what would the U.S. do about it? I'm betting they would leave whatever country it was done to out to dry.