Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:42 AM EDT The Associated Press By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
MOSCOW (AP) — President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe, suggesting Washington has triggered a new arms race.
In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.
"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.
Putin described the tests of a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile as part of the Russian response to the planned deployment of new U.S. military bases and missile defense sites in ex-Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe.
He assailed the United States and other NATO members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.
"We have signed and ratified the CFE and are fully implementing it. We have pulled out all our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia to (locations) behind the Ural Mountains and cut our military by 300,000 men," Putin said.
"And what about our partners? They are filling Eastern Europe with new weapons. A new base in Bulgaria, another one in Romania, a (missile defense) site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic," he said. "What we are supposed to do? We can't just sit back and look at that."
Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia.
Putin reaffirmed his warning that Russia would opt out of the CFE treaty altogether if NATO nations fail to ratify its amended version.
"Either you ratify the treaty and start observing it, or we will opt out of it," Putin said.
In remarks clearly directed against Washington, Putin blasted those "who want to dictate their will to all others regardless of international norms and law."
"It's dangerous and harmful," he added. "Norms of the international law were replaced with political expediency. We view it as diktat and imperialism."
Russia this week initiated an international conference to be held in Austria in early June to discuss the situation around the CFE treaty.
Putin described the tests of new missiles conducted by Russia on Tuesday as a necessary response to the Western action.
"There is no reason to fear these actions by Russia, they aren't aggressive. It's merely a response to tough and unfounded unilateral actions by our partners," he said. "These actions are aimed at preserving a global balance."
In one missile test Tuesday, a prototype of new Russia's intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, officials said. Russia's military also tested a new cruise missile based on the existing short-range Iskander missile.
"We will keep modernizing our potential," Putin said.
Arlos wrote:Gotta love this administration's violating treaties coming home to roost, eh? (There's a reason the ABM treaty was in place)
Which treaty that we supposedly violated are you referring to?
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Sounds like a bunch of excuses from Putin to me. He wants to start up the Russian war machine again and this is as good a reason as any.
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
OK, I just lo0oked it up. The US, under our beloved president Shrub, pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. The first time in history that the US has backed out of a signed and ratified arms control treaty.
The problem with developing a perfect defense is that it also leads to the ability to have a consequence free offense. If we were immune to all russian nuclear retaliation, what would stop us from nuking them into radioactive glass? That's why ABM technology is HIGHLY inflammatory, especially given that we're planning on deploying it to countries that were previously part of the soviet block.
It's not inflammatory, as the ABM defense system is only capable of shooting down a handful of missiles. In other words, missiles fired from a country like Iran. The system poses zero threat to Russia's *thousands* of nuclear missiles, which makes Putin using this argument as a scapegoat for him to overtly begin more military spending particularly scary.
Another article on the subject, that pretty much outlines numatu's point.
I have to wonder what Putin's response to an offer of joint development and improvement of missile shield technology would be.
If missile shield technology creates a situation where the only viable option to counter it is to overwhelm it, and it's widespread enough through out the world it could create and interesting situation. Suppose it made it economically unattractive to pursue nuclear missile technology for purposes of world status, that it was more economically viable for developing nations to spend resources on developing private sector economies. That situation could set the stage for a much safer world. It also would facilitate growth of the use of nuclear power plants in that there would be less concern about countries developing nuclear capability... that would be a plus for the environment as well.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I disagree with your idea that a ABM system would stop attacks, Lueyan. More likely attackers would simply find new vehicles to carry the weapons; like a suitcase.
Eziekial wrote:I disagree with your idea that a ABM system would stop attacks, Lueyan. More likely attackers would simply find new vehicles to carry the weapons; like a suitcase.
Yes there is that, and while I'm not a nuclear physicist it's my understanding that the technology involved in a suitcase nuke is much more advanced then a nuclear warhead. True that it wouldn't remove the threat entirely, but I still think it would diminish it to a large extent.
I really doubt Putin would go for it anyway, the goal of removing the status of being nuclear capable is in direct contradiction to his current goals.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Eziekial wrote:I disagree with your idea that a ABM system would stop attacks, Lueyan. More likely attackers would simply find new vehicles to carry the weapons; like a suitcase.
Yes there is that, and while I'm not a nuclear physicist it's my understanding that the technology involved in a suitcase nuke is much more advanced then a nuclear warhead. True that it wouldn't remove the threat entirely, but I still think it would diminish it to a large extent.
I really doubt Putin would go for it anyway, the goal of removing the status of being nuclear capable is in direct contradiction to his current goals.
Please define suitcase nuke.
A nuclear device capable of leveling cities that fits inside of a suitcase is a fabrication. The technology does not exist & probably will not exist ever.
A nuclear device capable of leveling cities that fits inside of a van is a possibility.
The difficulty is the sheer weight of the material to yield a large enough payload to cause any serious damage... unless you are simply talking about a dirty bomb. Once again, you would need more than a suitcase to cause any sort of significant threat due to the forces that you would need to generate in order to propogate the nuclear material over a large area.
Given that information, I would say that a "nuclear warhead" (which I am assuming is attached to some sort of missile) is far more advanced technology due to the launch & flight system requirements.
Adam, it's impossible to take you seriously with Elwood Blues as your avatar.
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
Any nuclear weapon that is reasonably portable and it's true nature reasonably concealable.
10sun wrote:A nuclear device capable of leveling cities that fits inside of a suitcase is a fabrication. The technology does not exist & probably will not exist ever.
A nuclear device capable of leveling cities that fits inside of a van is a possibility.
The difficulty is the sheer weight of the material to yield a large enough payload to cause any serious damage... unless you are simply talking about a dirty bomb. Once again, you would need more than a suitcase to cause any sort of significant threat due to the forces that you would need to generate in order to propogate the nuclear material over a large area.
So comparable destructive force to a missile based war head isn't easily achievable and transportable, at least at this time.
10sun wrote:Given that information, I would say that a "nuclear warhead" (which I am assuming is attached to some sort of missile) is far more advanced technology due to the launch & flight system requirements.
I see your point, but I think you missed a bit what I was getting at. If you were developing nuclear weapons, and the goal was to build any weapon which one would you logically develop first given that most country have at least some form of missile technology, and certainly any that would be looking at developing nuclear weapons would likely already have fairly advanced missile or rocket technology developed.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
"Shields" have been around for a long time and yet man comes up with better weapons to rend the most advanced shields useless. "Star Wars" will be no different.
Yet we still make and improve upon shields, then again it is human nature that when building something unstoppable to make it only unstoppable for your adversaries. So yea Ziek it's a pipe dream... but really that part aside it would be a pipe dream that key nations would be up for it anyway.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Hehe perhaps I miss represented my musings... I wasn't really advocating it, just throwing it out there to chew on.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I understand. I think the whole program is stupid. It will not deter nor defend us and our allies from attacks. I mean, who's going to start firing missles at Poland? It's a waste of money; plain and simple. Putin is just using it as cover to concel his more authoritarian position within Russia. It's no secret he's moving that country back to a totalitarian state.
Eziekial wrote:I understand. I think the whole program is stupid. It will not deter nor defend us and our allies from attacks. I mean, who's going to start firing missles at Poland? It's a waste of money; plain and simple. Putin is just using it as cover to concel his more authoritarian position within Russia. It's no secret he's moving that country back to a totalitarian state.
Well I do disagree with you on it not deterring or defending. Of course the technology isn't perfect in a given ratio of one incoming one missile fired to shoot it down as there is a measurable chance of a "miss" (as I recall it was somewhere around 90 percent effective), however it's not just one missile fired at an incoming, it's multiple which reduces the chances of failure to virtually nill.
I do believe the notion that these missile shields are not being put into place due to concerns about Russia (as I mentioned before the shields can be overwhelmed by numbers), but because of fears of attacks of a limited numbers nature. Poland for example has been threatened by Al-Qaedea's European branch due to it's involvement in Iraq. It is important to note that this really isn't going to be directly related to Iran, a country that supports Hezbollah. It can not be ignored however that there is un-official competition between Hezbollah and Al-Qaedea as to which group is the "real soldiers for Islam". Two terrorist organization in competition to prove they are the ones to fight for the prorogation of Islam and destroy the evil infidels, and one of them supported by a nation where there are indications of nuclear weapons development should make anyone in the region who would be seen by both groups as a target nervous.
Sure missile shields won't eliminate all threats, but locking the door to your house doesn't prevent a burglar from breaking a window either.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
