Missile Shield - Russia retaliates.

[Gromit]

The last thing Russia wants is another arms race, the last one brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the US have now broken the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with their plans for a missile shield. The treaty imposed strict limits on the development of missile defence systems.

In 2001, Putin said:

"We confirmed our adherence to the ABM treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability,"

However, now the US have broken the treaty, the Russians have now retaliated with plans to again point their remaining missiles our way and the Cold War looks well and truely on again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2007/06/04/wputin04.xml

Do you agree with any of the following statements or do you have another theory:

1. Russia has always been a threat and the treaty is outdated and need breaking

2. America are worried by Russia's control of fuel reserves and wish to start an arms race to rein in Russia's influence.

3. US no longer wants to fight dirty wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in which people die, and prefers cold war in which a lot of sabre -rattling goes on but no one actually dies.

4. Or none of the above. What do you think?

[Loosehead]

4. Russia cannot afford to get in a tech race with the US, so they are making noises early on. The whole "we are pointing our missiles at Europe" is just a pontless statement. The targets can selected at the time anyway, It's Putin trying to avoid getting into an expensive "shield" race. He's worried that the US shield will make his nukes useless. Personally I think the US will struggle to achieve a reliable shield. Remember "Star Wars", nice idea, not really do able..

[Joe_the_Lion]

1) Russia poses absolutely no threat whatsoever to the west. They are a collapsed country who haven't even got the money to fund a school disco, let alone another arms race.

2) As a geographically located northern frontier to the middle east, I imagine diplomatic relations with Russia are an all time high. Also with their country so poor, America could force cheaper oil prices, therefore benefitting the USA (and us).

3) They couldn't give a monkey's b0llock. War is war is war. Apart from the "quiet" Chinese reserves, America could take on the world and still win if the proverbial hit the fan.

[anotheoldgit]

Regarding the treaty being outdated and needs breaking. If it is indeed outdated then it should not be broken by either side. It should be re-negotiated round the table with the sides involved.

Why is the European Union allowing America to go ahead with this wall of missles? Can you blame Russia threatening retaliation? What would America's reaction be if some country was to do the same so close to their borders?

' prefers cold war in which a lot of sabre -rattling goes on but no one actually dies '.

A cold war is a constant threat of a war in which everyone dies.

[kwicky]

The USA has got the hump in a big way. They were advised by Russia to solve the Iraq crisis in a peaceful way before the war started. Russia who was friendly with Iraq had convinced Saddam to allow in weapons inspectors to prove they had no weapons of mass destruction. But because of the build up of coalition troops on the border, rather than lose face decided to attack anyway. The point proved that the USA was a warfaring nation and did not believe in consultation unlike the Russians who have used the policy ever since in world affairs.
This missile defence situation is provocative and aimed at destabilising the region, away from its own shores of course. Two wrongs do not make a right but just like the Iraq invasion are trying to create a new cold war. I hope the non alligned people like myself see this!

[kwicky]

Now that this subject is more topical it might be worth re-stating a post that was put up last month!

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Current-Af fairs/Question398831.html

[honest_joe]

1. Under Putin Russia was never a threat until it found wealth with its gas and oil fields. Is it jealousy?
2. Russia's influence has shot up because it treats any country big or small with equal respect and even with Tony Blair willing to discuss problems on a level playing field.
3. If they have such little consideration for their own troops dying daily in Iraq and unwilling to admit defeat, the soft option is hardly creditable.

[ruby27]

I find this question very interesting and the answer is not so clear that I do not have to give some genuine thought to what my views are and why. Finally plump for 2. as have always been anti N America and would always judge critically even with out facts or reason, just my bias.

Which leads me on to ponder on why does such a topical and potentially dangerous situation when posed as a question elicit so few replies when you compare them to later posts that have racism, religious hatred or some kind of xenophobia. Is it because those sort of threads are all to often rants which are impressive for their vitriol but some what lacking in any reason and debate? Whereas this topic requires some thought?

[maxximus]

i would also lean towards door no.2 although i would like to remind ruby, north america is canada, mexico and the u.s. and to a mexican or canadian. it's a bit like referring to a scot or an irishman as english, cheers! this article although a little lengthy, explains it very well, it also answers stokeace's question ' russia' above. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =va&aid=3408

[ruby27]

maxximus thank you. I have always been so careful not to refer to just America and thereby offend those from S America I had never thought. I did always think Canada and Mexico as separate but when it comes to the continent its not is it. Will be more mindful of my language in future