• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia rebuilding military to neutralize Nato 'Threat'

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
President Dmitry Medvedev, who seeks to improve chilly ties with the United States, on Tuesday said Russia would rearm its military and boost nuclear forces because U.S.-led NATO is expanding towards Russia's borders.

Russia to rearm military as NATO expands: Medvedev

"Attempts to expand the military infrastructure of NATO near the borders of our country are continuing," Medvedev told an annual meeting with the Defence Ministry's staff.

Russia has described plans by the previous U.S. administration to grant NATO membership to ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia, and to deploy elements of a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe, as a direct threat to its national security.

Moscow has said it appreciates U.S. President Barack Obama's intention to give their ties a fresh start, though Medvedev, who will meet Obama in London on April 1, has said he expects Washington to match declarations with deeds.

Medvedev told Russia's top military brass that the prospect of NATO's expansion, combined with a threat of local crises and international terrorism, "requires a modernization of our armed forces, giving them a new modern shape."

He said Russia had the resources to fund this modernization, despite the current economic crisis.
"The primary task is to increase the combat readiness of our forces. First of all, our strategic nuclear forces. They must be able to fulfill all the necessary tasks to ensure Russia's security," Medvedev said.

"Another task on our agenda is the transfer of all combat units into the category of permanent readiness."

Medvedev said the large-scale modernization of the army and navy would begin in 2011.

Russia to rearm military as NATO expands: Medvedev

This is what you get when a stupid republican decides to build a military defence shield conviently beside Russia to defuse an Iranian threat to the west that currently does not exist. Place it in Turkey or in Israel for god sakes. WHY the eastern bloc?
 
Because it's supposed to also send a message to the Russians?


Medvedev means Bear; literally "eater of honey". Some suggest it's also possible that it means "knower of honey" ("Med" is honey; similar to "Mead").

I think he is living up to that persona. He is getting all the honey in the world, while Putin continues his dominance of the Russian politics.
 
No nation's freedom is in place because they are percieved by others as weak.
 
Russia to rearm military as NATO expands: Medvedev

This is what you get when a stupid republican decides to build a military defence shield conviently beside Russia to defuse an Iranian threat to the west that currently does not exist. Place it in Turkey or in Israel for god sakes. WHY the eastern bloc?



The "shield" provides about as much protection as a panty liner. It doesn't freakin work. And the Russians know this. Their repeated efforts to get in our faces are merely a pathetic attempt to persuade themselves that they are still a superpower. Their thinking is 30 years out of date. We should ignore this nonsense and avoid getting sucked backward in time -- otherwise, he next thing you know we'll be building a wooden stockade around Washington to keep the Apaches out.
 
This is what you get when a stupid republican decides to build a military defence shield conviently beside Russia to defuse an Iranian threat to the west that currently does not exist. Place it in Turkey or in Israel for god sakes. WHY the eastern bloc?
No, this is what you get when you have such blind partisan bigotry and/or BDS.

The MDS planned for Europe does not affect the Russian nuclear deterrent in any way. The Russians know this, and they also know that if they up enough stink about it, people like you will fall for it, and blame Bush for the up-scaling of Russian military activity.

That is, the Russians are using the MDS as an excuse to flex their muscle to their own ends, and rather than recognize it for what it is, you blame Bush.

To answer your question:
To work properly as a post-apogee midcourse/terminal phase defense system, the MDS must be situated near the area that it is to defend. Both Turkey and Israel are too close to the supposed Iranian launch sites to defednd Europe.
 
The "shield" provides about as much protection as a panty liner. It doesn't freakin work
This is a baseless assertion.


Their thinking is 30 years out of date. We should ignore this nonsense and avoid getting sucked backward in time
What you fail to realize is that it doesnt matter if they are 30 years out of date -- if they continue to act in a cold war manner, we are forced to react in a cold war manner.
 
Last edited:
The "shield" provides about as much protection as a panty liner. It doesn't freakin work. And the Russians know this. Their repeated efforts to get in our faces are merely a pathetic attempt to persuade themselves that they are still a superpower. Their thinking is 30 years out of date. We should ignore this nonsense and avoid getting sucked backward in time -- otherwise, he next thing you know we'll be building a wooden stockade around Washington to keep the Apaches out.

For being so low on the totem pole they sure whooped Sacks-a-villa and put Georgia down.
 
What none of you seem to realize is that for Russia the 'Cold War' never ceased.

True there was a short pause, but after the KGB (FSB) regained control of Russia, they pushed vast quantities of (Oil and Energy) money back into a rearmament policy.

Russia having repelled two aggressors seeks to deter any future aggressive behavior by any Nation that may at some time prove to be a threat.

Whether NATO (which to my mind is a paper tiger, individual countries within it's ranks decide whether to help or not based on their individual beliefs) and the West also decide to rearm is immaterial.

The Russian pschye is such that they must always be ready for invasion by any other Nation or coalition of Nations.
 
Because it's supposed to also send a message to the Russians?


Medvedev means Bear; literally "eater of honey". Some suggest it's also possible that it means "knower of honey" ("Med" is honey; similar to "Mead").

I think he is living up to that persona. He is getting all the honey in the world, while Putin continues his dominance of the Russian politics.

Exactly my point, thats precisely what i believe. So why are American politicians denying this?

The "shield" provides about as much protection as a panty liner. It doesn't freakin work.

Russia wants to restablish its sphere of influence again and its happening; economic instability and general instability in the eastern bloc states is as a result of a power shift. This shield will trash its hopes of restablishing fully that sphere of influence, or at least partially mess it up for them. This shield i useless. Its for Russia and Russia only; that is the agenda behind this mess. Its not for us Europeans, ignore them.
 
No, this is what you get when you have such blind partisan bigotry and/or BDS.

The MDS planned for Europe does not affect the Russian nuclear deterrent in any way. The Russians know this, and they also know that if they up enough stink about it, people like you will fall for it, and blame Bush for the up-scaling of Russian military activity.

That is, the Russians are using the MDS as an excuse to flex their muscle to their own ends, and rather than recognize it for what it is, you blame Bush.

To answer your question:
To work properly as a post-apogee midcourse/terminal phase defense system, the MDS must be situated near the area that it is to defend. Both Turkey and Israel are too close to the supposed Iranian launch sites to defednd Europe.

And where exactly are these launch sites then, Goobieman?

Who said anything about nucleur warheads anyway :roll:
 
What none of you seem to realize is that for Russia the 'Cold War' never ceased.

True there was a short pause, but after the KGB (FSB) regained control of Russia, they pushed vast quantities of (Oil and Energy) money back into a rearmament policy.

Russia having repelled two aggressors seeks to deter any future aggressive behavior by any Nation that may at some time prove to be a threat.

Whether NATO (which to my mind is a paper tiger, individual countries within it's ranks decide whether to help or not based on their individual beliefs) and the West also decide to rearm is immaterial.

The Russian pschye is such that they must always be ready for invasion by any other Nation or coalition of Nations.

I do not understand how this is strictly unique to Russians. In-fact I think governments are formed, in part, to protect people from foreign invaders, as the human condition is to fear anything that is different, especially if that thing is moving onto your land.
I do not think anybody seriously thinks the Cold War is over. Politicians might seem like they are trying to warm up to the Russians, but it would be a stretch to say that a certain American politician would take any warm feelins between the two states as serious business.
 
POLI 101: The Security Dilemma

One country constructs "defense" that could potentially be used as offense, or the full capabilities of the "defense" are not entirely known, and the opposing nation moves to reinforce its own defensive/offensive position. The perpetrator then responds and enhances their own defenses yet again, and the cycle continues.

The defense shield is pointless, expensive, petty posturing, and I don't believe we know for sure that it would work in a live situation.
 
POLI 101: The Security Dilemma

One country constructs "defense" that could potentially be used as offense, or the full capabilities of the "defense" are not entirely known, and the opposing nation moves to reinforce its own defensive/offensive position. The perpetrator then responds and enhances their own defenses yet again, and the cycle continues.

The defense shield is pointless, expensive, petty posturing, and I don't believe we know for sure that it would work in a live situation.

The defense shield is anything but pointless. In the event of a limited exchange it gives the president the option to mitigate the threat without escalating to a total nuclear apocalypse. You call that "pointless?"
 
I do not think this is entirely do to the missile shield, or that such was even the main reason.

Russia got embarrassed in the war against Georgia. While the final result was inevitable, Russia had many fighters, including Su-37s, shot down. It took 5 days to take out Georgia's air defenses, which for a country that size is quite a long time to say the least. The conflict exposed the age and inefficiency of the Russian military machine, and a responsible plan of carrying out reform would be launched in any nation following that operation.

Not completely unlike the US following Vietnam, Russia would be wise to move from a conscript force using obsolete tactics to a smaller, elite, entirely professional military.

By the way, Yeltsin said that would happen by 2010 so it shouldn't be a major surprise.
 
Last edited:
I do not think this is entirely do to the missile shield, or that such was even the main reason.

Russia got embarrassed in the war against Georgia. While the final result was inevitable, Russia had many fighters, including Su-37s, shot down. It took 5 days to take out Georgia's air defenses, which for a country that size is quite a long time to say the least. The conflict exposed the age and inefficiency of the Russian military machine, and a responsible plan of carrying out reform would be launched in any nation following that operation.

Not completely unlike the US following Vietnam, Russia would be wise to move from a conscript force using obsolete tactics to a smaller, elite, professional military.

It was a test that I bet all their analyzers will not put to waste. One I bet the U.S.A analyzed very closely also.
 
Because it's supposed to also send a message to the Russians?


Medvedev means Bear; literally "eater of honey". Some suggest it's also possible that it means "knower of honey" ("Med" is honey; similar to "Mead").

I think he is living up to that persona. He is getting all the honey in the world, while Putin continues his dominance of the Russian politics.

Now that Putin is no longer a head of state ... he can be liquidated.
 
And where exactly are these launch sites then, Goobieman?
Where would Iran have their launch sites... hmm... somwhere in Iran?
:confused:
 
POLI 101: The Security Dilemma
One country constructs "defense" that could potentially be used as offense, or the full capabilities of the "defense" are not entirely known...
This doesnt apply to the NMD/NMD-Europe, so the rest of your post is meaningless.
 
Both Turkey and Israel are too close to the supposed Iranian launch sites to defednd Europe.

What part of Iran? Its a pretty big country, if its on the eastern side of Iran then Turkey is an ideal location to place the shields, and Israel. If not, then it can be placed near or on the bosphorus. Or even if Turkey was too close anyway, theres other alternatives. Putting the shields near to the bosphorus even, is ideal, or even better, the eastern provinces of Turkey. Placing the shields near the bosphorus will provide protection for Western Europe, and Eastern European countries.
 
Last edited:
What part of Iran? Its a pretty big country, if its on the eastern side of Iran then Turkey is an ideal location to place the shield.
No. It isn't.

You know what post-apogee, midcourse/terminal-phase means, right?
And how that necessitates a certain placement of the system for it to be as effective as possible, right?
 
But Turkey is big. If placed on the bosphorus, the shield would be more then affective enough, when considering the distance between iran and turkey up to the bosphorus.
 
But Turkey is big. If placed on the bosphorus, the shield would be more then affective enough, when considering the distance between iran and turkey up to the bosphorus.
You didnt asnwr my questions, which leads me to the conclusion you do not know how the system works.

Not knowing how the system works precludes you from having any idea whatsoever where the interceptors can be placed and the system remain effective.
 
You didnt asnwr my questions, which leads me to the conclusion you do not know how the system works.

Not knowing how the system works precludes you from having any idea whatsoever where the interceptors can be placed and the system remain effective.

Lol no goobieman, thats just you that has no clue.

The midcourse phase of a ballistic missile trajectory allows the longest window of opportunity to intercept an incoming missile up to 20 minutes. This is the point where the missile has stopped thrusting so it follows a more predictable glide path. The midcourse interceptor and a variety of radars and other sensors have a longer time to track and engage the target compared to boost and terminal interceptors. Also, more than one interceptor could be launched to ensure a successful hit. Your point?
 
Lol no goobieman, thats just you that has no clue.
He who has no clue is clearly evidenced by your mish-mash below. :roll:

The midcourse phase of a ballistic missile trajectory allows the longest window of opportunity to intercept an incoming missile up to 20 minutes. This is the point where the missile has stopped thrusting so it follows a more predictable glide path. The midcourse interceptor and a variety of radars and other sensors have a longer time to track and engage the target compared to boost and terminal interceptors. Also, more than one interceptor could be launched to ensure a successful hit. Your point?
What you fail to grasp here is that for maximum effectiveness, the incoming warheads shoudl be falling roughly towards the interceptors lauch site. Interception of a warhead falling away from the launch site increases the deflection angle, forcing a more complicated intercept solution, and limiting the window for an effective intercept. This is why the US NMD is based in AK as well as CA.

So... your assessment of Turkey as an equally effective GBI site is wrong, as Turkey is about the half-way point on a ballistic trip for Iran to Europe.

Consider, too, that if you -were- right, and a interceptor base in Turkey -would- be as effecive as one in Poland/Czech Republic, then said site would be effective against Russian ICBMs as well.
 
Last edited:
But you dont know exactly WHERE the lauch sites in Iran will be placed Goobieman, so you cant really say that.
 
Back
Top Bottom