Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US ABM sites beside Russia and China - do you agree?

Options
  • 11-12-2016 1:22am
    #1
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭


    Do you agree with NATO and US policy of putting anti nuclear missile batteries on the borders of China and Russia?

    Both have reacted angrily to the moves which are designed to have not a total blanket against missiles coming from both (because that is not possible) but to have a deleterous effect on the numbers that would get through.

    If you take a look from the Russian perspective you might find it quite threatening and provocative.

    And with China some these sites are located on the soil of historic enemies.

    Russia has already put strategic nukes in to Kaliningrad to take out the sites at short notice any time.

    If we assume a nation has a right to defend itself - is it right for a superpower to restrict a nation's right to do that in this way?

    Is it a provocative act more likely to provoke retaliation?

    Or do you agree with this - that these are not democracies and are dodgy and potentially dangerous regimes to Western democracies that can not be trusted?

    This video shows the extent of the build up of some of these sites (from 16:50):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxQNc0NE8A


    One can imagine some irritation from both Russia and China behind the scenes!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Smoked Tuna
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭Smoked Tuna


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Do you agree with NATO and US policy of putting anti nuclear missile batteries on the borders of China and Russia?

    Both have reacted angrily to the moves which are designed to have not a total blanket against missiles coming from both (because that is not possible) but to have a deleterous effect on the numbers that would get through.

    If you take a look from the Russian perspective you might find it quite threatening and provocative.

    And with China some these sites are located on the soil of historic enemies.

    Russia has already put strategic nukes in to Kaliningrad to take out the sites at short notice any time.

    If we assume a nation has a right to defend itself - is it right for a superpower to restrict a nation's right to do that in this way?

    Is it a provocative act more likely to provoke retaliation?

    Or do you agree with this - that these are not democracies and are dodgy and potentially dangerous regimes to Western democracies that can not be trusted?

    This video shows the extent of the build up of some of these sites (from 16:50):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxQNc0NE8A


    One can imagine some irritation from both Russia and China behind the scenes!

    So Nato, USA and Russia all have missiles in position... just in case, no surprise really? Let's just hope it comes to nothing


  • Options
    #3
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    TBF.....I wouldn't like to have pigeons on my border with Donald Trump running the show.


  • Options
    #4
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Do you agree with NATO and US policy of putting anti nuclear missile batteries on the borders of China and Russia?

    No. The message is 'The US will be able to destroy your country with nukes and repel your counter-strike'. It's the kind of shit that can lead to the destruction of all life on Earth. NATO should have dissolved after the Soviet Union fell apart as its threat was the raison d'etre for NATO in the first place.


  • Options
    #5
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    There simple air defense missles and there not on russian or Chinese borders either ,
    Nobody seems to have an issue with russian nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    They should probably sort it out before Trump's inauguration because the entire world media will be a pathetic shỉtshow of blaming Trump for everything.

    Leaving Bush/Obama's missiles there? Letting the situation fester.
    Adding more? Warmongering.
    Taking some away? Collusion with Putin.
    Makes a real peace? Weak and being taken advantage of.

    Because Trump will be completely fủcked by the media no matter what he does in any situation, he's going to be massively unpredictable.



    About 90% of people on this forum think the missiles on Russia and China's border are ok. They'll fill your head with an awful amount of shỉt trying to prove it OP so I'd probably walk away now. It will all be nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    About 90% of people on this forum think the missiles on Russia and China's border are ok.

    I'd be more worried that 10% can't read maps ,missles aren't on russian or Chinese borders unless there redrawing them again ala Ukraine and Georgia
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gatling wrote: »
    I'd be more worried that 10% can't read maps ,missles aren't on russian or Chinese borders unless there redrawing them again ala Ukraine and Georgia

    What do you want here? For everyone to go full rêtard and agree with you?


  • Options
    #9
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Gatling wrote: »
    There simple air defense missles and there not on russian or Chinese borders either ,

    Mostly they are. And they are anti ballistic missiles, not simple air defence missile. In the case of Russia the missiles are located near Kiliningrad - a Russian territory.

    Also in the case of China. Even if some are not it's academic, same effect. Most are on or near the border of their target country.

    Although you would have to ask if you were a resident in Poland near one of these sites how you would feel about having such a big bullseye put in your neighborhood!


  • Options
    #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gatling, were Russian missiles on America's borders during the Cuban missile crisis? It's a yes/no question so we can see what your idea of borders are.


  • Options
    #11
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    They are. And they are anti ballistic missiles, not simple air defence missile. In the case of Russia the missiles are located near Kiliningrad - a Russian territory.

    It's one and the same the aegis system is a kinetic energy based rocket ,

    Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons some 1000 miles away from the nearest aegis missle
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Gatling, were Russian missiles on America's borders during the Cuban missile crisis? It's a yes/no question so we can see what your idea of borders are.

    13 miles away ,

    Not 1000+ miles way on the border to Poland but not russia.

    Massive hysteria and paranoia coming from rt and Sputnik news ,

    I'm sure Ukraine would have loved to have American missles on it soil 2 years ago
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gatling wrote: »
    13 miles away ,

    Not 1000+ miles way on the border to Poland but not russia

    What are America so afraid of in Poland that they needed to move in missiles? Sounds weird to have such a threat since Poland is an ally.


  • Options
    #14
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Gatling wrote: »
    It's one and the same the aegis system is a kinetic energy based rocket ,

    Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons some 1000 miles away from the nearest aegis missle

    Eh and the ABM land based site in northern Poland??

    An Aegis ship can operate 1,000's of miles a way and still same difference. It is the land based ABM's that are causing most irritation naturally.


  • Options
    #15
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What are America so afraid of in Poland that they needed to move in missiles? Sounds weird to have such a threat since Poland is an ally.

    Nuclear weapons what else it's not weird at all , after Georgia ,and Ukraine all of the former Soviet bloc states are Queuing up for better defensive weapons
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #16
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Gatling wrote: »
    Nuclear weapons what else it's not weird at all , after Georgia ,and Ukraine all of the former Soviet bloc states are Queuing up for better defensive weapons

    At what cost? How long will Russia tolerate land based ABM sites near or on their border?


  • Options
    #17
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I'm not saying btw I disagree with the missiles. Just playing devils advocate. I'd be interested to know what others think of the implications because it is not mentioned as much as it should be particularly in the case of Europe.


  • Options
    #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gatling wrote: »
    Nuclear weapons what else it's not weird at all , after Georgia ,and Ukraine all of the former Soviet bloc states are Queuing up for better defensive weapons

    Not weird at all? It's extremely weird. You said they weren't on Russia's borders so I was feeling ok about everything. Are you saying these missile things can fly or something?


  • Options
    #19
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not weird at all? It's extremely weird. You said they weren't on Russia's borders so I was feeling ok about everything. Are you saying these missile things can fly or something?

    Like russian missles in Kaliningrad except they won't come with nuclear warheads like the Russian weapons in Kaliningrad.
    Let's also not forget russia has its own interception missles no issues there
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #20
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Gatling, were Russian missiles on America's borders during the Cuban missile crisis? It's a yes/no question so we can see what your idea of borders are.

    Park the Reds-Under-The-Beds propaganda and Tom Clancy novels for a second and consider this. See this map here. Now imagine Russian tanks in Canada, the Caribbean and Central America.

    What would you advise the US to do about Russian tanks in Canada, the Caribbean and Central America?


  • Options
    #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gatling wrote: »
    Like russian missles in Kaliningrad except they won't come with nuclear warheads like the Russian weapons in Kaliningrad

    Criticizing Russia for having missiles inside its own borders while defending America having missiles in a bordering country.

    I guess you'd be fine with Russia having missiles without warheads in Cuba, Canada, Mexico and next to Alaska? Yeah?
    And if America dared to put warheads within their borders within range of Russia's defences, you'd criticize them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Criticizing Russia for having missiles inside its own borders while defending America having missiles in a bordering country.

    I guess you'd be fine with Russia having missiles without warheads in Cuba, Canada, Mexico and next to Alaska? Yeah?
    And if America dared to put warheads within their borders within range of Russia's defences, you'd criticize them?

    So basically the crux of the matter is it's ok for russia to have missles and anything else it wants ,but russia gets upset if anyone else has missiles
    You do realize Poland is building it's own system but russia won't like that either,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #23
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Gatling wrote: »
    So basically the crux of the matter is it's ok for russia to have missles and anything else it wants ,but russia gets upset if anyone else has missiles

    Russia, due to Geography - also China - can not put such resources near the US border. It is kind of unfair to be honest and surely apprehension is natural from the Russian and Chinese side.

    Again i'm playing devils advocate.


  • Options
    #24
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Park the Reds-Under-The-Beds propaganda

    Lol at least putinbots have a little imagination
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #25
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Russia, due to Geography - also China - can not put such resources near the US border. It is kind of unfair to be honest and surely apprehension is natural from the Russian and Chinese side.

    Again i'm playing devils advocate.

    Here's Russia's problem there regional power with nuclear weapons ,
    This idea that there completely surrounded by nato and American bases is a nonsense ,
    Putin needs Nato for his bogey men coming tk get us he's been telling russia for the last 10 years ,
    The biggest threat to putin and his version of russia isn't Nato, it's the EU democracy and standards of living that's his threat and militarily it's not Nato he should be worrying about its China he should be watching very closely
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #26
    The Wolverine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭The Wolverine


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What do you want here? For everyone to go full rêtard and agree with you?

    There's no point even replying his entire view is "America **** yeah! Pew pew pew"


  • Options
    #27
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Gatling wrote: »
    Lol at least putinbots have a little imagination

    Anyone who points out the simple-mindedness of your posts is dismissed as a 'Putinbot' because you can't handle countering thier points..

    Well done.


  • Options
    #28
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Why are NATO countries not allowed have NATO backed defences within their borders?


  • Options
    #29
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Anyone who points out the simple-mindedness of your posts is dismissed

    Absolutely .

    See i deal in facts where others go the route of panic and post untruths ,

    If Poland wants to have missles or lasers to shoot down missles that are a direct threat to their state why not ,
    Nuclear weapons inside EU borders belonging to Russia is fine and dandy ,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #30
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Why are NATO countries not allowed have NATO backed defences within their borders?

    But everybody else can have defense weapons and nuclear weapons but God forbid anyone else .
    putin likes weak enemies nothing more
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Gatling wrote: »
    Absolutely .

    See i deal in facts where others go the route of panic and post untruths ,

    If Poland wants to have missles or lasers to shoot down missles that are a direct threat to their state why not ,
    ,

    But isn't the question here - is it right for the US to restrict a nation to even defend itself? We are not talking attack - we are saying that to quote "we will disable your ability to react near or on your border".

    Is that right?


Advertisement