Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jihadin wrote:Not outdated and Iran might be on its way to making a missile carrying nuke.

Was under the impression MEADS was developed specifically to replace Patriot?

Also, we have done a fair job of trashing Iran's nuclear ambitions with cyber-warfare. Not to mention "whoever" *cough*israel*cough* assassinated Iran's top two nuclear scientist dudes.

Not saying they won't keep working at it, they will. Nuclear weapons are basically the global dick waving system.

Threatening Europe and actually attacking Europe are two different things. I think Iran loves to poke Israel, the US, Europe, all them western imperialist types. Actually attacking them is a completely different matter, especially since even an attack on Israel is unlikely to get Iran very much of anything.

LordofHats wrote:Threatening Europe and actually attacking Europe are two different things. I think Iran loves to poke Israel, the US, Europe, all them western imperialist types. Actually attacking them is a completely different matter, especially since even an attack on Israel is unlikely to get Iran very much of anything.

To be a credible threat, you have to have the capacity. Europe being Europe, well lets just say I doubt their gravitas in ability to defy a bully or even try to defend themselves.

If Iran nuked France, I'm pretty sure France, and maybe even all of NATO, would be on Iran like fat chicks in a twinkie factory. Just cause Europe is kind of mellow about military force compared to us, doesn't mean they won't go and try to kick Iran's butt, and of course we'll go help them.

But what does Iran really get? "Yeah we nuked the European imperialists!"

"Sir, there's like... six carrier groups, thirty divisions, and ten air forces coming over here..."

"... ****"

Iran gains nothing. The most they'd get is bragging rights, before the whole world kicks they're butts (or worse shoots nukes back at them).

Iran isn't nuking anyone. They want the bomb so they can say they have it.

I would rather piss off Poland than Russia.

Poland is a great place and full of wonderful people. However, they don't have a proverbial fistful of Nukes and massive conventional weapons.

They are all ready part of NATO and hence under the NATO protection racket/umbrella. They are "safe" without the radar installation and missile base.

Also, does anyone else think it is a bit strange that Mitt was just visiting Poland and now this?

Frazzled wrote:
The Polish president has accused Barack Obama of betraying Poland by cancelling a promised missile defence system.

Maybe his buddy Mitt could use some of his off-shore millions to pay for it, I hear he is tight with the polish folks...


Timing is convienant as well...

Easy E wrote:I would rather piss off Poland than Russia.

Poland is a great place and full of wonderful people. However, they don't have a proverbial fistful of Nukes and massive conventional weapons.

They are all ready part of NATO and hence under the NATO protection racket/umbrella. They are "safe" without the radar installation and missile base.

Also, does anyone else think it is a bit strange that Mitt was just visiting Poland and now this?

So you're ok letting an ally hang in the breeze for only doing what we asked them to do. I like that. If I were an ally, I would like that less, on the order of rethinking that ally thing.

We aren't letting them hang in the breeze. They are protected all ready by NATO, which we are also part of. The way NATO works is, if Poland is attacked, all of NATO responds; including the US.

This is more like a business deal that has gone bad. If we offer them some alternate aid instead, everything will be fine.

Easy E wrote:Also, does anyone else think it is a bit strange that Mitt was just visiting Poland and now this?

I would hope that the Polish President is smart enough to realize that any promises made by Mitt are worth just as much as those that made him believe in the missile shield. Or less, given a certain candidate's level of reliability when it comes to sticking what he says.

Frazzled wrote:Europe being Europe, well lets just say I doubt their gravitas in ability to defy a bully or even try to defend themselves.

Defend against whom? We're not talking Soviet Russia here. As the LordofHats mentioned, Europe doesn't believe in the need of a huge military force - although this need is possible to pop up again in the future (depending on whether China's aggression will remain limited to the economical sector or whether they will make a military bid for access to rare earth etc), it kinda vanished in 1991. Against individual small countries, the various nations that make up the EU should be able to mount a sufficient defense, should that ever become necessary. Aircraft carriers, subs, fighters, cruise missiles ... just about all EU members have something to commit to a joint effort, be it France's air power, the UK's infantry, Germany's ABC and missile defense troops, etc. Technological superiority should help a lot to balance a need for pure numbers. The true challenge will be the asymetrical warfare that's bound to follow, anyways. Anyone with sufficient air power can bomb a country into ruins, but to actually control it is something else entirely.

Easy E wrote:We aren't letting them hang in the breeze. They are protected all ready by NATO, which we are also part of. The way NATO works is, if Poland is attacked, all of NATO responds; including the US.

This is more like a business deal that has gone bad. If we offer them some alternate aid instead, everything will be fine.

I wouldn't rely on that any more.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:I would rather piss off Poland than Russia.

Poland is a great place and full of wonderful people. However, they don't have a proverbial fistful of Nukes and massive conventional weapons.

They are all ready part of NATO and hence under the NATO protection racket/umbrella. They are "safe" without the radar installation and missile base.

Also, does anyone else think it is a bit strange that Mitt was just visiting Poland and now this?

So you're ok letting an ally hang in the breeze for only doing what we asked them to do. I like that. If I were an ally, I would like that less, on the order of rethinking that ally thing.

Yes....we shouldnt stand by it when there is little to no advantage to establishing a missile defense system in Poland at the risk of further deterioration in our relations with Russia. Basing it in Poland creates a threat towards Russia's ability to respond at the strategic level.
Iran really does not pose the threat that is claimed that they do. They have no nuclear weapons yet, they wont use them if they had them.

It's nice to see the Cold War mentality still lives on, well after the Cold War.

The polish missile defense was never indented to protect Poland anyway. Poland would have gotten nothing out of the deal except some rent money for the land to put them on.

What about the fact that Bush pretty much ignored deals and treaties that said we would not expand into former soviet territories signed and agreed upon by the US in the 90's? If Russia would put up missile defense systems in Greenland we would be angry as well.

What treaties were those?

Frazzled wrote:What treaties were those?

They had to do with the re-unification of Germany....the deal was we wouldn't bring in former Soviet Satellites into NATO.
Not sure if they were actual treaties

Frazzled wrote:What treaties were those?

I think the big one was the Two-plus-Four Agreement that settled Germany post World War 2 (reunification and the ending of the occupation by the 4 powers in 89/90. Part of the agreement was that NATO forces would not be stationed in the area of former East Germany and expand eastward. Russia states that this included any expansion past East Germany, of course the US says it doesn't.

Of course with our deficit spending you think not building missile defenses in Europe would be welcome by the right as well.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What treaties were those?

I think the big one was the Two-plus-Four Agreement that settled Germany post World War 2 (reunification and the ending of the occupation by the 4 powers in 89/90. Part of the agreement was that NATO forces would not be stationed in the area of former East Germany and expand eastward. Russia states that this included any expansion past East Germany, of course the US says it doesn't.

Of course with our deficit spending you think not building missile defenses in Europe would be welcome by the right as well.

That was with the USSR. It doesn't exist any more.

Are all of the treaties we signed with the USSR void then? Do none of the apply? Or have we actually recognized that Russia is the successor state of the USSR and apply the treaties to them. If not then if I were Russia I would just invade everybody and say "the USSR said they would be nice, we are not the USSR anymore".

d-usa wrote:Are all of the treaties we signed with the USSR void then?

Yep, except the vodka treaty.

Do none of the apply?

Nope

Or have we actually recognized that Russia is the successor state of the USSR and apply the treaties to them.

Nope

If not then if I were Russia I would just invade everybody and say "the USSR said they would be nice, we are not the USSR anymore".

Like they did to Georgia? Wait, when did being the USSR keep them from invading people?

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:Or have we actually recognized that Russia is the successor state of the USSR and apply the treaties to them.

Nope

START I disagrees with you.

There are probably more, but this treaty is the first one that came to mind.

Lynata wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:Or have we actually recognized that Russia is the successor state of the USSR and apply the treaties to them.

Nope

START I disagrees with you.

There are probably more, but this treaty is the first one that came to mind.

The Lisbon Protocol was written specifically to address the issues of the dissolution of the Soviet Government. The short version is that it says Ukraine, Russia, Byelarus, and Kazakhstan are successor states "in connection with the treaty". it's essentially an FAQ that says to replace USSR with those four nations.

LordofHats wrote:Threatening Europe and actually attacking Europe are two different things. I think Iran loves to poke Israel, the US, Europe, all them western imperialist types. Actually attacking them is a completely different matter, especially since even an attack on Israel is unlikely to get Iran very much of anything.

I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty just exactly what it would get Iran. Israel has had nuclear weapons for 45 years now. And unless I've missed something, I seriously doubt that Iran ever thinks about Poland.

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Threatening Europe and actually attacking Europe are two different things. I think Iran loves to poke Israel, the US, Europe, all them western imperialist types. Actually attacking them is a completely different matter, especially since even an attack on Israel is unlikely to get Iran very much of anything.

To be a credible threat, you have to have the capacity. Europe being Europe, well lets just say I doubt their gravitas in ability to defy a bully or even try to defend themselves.

Wait a sec..

credible threat.

There was a debate here long ago. A police officer shot a small dog who got off leash to death to protect himself. Were you on the side that thought a tiny dog was a credible threat?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Threatening Europe and actually attacking Europe are two different things. I think Iran loves to poke Israel, the US, Europe, all them western imperialist types. Actually attacking them is a completely different matter, especially since even an attack on Israel is unlikely to get Iran very much of anything.

To be a credible threat, you have to have the capacity. Europe being Europe, well lets just say I doubt their gravitas in ability to defy a bully or even try to defend themselves.

Wait a sec..

credible threat.

There was a debate here long ago. A police officer shot a small dog who got off leash to death to protect himself. Were you on the side that thought a tiny dog was a credible threat?

The only instance of a canine having access to Nukes was Werner von Braun's wiener dog Shnitzi. Whereabouts of "Long Tom II" are still unknown...

Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

Testify wrote:Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

I question the actual need for Europe to pay more for defense than it currently does. Who are they defending themselves against? Wars between nations with developed economies cost too much.

And yet when it comes to spending billions on a missile defence system, all those deficit hawks just ignore the cost.

Instead they talk about Russia invading Poland, which is perhaps the silliest piece of foreign policy speculation I've seen outside of a Clancy novel.

Seriously, there's a natural gas pipeline into Europe that Russia is absolutely dependant on for financial stability. The Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania are directly in the way, and have been since the collapse of the USSR. So just stop the silliness.

sebster wrote:And yet when it comes to spending billions on a missile defence system, all those deficit hawks just ignore the cost.

Instead they talk about Russia invading Poland, which is perhaps the silliest piece of foreign policy speculation I've seen outside of a Clancy novel.

Seriously, there's a natural gas pipeline into Europe that Russia is absolutely dependant on for financial stability. The Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania are directly in the way, and have been since the collapse of the USSR. So just stop the silliness.

Sebster, no one is worried about Russia! Iran could nuke Poland any day now! Don't you care about the Polish people?

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:And yet when it comes to spending billions on a missile defence system, all those deficit hawks just ignore the cost.

Instead they talk about Russia invading Poland, which is perhaps the silliest piece of foreign policy speculation I've seen outside of a Clancy novel.

Seriously, there's a natural gas pipeline into Europe that Russia is absolutely dependant on for financial stability. The Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania are directly in the way, and have been since the collapse of the USSR. So just stop the silliness.

Sebster, no one is worried about Russia! Iran could nuke Berlin any day now! Don't you care about the Berlin people?

Corrected your typo.

As to the "should the USA have paid for it?" question.
Frazzled answer: no.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Testify wrote:Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

I question the actual need for Europe to pay more for defense than it currently does. Who are they defending themselves against? Wars between nations with developed economies cost too much.

Right because the Russians couldn't find buyers in China or India for their gas.
The nature of the beast has not changed. Russia is still a threat to Europe, especially considering only France and the UK actually have armies.