ForumGarden

here we go again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... 42,00.html

Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a cold war-style arms race.


The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says.

Who needs a shooting war?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... 25,00.html

The gathering of Russia, Iran and other major international gas producers tomorrow in Qatar is an ominous one for the UK and other European countries. Western leaders have for years had to deal with Opec, which controls a large chunk of world oil trade. They now face a potential new natural gas cartel. Indeed, some members of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum openly talk about this.

Quote:

The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says

I wasn't aware that either country had a stockpile of ICBMs or the possibility of developing them in the forseeable future.

No doubt we'll soon be hearing about their secret tests of a new sub-orbital delivery system.

NK is testing the Taepodong-2, which has a range of up to 6,000 km. The first test was aborted and the missle destroyed after about 4 seconds of flight.

Iran has the Shihab 3's which has a current maximum range of 1,300 kilometers.

zinkyusa;591271 wrote: NK is testing the Taepodong-2, which has a range of up to 6,000 km. The first test was aborted and the missle destroyed after about 4 seconds of flight.

Iran has the Shihab 3's which has a current maximum range of 1,300 kilometers.


TD-2 is a three stager with a max range of 4500km and a max payload of 500kg - doesn't work yet and, even if it did, nowhere near enough to drop a nuke on the US.

1300km doesn't even qualify as an ICBM.

Bryn Mawr;591281 wrote: TD-2 is a three stager with a max range of 4500km and a max payload of 500kg - doesn't work yet and, even if it did, nowhere near enough to drop a nuke on the US.

1300km doesn't even qualify as an ICBM.


Quite right. IMO they do indicate an intent to develop ICBM's or MRBM's. I think it would be foolish to ignore that possibility and not plan for it. The Bush's big mistake as usual is the preference to find/develop a military option rather than a diplomatic one. While I can understand the rationale for such a defense it should be done in parallel with diplomacy, sanctions etc. Right now Bush will not even speak to the Iranians. At least the talks with NK have been revived.

zinkyusa;591289 wrote: Quite right. IMO they do indicate an intent to develop ICBM's or MRBM's. I think it would be foolish to ignore that possibility and not plan for it. The Bush's big mistake as usual is the preference to find/develop a military option rather than a diplomatic one. While I can understand the rationale for such a defense it should be done in parallel with diplomacy, sanctions etc. Right now Bush will not even speak to the Iranians. At least the talks with NK have been revived.


Too true - diplomacy has to be the first weapon in the arsenal.

Both with the supposed "enemy" and with ones fellow countries who might well feel threatened by developments.

I still think it's more aimed at the Chinese and the rest is just chaff.

I just think the whole thing is daft. It's as if the old hatreds can't be left behind and actions taken that stoke them all up again. Saudi and Pakistan are more to worry about than Iran or north korea.

gmc;591546 wrote: I just think the whole thing is daft. It's as if the old hatreds can't be left behind and actions taken that stoke them all up again. Saudi and Pakistan are more to worry about than Iran or north korea.


Can't argue with that..

Bryn Mawr;591294 wrote: Too true - diplomacy has to be the first weapon in the arsenal.

Both with the supposed "enemy" and with ones fellow countries who might well feel threatened by developments.

I still think it's more aimed at the Chinese and the rest is just chaff.


Come on ,don't count us in.China is a neutral country, ok?

what we want now is only money..we don't want war

against any country. you guys fight, we earn money.

From a common chinese citizen ...

Bryn Mawr;591294 wrote: Too true - diplomacy has to be the first weapon in the arsenal.

Both with the supposed "enemy" and with ones fellow countries who might well feel threatened by developments.

I still think it's more aimed at the Chinese and the rest is just chaff.


SuperPowerChina;733924 wrote: Come on ,don't count us in.China is a neutral country, ok?

what we want now is only money..we don't want war

against any country. you guys fight, we earn money.

From a common chinese citizen ...


That's from so long ago I had to take a look see to remind myself what the comment related to.

The reference to China was related to North Korea developing a nuclear capable missile. Some of the American members were suggesting it as being done to threaten the USA but I as suggesting that it did not have that capability and was for closer neighbours.

I am totally against the British involvement in either of our current wars and would certainly not wish to see any extension to them.

Good lord it wasn't for anyone. If they'd had a Sainsbury's 30 ton delivery lorry to transport it they'd have failed to fit it in. They'd have had to deliver by cargo ship, very very slowly.

spot;734015 wrote: Good lord it wasn't for anyone. If they'd had a Sainsbury's 30 ton delivery lorry to transport it they'd have failed to fit it in. They'd have had to deliver by cargo ship, very very slowly.


Go on, give us a clue

This nuclear device of which you speak. The North Korean version wasn't what you'd call easy to transport. They didn't build it in order to attack anyone.

spot;734021 wrote: This nuclear device of which you speak. The North Korean version wasn't what you'd call easy to transport. They didn't build it in order to attack anyone.


The original article was about the development of a missile supposedly capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for 4,500 km - as it's max payload is only 500 kg it would, however, have a problem fitting the warhead.

spot;734021 wrote: This nuclear device of which you speak. The North Korean version wasn't what you'd call easy to transport. They didn't build it in order to attack anyone.


You think that one was unwieldy, have a look on google or Wikipedia at the Tsar Bomba that the U.S.S.R. testing in 1961, a 50 Megaton Yield, the biggest Nuclear Weapon set off on planet Earth. Happily it was far to impractical to be used as a real weapon. It's pretty cool from a strictly engineering point of view, but of course if such a weapon (and we have far too many slightly smaller but hardly less devastating weapons across the world) was ever dropped on a densely populated area.

Galbally;734060 wrote: we have far too many slightly smaller but hardly less devastating weapons across the world) was ever dropped on a densely populated area.I watched an interview with Linus Pauling yesterday in the Conversations with History series and he mentions both points several times. There were quite a few questions came into my mind as I watched it. I'd watched the one with Daniel Ellsberg earlier and that was spellbinding.

spot;734065 wrote: I watched an interview with Linus Pauling yesterday in the Conversations with History series and he mentions both points several times. There were quite a few questions came into my mind as I watched it. I'd watched the one with Daniel Ellsberg earlier and that was spellbinding.


Interesting link. You kind of get the impression that most americans don't study political history beyond the american experience and not even the origins of that.

What amuses about the current hype about nuclear weapons is the reality that terrorists if they really want to can find an awful lot of much simpler ways to cause chaos in a country like the US that is not used to terrorist attacks.