US missile defense site likely in central Europe - Page 2




 
--
 
July 16th, 2004  
SAINT
 
Yeah man, America, UK, France, Germany, Israel and the whole Europe are friends to this world. Even Russia is trying to be nice...







''War is the path to peace''
July 16th, 2004  
yurry
 
Quote:
The comander of the MDA (Missile Defenc Agency), Ronald Kadish leutenet general Ronald Kadish recently pointed out that the current activities of the MDA are focused on esablishing an initial configuration of the shield intent on securing the teritory of the US against any potential attack by ICBMs. This basic configuration with 3-stage interceptor missiles (GBIs - Ground Based Interceptors) would at firt be situated at 2 bases on the West Coast to defend the US from an attack from the so called rouge states (N Korea, Iran ...). In each base ther would be 10 GBIs. General Kadish fells that part of the shield should be operational by this Sepember. By the end of this year there shold be at least 5 GBIs at the Fort Gleery base in Alaska and 3-4 GBIs at Vandenberg California. It is however clear that by the end of this year the ticonderoga class cruisers would not be avaliable for mid-rang ICBM interception. Allso the modified Boeing 747 with a powerful laser installed won't be operational this year. General Kadish also pointed out that a 3rd base would be stationed in Europe thus enabling ICBM defense for their european allies, but not before 2006. The most probable locations at this moment are Poland and the UK. Some say that Poland is a promising candidate for its geographical location and the polish defense industry started doing buisness with Boeing and Lockheed Martin 2 of the leading american giants who are also covering the development of the Missile Shield. The 3rd reason is the support of the Polish goverment to the current US administration. The polish officials had so far neither confirmed nor denied the claims. If Poland is however chosen the will certinaly be objections from the Russian Federation wich the Bush administration will have to consider in the construction of the european part of the shield. The UK is also a likely candidate for housing the site, as it has already signed the treaty for BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) cooperation and the UK enabled the modification of the Early Warning and Surveilance Radar at Fylingsdale, North England. The USA is also negotiating for the upgrade of the radar station in Thula, Greenland with the Danish goverment.
I got this from a Slovenian military magazine.
July 25th, 2004  
soldierzhonor
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFrog
Actually I don't understand very well why NATO wants to expand so far close to Russia, it does not seem like that NATO will engage in war conflicts with Russia. Why things can not be handled more friendly.

friendly? Best I recall Russia and China signed a treaty against the United States back in June 2001. It was a treaty against our a National Missile Defence which called for a 5 year 15 billion dollar arms package to include su-27's and even su-30's from Russia for assistance in the soon to be assault on Taiwan. Then the ROC issued warnings of a nuclear exchange if the US came to the aid of Taiwan. We are threatened with a nuclear exchange yet are criticized when we do something to protect a possible or even looming first strike threat against us? Now we offer to help protect our allies with a missile defense against an attack and are questioned about it. Do you really think that a threat against our support would pit the US alone in the attack? A legitimate first strike attack threat was made. Now we are to just blow it off as nonsense and not worry that China realizes the only way to cause mass damage to the United States would be with a first strike? I've heard of the book "Unrestricted Warfare" By Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Im sure you have also since they have been hailed as heroes since sep 11th, 2001. Its not the book that gets me, its the fact that they speak of attacking the WTC...and spoke of attacks by Bin Laden 3 years before the WTC attack that collapsed it. Heres an excerpt... "“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military...”

After 9/11 I swore up and down China had something to do with it but let it die off since noone else really took notice of the fact of the wtc towers being hit when we were in opposition to China in WTO, and the attack on the Pentagon at the time of the submarine issue and the P3 Orion issue with threats of war against us for protecting a nation from attack. The 4th plane that went down was theorized as targeting the White House which the treaty against the United States was a result of the oppostion from China and Russia against the Bush Administration. Now all this does tie together in my opinion...we set out to defend ourselves and get criticized for it. China builds up its forces and its perfectly ok? Gimme a break, FlyingFrog, I have been ignoring your posts till now. But a defense for Europe against an Asian attack or Middle Eastern attack is very strategically important when China wants to threaten the use of its arsenal. You also have to think of something else. You look at it as expanding closer to Russia...take a look at southern far east Russia and look which country is there and making power plays to destabilize American alliances and then I'll show you a country who is itching to goto war to try and prove a point. Now ask yourself this...why cant China be more friendly towards "The West and the Rest"
--
July 25th, 2004  
yurry
 
Quite true what soldierzhonor wrote, but you must also consider that a missile shield dirupts the balance of power in the World. If the USA have no fear of retaliation what is preventing them from making a first strike. I know tha this is not their policiy NOW but things do change. Is ti not true that at times the fear of mutual destruction kept the cold war from geting hot?