Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Apr '15 16:251 edit
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?

    EDIT To clarify, defensive missiles are used to shoot down other missiles. Like Patriots or Iron Dome.
  2. Subscriberdivegeester
    Leave Means Leave
    Voting not marching!
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    88840
    14 Apr '15 16:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?
    Of course they are, otherwise why would one have them?

    😕
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Apr '15 16:34
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Of course they are, otherwise why would one have them?

    😕
    To protect your airspace from hostile missiles and bombers.
  4. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    97322
    14 Apr '15 16:54
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?

    EDIT To clarify, defensive missiles are used to shoot down other missiles. Like Patriots or Iron Dome.
    A very interesting book: The Last Warrior. A biography of Andrew Marshall who came to advise presidents from the first bush thru obama on the subject of america's place in the world twenty to forty years out.
    On defensive missiles he commented that they were all about the perception of your enemy as to whether they could, in a first strike, destroy your ability to respond. Unless their first strike could eliminate, literally or virtually, your retaliatory capacity, they would be deterred. Thusly, they are a threat to whoever posits a first strike. Mind games, yes, but they've worked so far.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    14 Apr '15 16:57
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?

    EDIT To clarify, defensive missiles are used to shoot down other missiles. Like Patriots or Iron Dome.
    Well the Russians aren't "giving" the Iranians the missiles; Iran is paying $800 million for them. http://rt.com/news/224443-russia-iran-defense-deal/

    If you're thinking about bombing another country, anti-aircraft missiles are a "threat" to your aircraft.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Apr '15 17:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well the Russians aren't "giving" the Iranians the missiles; Iran is paying $800 million for them. http://rt.com/news/224443-russia-iran-defense-deal/

    If you're thinking about bombing another country, anti-aircraft missiles are a "threat" to your aircraft.
    Does this mean Western interceptor missiles in Poland are not a threat to Russia?
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    15 Apr '15 00:15
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?

    EDIT To clarify, defensive missiles are used to shoot down other missiles. Like Patriots or Iron Dome.
    Suppose all the soldiers in your kingdom and your neighbours have swords.

    Now their king decided to give them armour.

    Is that not a threat?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Apr '15 00:351 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Russia has been freaking out about American defensive missiles in East Europe and now he's giving S 300 high tech anti air missiles to Iran. Its not a threat to Israel, he assures King Bibi.

    Are defensive missiles a threat to rivals?

    EDIT To clarify, defensive missiles are used to shoot down other missiles. Like Patriots or Iron Dome.
    First of all, Russia's objection to US weapons in eastern European countries
    (former members of the Warsaw Pact) seems *not* primarily based upon
    the technological capabilities of these weapons. It's based more upon the
    Russian conviction that USA flagrantly violated its (unwritten) agreement
    *not* to expand NATO into eastern Europe.

    "Put It in Writing; How the West Broke Its Promise to Moscow"
    --Joshua Shifrinson (29 October 2014)
    Http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142310/joshua-r-shifrinson/put-it-in-writing

    Given the record of perceived US duplicity, Russia has no reason to trust the USA.

    Second, there's the usual US media hysteria about Russian (or Chinese) arms,
    in which the 'threatening' capabilities of these weapons are exaggerated.
    (Many, if not most, ignorant American journalists seem incapable of distinguishing
    an infantry fighting vehicle from a main battle tank.) The Russian S-300
    missiles offered to Iran were introduced in the 1990s (though Iran may be
    getting a somewhat improved model), not exactly 'state-of-the-art'.
    These Russian missiles already have been exported to various counties that are
    not known for having anything close to the most advanced weapons in the world.

    As I recall, there also was US media hysteria about China buying an old
    ex-Soviet aircraft carrier (the Chinese essentially got an empty hull) from
    Ukraine. The Chinese are using this aircraft carrier for training. Given its
    modest capabilities, it almost certainly never would be used in combat.
    But that kind of hysteria may be useful for inflating the US Navy's budget.
  9. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    15 Apr '15 00:581 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    First of all, Russia's objection to US weapons in eastern European countries
    (former members of the Warsaw Pact) seems *not* primarily based upon
    the technological capabilities of these weapons. It's based more upon the
    Russian conviction that USA flagrantly violated its (unwritten) agreement
    *not* to expand NATO into eastern Europe.

    "Put It in Wri ...[text shortened]... be used in combat.
    But that kind of hysteria may be useful for inflating the US Navy's budget.
    (unwritten) lol

    EDIT -

    Http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142310/joshua-r-shifrinson/put-it-in-writing


    http://www.homestarrunner.com/404'd
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Apr '15 01:34
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    (unwritten) lol

    EDIT -

    Http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142310/joshua-r-shifrinson/put-it-in-writing


    http://www.homestarrunner.com/404'd
    Contrary to popular belief, oral contracts *are* enforceable in US law,
    though there may be practical difficulties in doing so.

    Does AThousandYoung approve of the US government (though not other
    governments, perhaps except Israel's) telling every lie that it hopes it can
    get away with as long as those lies are not quite put on paper?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Apr '15 17:10
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Contrary to popular belief, oral contracts *are* enforceable in US law,
    though there may be practical difficulties in doing so.

    Does AThousandYoung approve of the US government (though not other
    governments, perhaps except Israel's) telling every lie that it hopes it can
    get away with as long as those lies are not quite put on paper?
    In the US, certain types of contracts are required to be in writing to be enforceable. http://www.thelaw.com/guide/business/contract/statute-of-frauds/

    The Russians were fools to believe that the US wouldn't push NATO right up to their doorstep as soon as possible. NATO really doesn't even have a valid reason to exist after the dissolution of the USSR; it was explicitly an anti-communist aggression alliance. The word of virtually all professional politicians as to what their countries will do in future is utterly worthless be they American, Israeli, Russian or whatever.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Apr '15 19:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    In the US, certain types of contracts are required to be in writing to be enforceable. http://www.thelaw.com/guide/business/contract/statute-of-frauds/

    The Russians were fools to believe that the US wouldn't push NATO right up to their doorstep as soon as possible. NATO really doesn't even have a valid reason to exist after the dissolution of the USSR ...[text shortened]... countries will do in future is utterly worthless be they American, Israeli, Russian or whatever.
    I was not claiming that the US government is necessarily more dishonest
    than other governments. But the US government tends to make more noise
    about its self-evident 'moral superiority'. Israel's government also likes to
    boast that the IDF is clearly 'the most moral army in the world'.
  13. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    27948
    16 Apr '15 17:461 edit
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    A very interesting book: The Last Warrior. A biography of Andrew Marshall who came to advise presidents from the first bush thru obama on the subject of america's place in the world twenty to forty years out.
    On defensive missiles he commented that they were all about the perception of your enemy as to whether they could, in a first strike, destroy your ab ...[text shortened]... they are a threat to whoever posits a first strike. Mind games, yes, but they've worked so far.
    Russia opposes the "missile shield" being deployed in eastern Europe because it would be aimed at neutralising Russia's "First Strike Capability" with nuclear arms.

    It seems Russia is determined to remind the US and the EU of its great potential of nuclear arms and its capacity to destroy both the EU ánd the US. Russia will not accept the missile shield as it is aimed against its vital security interests.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    16 Apr '15 17:56
    Originally posted by ivanhoe to stevemcc
    Russia opposes the "missile shield" being deployed in eastern Europe because it would be aimed at neutralising Russia's "First Strike Capability" with nuclear arms.

    It seems Russia is determined to remind the US and the EU of its great potential of nuclear arms and its capacity to destroy both the EU ánd the US. Russia will not accept the missile shield as it is aimed against its vital security interests.
    Good point. I suspect that most of the jingoistic Americans here would not
    accept that Russia (or China) could have any legitimate 'security interests' at all.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    16 Apr '15 19:061 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Good point. I suspect that most of the jingoistic Americans here would not
    accept that Russia (or China) could have any legitimate 'security interests' at all.
    Is the ability to first strike with impunity a 'legitimate security interest'?

    I'm looking for a consistent, principled answer for BOTH the Eastern Europe missile shield and Iran's new S-300. Are NATO/Iran threatening Russia/Israel with defensive missiles or not?

    Russia and Israel both claim the need to first strike for defensve reasons.
Back to Top