I'd tend to agree that the Azerbaijan offer was a bargaining chip. Used to gain time.

Putin had got himself into a bad spot - he'd tested a new MIRVed rocket, threatened to retarget nuclear missles at European cities - and Russians (at least bloggers, newspapers, etc.) were enthusiastic about his standing up to the US at last. (And don't forget elections are coming up.) What a way to divide the US and Europe, get them to take care of this embarrassing little problem of a new missile system on Russia's doorstep for him. But Chirac and Shroeder and Berlusconi are gone, Europe didn't start screaming at the US, and Putin had to do something at the G8 summit. He's got a lot of hydrocarbons, but he still needs European investment.

This wasn't a well-thought-out plan - he said he'd just called the PM in Azerbaijan the day before: he needed something to say to relax the tensions, almost anything would do, since no head of state is going to commit to anything involving national security over even a non-alcoholic beer. Putin must have known Bush would just say interesting, I'll get back to you. And Putin gets to go home and play the great statesman for having prevented a nuclear war by outwitting the stupid American.

Firstly I just want to the readers that this is just the continuation of the failed _star wars_ defense systems from the 1980's... Going back the present, the deal was made by the former president of Poland, who promissed the current US administration to buy the fabled defense system. The deal however is off, because the current President of Poland told President Bush, that Poland will no longer buy the defense system because: "it will not play anyone's puppet."

Frank.
Vladimir Putin gave an press conference a few days ago, answering all questions posed by the world press. He rationally and eloqently tells the truth to the lies of the american pathocracy. This important foreign affairs event was censored in the american media as the pathocrats continue their mind control operation against the american people. Here is a link to the speech: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

Frank,
Thanks for checking out the Asia Times link, I found the reference to the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine, the position
format for the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)discussing the passing of the age of Mutual Assured Destruction(MAD) and the approach of the age of American Nuclear Primacy,(ANP I presume), to be a frightening vision of mankinds destiny as
the few attempt the subjugation of mankind
by nuclear terror!

Frank,

I see your point, however, keep in mind:

It was the USA, not Russia that recently invaded, and continues to occupy Iraq.

It is the USA that has Russia practically surrounded/isolated and not the other way around.

Russia's predicament neccesitates that Mr. Putin try to do something, even if it is nothing more than grandstanding on the world stage. Mr. Arkin, on the other hand, would never grandstand!

What other options does Mr. Putin have? Well, he could invade the Baltic states, but what good would that do? They are already a part of the U.S.S.A., and no longer a part of the U.S.S.R.!

Frank,

I see your point, however, keep in mind:

It was the USA, not Russia that recently invaded, and continues to occupy Iraq.

It is the USA that has Russia practically surrounded/isolated and not the other way around.

Russia's predicament neccesitates that Mr. Putin try to do something, even if it is nothing more than grandstanding on the world stage. Mr. Arkin, on the other hand, would never grandstand!

What other options does Mr. Putin have? Well, he could invade the Baltic states, but what good would that do? They are already a part of the U.S.S.A., and no longer a part of the U.S.S.R.!

Frank,

I see your point, however, keep in mind:

It was the USA, not Russia that recently invaded, and continues to occupy Iraq.

It is the USA that has Russia practically surrounded/isolated and not the other way around.

Russia's predicament neccesitates that Mr. Putin try to do something, even if it is nothing more than grandstanding on the world stage. Mr. Arkin, on the other hand, would never grandstand!

What other options does Mr. Putin have? Well, he could invade the Baltic states, but what good would that do? They are already a part of the U.S.S.A., and no longer a part of the U.S.S.R.!

Which, aside from my digs at the press and Arkin, is by and large what you're saying about Putin and gamesmanship.

Frank

Your last comment was too esoteric for me, I will have to give some more thought to your conclusion!

Dave,

Many nations in the world believe that America has become an evil empire itself. Perhaps that is why the U.S.A. and Russia get along so well.

When you get right down to it, from a purists' point of view, in many respects both nations have historically behaved in a similar manner.

Everyone knows that both nations have been in a struggle for over the past half century to see which one would dominate the world. Both nations share a kind of innocuous bravado!

Point of fact, 'one man's evil empire is just another man's democracy'.

And please don't tell me to leave if I don't like it here!

go,

My apologies for mis-interpreting your comments. I hope you can see that, as written, your posting may not have communicated your thoughts as clearly as you intended.

As for my mentioning my Navy career, I was merely answering a question posed by another poster about my background ... just as I will answer yours. Since retiring in 2004, I augment my income doing freelance nature photography. Between assignments I spend considerable time working with the Humane Society finding foster homes for rescued pets.

Finally, thanks for the link. I found the article very interesting reading.

The Rev,
"Did you forget that both nations fought on the same side during WWII?" Yeah, with allies like this, who needs an evil empire... A timeline:
8/6/45 - Hiroshima
8/8/45 - Russia declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria to be used as a future base for the eventual Communist takeover of China
8/14/45 - The Allied terms of capitulation were accepted by Japan.

Frank,
If you check out the following link you will see that I understand that the missile defense system would be to stop any Russian response to a US first strike, which was on the table with Limentzer and Lemay of the Joint Chiefs in the Kennedy Administration. You seem proud of your Navel service doing cost benefit analysis base upon flawed strategy. IMO you wasted your and your neighbors creativity and lives in a pathocracy. You and your kind
can't see beyond the narrow propaganda of religion, academia, military psyops, and the arms industry. Are you an employee of the military industrial congressional complex whose genius is an existential threat to the future of mankind. Enough rant, you might find the link enlightening.
http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IF07Ag01.html

To recap our string of comments --

In your 08 June, 1:22 PM post you say:

"Vladimir Putin essentially is saying, I call and raise you one! Vladimir Putin called #43's bluff, that's what this is all about. This match goes to Vladimir. The question now is whether #43 will fold or raise the ante?"

My 08 Jun, 06:21 PM post (which extended our cross talk and miscommunication) said:

"No. If anyone is bluffing, it's Putin."

In your latest post 11 Jun, 11:49AM, you say:

"I don't think that anyone in this entire blog believes that Mr. Putin seriously expected #43 to go along with his G8 Summit proposal."

So, from that above statement, I assume that you also think Putin was bluffing when he made his proposal.

We appear to be in agreement again, my friend. I don't dispute your analysis; just as I don't think I'm ignoring 'the theatrics and posturing hat often take place given geopolitcal circumstances'.

Rather, a closer read of my comments will reveal that my beef is principally with Arkin and those who espouse conclusions based on erroneous assumptions, bias, and misinformation. My purpose in posting so extensively on this blog was to provide insight into the technology (with links for reference) in an attempt to clear up those erroneous assumptions so that readers can make their own informed conclusions ... something Arkin should be doing, but isn't (see my 8 Jun, 11:15 AM post on this blog entry).

Rev writes: "Putin was raising the ante, certainly he never expected that #43 would accept the Azerbaijan offer, Mr. Putin's strategic move accomplished several things given the offer that he made to 'the man who looked into his eyes and his soul'.

The least of which was to say to the world that Russia is cooperating in the war on terrorism, and that Russia is even trying to work in a peaceful collaboration with the Americans."

Rev, I don't think we disagree. As I state in my 8 Jun, 6:12PM post:

"Putin undoubtably knows this, but offered Azerbaijan hoping to score points in the press - a press (like Arkin) that makes too many erroneous (ignorant?)assumptions and no longer digs into the issues before arriving at conclusions."

Which, aside from my digs at the press and Arkin, is by and large what you're saying about Putin and gamesmanship.

Frank,

My technologically sagacious and cerebral friend, I don't think that anyone in this entire blog believes that Mr. Putin seriously expected #43 to go along with his G8 Summit proposal - Mr. Putin has his BATNA.

America's real objective in pandering to and keeping Russia close, I believe is being done with a view on the People's Republic of China, for future Russian support in the U.N. Security Council and to get Russia to look the other way when America decides to embark on any future escapades.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the theatrics and posturing
hat often take place given geopolitcal circumstances

Frank,

Contraire my friend, I was attempting to bring you into the here and now by showing you that which was predictable years ago. Most people missed it, the then Soviet Union and America were moving closer and closer together, given that both behemoths in many respects were just alike!

I was in the plaza at Stanford University when Mr. Gorbachev came to visit the U.S.A. in the early 90's, it was even more apparent then that relations between the two nations were changing (don't forget perestroika and glasnost).

Did you forget that both nations fought on the same side during WWII?

Are you aware of all of the collaboration that has taken place between the U.S.A. and Russia in the U.N. Security Council over the past decade?

Are you overlooking the fact we share the space station with the Russians, and are looking forward to future collaborations regarding space?

Are you overlooking the fact that this whole discussion took place at the G8, formerly the G7? Russia is a new kid on the block.

Who's kidding who? Putin was raising the ante, certainly he never expected that #43 would accept the Azerbaijan offer, Mr. Putin's strategic move accomplished several things given the offer that he made to 'the man who looked into his eyes and his soul'.

The least of which was to say to the world that Russia is cooperating in the war on terrorism, and that Russia is even trying to work in a peaceful collaboration with the Americans.

Gamesmnship my friend!

lowhangingmissiles writes: "You conceptualize things through an engineering framework and are dismissive of concepts that don't fit that framework."

I'm afraid I'm missing your point. Which concepts are I dismissing?

Is it the idea that Putin is opposed to the deployment of a American-built missile defense system for Europe because 'it has the political intent of encircling Russia by strengthening the ties of frontier states to the US'. You may be right.

However, I prefer to believe Putin is opposed for the same reason that Russia has always opposed a missile defense system - because it provides a potential for Europe and the US to escape from their end of the 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) deterrent strategy which has contained the nuclear genie since the 1950's. Specifically, a Russia not able to hold Europe and the US at risk of annihilation places them at a distinct disadvantage; e.g., lacking their own national ABM system, the only 'defense' they have against even an unlikely ballistic missile attack from the US and Europe is MAD.

That is why Putin's proposal is to move the interceptors and radar south and east ... to still allows Russian ICBM's to hold Europe at risk and keep MAD in play while possibly achieving the US stated goal of providing a defense for Europe from Iranian ballistic missiles.

That said, in my humble opinion, Putin and his proposal are distractions from the real issues. Specifically, the question journalist like Arkin should be asking is: "Why a defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles? Why not just use the same MAD strategy against Iran that we've used against the Russian's since 1957?"

I suspect it's because (1) MAD only works against people who fear mass death and destruction. I don't think Americans understand Iranian national psyche sufficiently well enough to have confident that MAD would work, and (2) Americans don't like the idea of MAD (see Arkin's previous blog and comments on the Republican candidate debate when the essential idea of MAD, e.g., holding a nuclear-armed Iran at risk using nuclear weapons) was raised.

J.J .Tira writes: "If we embark on a Aegis sea-based ballistic missile defense system along with the Patriot Adcap III movable systems, we would have a layered approach to missile defense for our European allies similar to the proposed Japanese missile defense system."

J.J., Nice thought. However, a sea-based defense for Europe against Iranian ballistic missiles would more than likely have to be located in the Black Sea. I'm guessing the Russians would REALLY be opposed to a permanent US Navy presence in their 'lake'!

Rev writes: "I did my homework so well that in 1983, I predicted that the then Soviet Union and the United States would be working in tandem on future projects like those that we are discussing today and others that have already taken place.

Ah, my opponents laughed then just as you are doing now. Perhaps it is not the Rev who needs to be doing his homework!"

Are you seriously taking me to task for not knowing what you may, or may not have, predicted in 1983?!!

feklar: You write "I've done some engineering, and I wouldn't even consider a descent interception. It makes a lot more sense to catch the missile on its ascent phase."

I'm not going to argue physics and technologies with you. Rather, the American Physics Society reported in July, 2003 that

"Intercepting missiles while their rockets are still burning would not be an effective approach for defending the U.S. against attacks by an important type of enemy missile. This conclusion comes from an independent study by the American Physical Society into the scientific and technical feasibility of boost-phase defense, focusing on potential missile threats from North Korea and Iran."

(http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/boosts2.cfm)

So, you'll have to take your arguments up with the APS and their peer-reviewed journal article.

lowhangingmissiles:

You're absolutely correct in the proposition that was laid out by Putin. Unfortunately, the full details of his proposal were not initially reported by the WAPO or other major media outlets until the following day ... a full day after Arkin's blog and most of the comments posted here. My point wasn't whether Putin's proposal was worth considering or not (the details of his proposal hadn't been reported at the time of my post), but rather that Arkin and others were too quick to jump to conclusions based on erroneous assumptions and biases.

As for my engineering background. I'm a retired Navy officer, with two advance degrees in physics, and considerable experience assessing cost-risk-benefit of current and proposed weapons systems for the Navy staff.

You also state: "Second, if someone says the system is "aimed" at Russia, they don't mean that in the sense that interceptors are targeted towards Russia, they mean it in the sense that its intent is to protect against missiles launched from Russia". Unfortunately, that's not the case for all who post here ... and it's to those few my comments were directed. For example, take go's 3:27 PM post immediately below yours. Go states that the goal of the missile defense system is to "make a first strike feasible on the Russian nuclear forces." Clearly he things the inteceptor missiles have some sort of offensive capability. They don't. Making a first strike with non-ballistic short range missiles armed with kinetic warheads (e.g. steel rods) is ludicrous!

All the information I mentioned on the US missile defense system (including Clinton's 1999 policy statement initiating the program, an overview of the technologies involved, and some lay-person graphics depicting the three-phase defense approach (ascent, mid-course, descent) is available at www.mda.mil

I have always believed that if the choice is between conspiracy and stupidity, 95% of the time it is the latter. For the good of the Republic (and not the good of democracy which is not always the reality), it's the other 5% that worries me. This said, the Govm't is capable of some sneaky and cunning things which will certainly fall in the 5% category...and have been privy to a thing or two.

IMO, the idea of a first strike on Russian soil is nonsense. The reality is that no one is sure of how well the Russians have secured command and controls for launching within the State itself let alone a rogue launch originating within a former Republic. This is what has been part of the MD play and it, of course, represents a boon for several contractors. And make no mistake about it, N Korea and Iran are ancillary actors.

Could go on, but I'm not. Some good posts, some stupid.

feklar,
I am not pointing the "genetic psychopath"
finger at Jews. There are about 5% of these men and women without conscience in the populations of the west, where the research has been done. These intraspecies predators are without conscience or empathy for mankind. They simple respond to the needs and desires of all beasts.
The capacity for merciless betrayal and lieing allows these psychopathic humanoids to prevail in human hierarchies. They are not recognized by normal individuals, although tyranny sharpens mankinds awareness of psychological deviance. It is hard to name a psychopath without evaluation but I will say that the Republican Party, Israel, some corporate media groups, and intelligence and military organizations would be a good place to look. These are the kind of people who don't blink at the thought of torture, mass murder, economic slavery, and atomic war. I am not thinking metaphorically, this is a real phenomenon and needs to be studied and known by men and women of good will as we wish peace and liberty for all humanity.

lowhangingmissles,
"Which is precisely why Reagan's promise to share the technology was a charade," Um, no. From the day Reagan pitched it, there has been no evidence or inkling to suggest that he ever thought that this was a charade. Based on Reagan's views and writings of fears of nuclear holocaust, it seems unlikely.

USS LIBERTY DOCUMENTARY VIDEO:

Loss of Liberty : 'Loss of Liberty' dramatically attempts to prove, beyond any doubt, that the attack by Israel on June 8, 1967 against the US naval intelligence gathering ship USS Liberty, in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded, was deliberate.

http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=55987

This is some what off-topic; but ...speaking of 'playing political games' and 'US politicians telling the truth to the American public'---This week marks a sad US history naval anniversary that few Americans even know about:
---------------------------------------
"Time for the truth about the Liberty"

By Ward Boston Jr.
June 8, 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070608/news_lz1e8boston.html

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel's June 8, 1967, bombing of the Navy intelligence ship Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel's combined air and naval forces attacked the Liberty for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died, and 172 were injured. The Liberty remained afloat only by the crew's heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd - president of the Court of Inquiry - that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken identity."

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel's actions - even when they kill Americans?

Today, survivors of Israel's cruel attack will gather in Washington, D.C., to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel's apologists to claim this attack was a case of "mistaken identity."

Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president's cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court's findings. He said, "Ward, they're not interested in the facts. It's a political matter, and we cannot talk about it." We were to "put a lid on it" and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

I join the survivors in their call for an honest inquiry. Why is there no room to question Israel - even when it kills Americans - in the halls of Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink "the American ship."

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than protecting Israel. And surely 40 years is long enough to wait.

Boston served as chief counsel to the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty. He also served as a naval aviator in World War II on the carrier Yorktown and as an FBI agent prior to his assignment to the Navy's Judge Advocates General Corps. He is a graduate of the the College of William and Mary School of Law and a resident of Coronado.

Is there a Democrat in the House or Senate with enough spine to tell the truth, to wit.: Bush's missile defense system is not operational, it has repeatedly failed even rigged development testing, it has been deployed in Alaska even though it is far from ready for deployment, it is a budgetary black hole, in theory it cannot work, MIT's top scientists have said so, one key reason it can't work is it has no means of differentiating between decoys and real warheads. ANY missile defense system can be easily overwhelmed by the Russian's present arsenal. Putin is quite aware of this fact. Clearly Bush has aimed his non-functional system, to be installed in Eastern Europe, at Russia's weapons, not Iran's fictional ones. The whole idea is a lucrative boondoggle for U.S. defense corporations running the contemptible scam and for Republican campaign coffers into which the donations pour from executive suites who benefit enormously. IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST. Things simply can't be allowed to go on like this!

I've done some engineering, and I wouldn't even consider a descent interception.

It makes a lot more sense to catch the missile on its ascent phase, using a compressed air tunnel catapult or another form of catapult, because infrared tracking would be more reliable than radar, because of issues regarding the exponential difficulty of course corrections immediately prior to impact as the distance decreases (think 15 mph side wind encountered 20 meters before impact: one gust, and you have a negative impact: The relative speed head-on is considerable leaving no time for last minute course correction versus the vastly lesser relative speed catching up from behind.), but mainly because the ICBM has to carry a considerable mass of the warhead (plutonium and uranium are very heavy. You think lead is heavy?) and the interceptor doesn't.

This gives a considerable advantage in speed to the interceptor, which can be amplified to an even greater degree if a catapult is used as the "first stage". Even if the ICBM were launched the same way, the considerable extra mass would negate a very large part of the extra acceleration.

If an SS-19 were modified to be without a warhead to intercept one that had one, and both were launched from a catapult, and the launches occurred with 4 minutes and 1000 miles of each other, then:

If the interceptor used a simple 10 meter spring catapult, the armed missile would have to be launched from a mile long magnetic / compressed air accelerator catapult to be able to outrun the interceptor because there is considerably more mass to have to accelerate.

Probably two miles long since extra weight (ejectable Iron permanent magnet rings) would have to be added to the ICBM for the stator assembly of the magnetic drive for the electromagnetic drive tunnel to be able to accelerate it.

With or without a catapult, less mass = more speed. More mass = less speed. Therefore the interceptor will always be considerably faster.

Frank - thanks for relaying the info on boost-phase / descent-phase defense.

But sometimes it is not the technical details which generate confusion -

The proposal doesn't call for placing the interceptors in Azerbaijan; only using the radar information collected from the site. The physics of interception you refer to, if I am not mistaken, concern the siting of the interceptors, not the radar component. Putin extended his "proposal" by suggesting several other sites for the interceptors, not Azerbaijan but Iraq, Turkey, offshore, S Europe. Half of these sound unsuitable for descent-phase intercepts; it seems his point is to take them out of former USSR client states.

Second, if someone says the system is "aimed" at Russia, they don't mean that in the sense that interceptors are targeted towards Russia, they mean it in the sense that its intent is to protect against missiles launched from Russia, or that it has the political intent of encircling Russia by strengthening the ties of frontier states to the US.

Are you an engineer? You conceptualize things through an engineering framework and are dismissive of concepts that don't fit that framework. But keep posting.

"for the genetic psychopaths who rule Israel"

Sadly, much of his (her?) post might well be accurate...

But this one part, see where the finger is pointing to? The Nazis had two main enemies and targets for "ethnic cleansing". The Russians, and the Jews.

In 1939, the Pope praised Hitler for his "Knightly crusade against Bolshevism" (Russian Jews). (To somewhat of his credit, at least the Pope changed his tune in 1942 when it became obvious what the crusade entailed... and the church began sneaking Jews out of Germany)

The Fourth Reich knows most people's fingers will point to Israel, and sit back and laugh.

The worst that can happen, if things go south, is that the Jews get blamed and some group of military chumps somewhere "retaliates" against them. (I'm more of a pseudo-Buddhist with influence from Jesus rather than from Christianity myself)

I was a chump for that BS myself for the longest time until I finally figured it out...

Remember that those who control Hollywood are mostly Jews, and "Fahrenheit 911" could not have succeeded at the box office unless they allowed it to succeed (since they own and control 99.99 percent of the theaters).

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if everything else in their post was entirely accurate.

Kevin wrote:
Once Putin has the U.S. technology and capability to defend against missile attack, exactly WHAT will his next step be?
***

Which is precisely why Reagan's promise to share the technology was a charade, yet it was endorsed by the WaTimes' Tony Blankley yesterday on "Left, Right, and Center" as proof that George really did get a concession from Putin by getting Vladmir to agree in principle with Reagan's proposal. And this is why George can't simply reject it - he needs the long shadow of Reagan for cover - he needs all the cover he can get.

The psychopaths who control the government of the USA plan to attain nuclear primacy over the planet. Putin knows this and called the USA's bluff that the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic is to protect Europe from Iran and not to make a first strike feasible on the Russian nuclear forces. The genetic psychopaths are an existential threat to mankind and must be stopped before they destroy the planet in their soulless attempt to enslave mankind. The USA is a terrorist nation. The entire world knows it. A government of neo-cons who attacked and mass murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11 to begin a slaughter in Southwest Asia for the genetic psychopaths who rule Israel will not hesitate to nuke Iran if they could get away with it. The Zionist controlled media of the USA continues to provide cover for the murderers in the White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The USA descends into a gulug unless these psychopaths are recognized for what they are and removed from power.

Frank and some others...

Do not underestimate Russian prowess, their savvy or smarts.

I am frequently reminded that Russia was first to reach outer space minus America's purported technological advantage.

I am afraid that the Russians are, esoterically, a lot smarter than average and the more erudite Americans historically give them credit for!

#43 was caught with his pants down!

I'm surprised you didn't do your homework first to understand the details of this issue before you bought into Putin's bluff.

Posted by: Frank

I did my homework so well that in 1983, I predicted that the then Soviet Union and the United States would be working in tandem on future projects like those that we are discussing today and others that have already taken place.

Ah, my opponents laughed then just as you are doing now. Perhaps it is not the Rev who needs to be doing his homework!

I have not followed this debate to any great extent. I did however glean a nugget from Mr. Putin's suggestion regarding a sea-based missile defense. I believe that his suggestion makes greater sense from an American and European perspective. If we embark on a Aegis sea-based ballistic missile defense system along with the Patriot Adcap III movable systems, we would have a layered approach to missile defense for our European allies similar to the proposed Japanese missile defense system.

By adopting this approach, we could implement an immediate missile defense system, but we could diffuse the potential for igniting a new ballistic missile arms race. An added benefit would be to eliminate a Maginot line type problem wherein the offensive missiles could be relocated from those countries currently seeking nuclear capabilities to other potential adversaries where the stationary system would not be effective.

My argument is directed against digging massive holes in the ground which leads to a boost phase missile defense system as opposed to a multi-re-entry phase system .

Mr. Arkin, isn't this a futile, irrelevant exercise? Look. The world knows that George W. Bush is even lamer than most lame duck Presidents. I don't say that as an insult to Bush but rather as a realistic assessment that anything these two "guys" reach agreement on has the consistency of flatulence and will dissipate completely in January, 2009.

No one knows for certain who Bush's successor will be but it is a safe bet that the next President is not going to break a sweat emulating the Presidency of George W. Bush. That highway is now closed. It is far more likely that we will return to the more reality based foreign policy that dominated prior to 9-11. And I will make a further prediction: When Bush leaves, the war on terror will leave with him. Maybe not overnight, but I am fairly confident that much of the driving force behind the war on terror is the talent this bunch has for hyping even the most routine terrorist acts or terrorist plots foiled as evidence that we face this monolith Nazi-like global conspiracy. When Bush and Cheney leave--and the heavy breathing neoconservatives with them--I predict that terrorist violence in the world will diminish back down to the more tolerable levels we experienced before 9-11. And those color coded alert charts will quietly disappear and be remembered in the future as just another embarrassing symbol of a Presidential administration that had an uncommon talent for hype and deception.

"President Putin of Russia, is a very intelligent individual. Don't underestimate his ability,or his threat, to do as he said he will do,if a missile defense system is deployed in Europe."

"President Putin of Russia, is a very intelligent individual. Don't underestimate his ability,or his threat, to do as he said he will do,if a missile defense system is deployed in Europe."

Arkin,
The whole idea of a missle defense system started with Reagan (SDI/StarWars). Here is a list of what was said about the idea at the time:
- It was impossible to which Reagan said it was worth a try to save millions of lives and that every weapon invented had inspired a defense - why not this one?
- It was too expensive to which Reagan said it might be worth it to keep tens of millions of people alive
- It would be destabilizing, prompting a attack before it became reality. Reagan responded that MAD would still work. He also said that he would give it to the rest of the world so that everyone would sleep well at night.
- Critics said it was merely a bargaining chip. Reagan wondered how it could be a chip since he was giving it to them.

I bring all that up because if there is one president that Bush tries to emulate, it's Reagan. Bush is not using this a bargaining chip. Interestingly, Gereral Secreatary Andropov's response to hearing about SDI was that it was "insane" and "a bid to disarm the Soviet Union". It's deja vu all over again.

hey william arkin go back to france until you decide whose side you're on in this war for civilization.

We would say Bush is a Ptaak, back where I come from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNTVzwjEyb4

(The United States never needed to import oil, in other words, and this was known in 1973)

Book: "Energy Future: Study by the Harvard Business School" (widely regarded as the energy "Bible")

Book: "Energy: The Created Crisis"

Wall Street Journal, 1984: "1,001 Years of Natural Gas"

Book: "The War Against the Atom"

"Well last I heard Bush had befriended The Dominion on the other side of the wormhole to take care of any 'guided asteroids'"

To land a spacecraft on Venus is considerably more difficult than landing one on mars. Yet the Russians landed Venera 1 on Venus, which sent back photographs for 9 minutes before it finally melted.

Note that this was Venera 1, not the Venera 9 or Venera 14. The first time, right out of the box, they pull it off.

So then, how would one explain their 35+ "failed" Mars missions? Placing navigation and guidance systems, fuel tanks, and rockets on a few asteroids 50 times the size of a city bus, perhaps, would be one valid and technologically feasible explanation.

One suspects that you believe that the USA never landed Man on the moon. And that the stars are really the eyes of the gods looking down, perhaps? The Sun orbits the Earth? You'd burn me at the stake this very second, I bet, because I believe the Earth orbits the Sun.

If you want to deal with my unproven theories, I'll field one here and see if you can attack it.

Someone in another post attached to another of Arkin's articles said the Russians believe that the USA is preparing for a nuclear first strike. There may be something to this theory, and it wouldn't surprise me if that is exactly what the USA tried to pull off.

I suspect that Bush and the "Neo-cons" are agents of the Fourth Reich sent, planted, or already existing here to destroy the USA by the remnants of the Third Reich.

The Bush family was part of the German-American bundt, and the US Congress had to pass a special law to keep his grandfather from selling weapons to the Nazis.

It would be difficult, without resorting to the application of military force or violence, to damage the USa worse than the Bush family has done.

The very foundation of a modern industrial civilization is the existence of limitless supplies of cheap fuel and electricity.

The Bush family, from the various positions of Head of the CIA, the CIA, President, and soon, military, has successfully destroyed the foundation of the USA economy by ending, 35 years ago, cheap fuel and electricity.

The USA at the time (1973) had 300 to 1000 years of domestic natural gas, and a 98 percent probability of a limitless supply in the form of Biomass, confirmed in 1984 by Jimmy Carter's Dept. of Energy's biomass fuels research project and again in 1986 when Brazil began producing all of its fuel from ethanol for corn and sugar cane.

Before and after comparisons:

1973:
We have 100 more military bases than we have now.
US Citizens work 5 weeks a year for the government, to pay their taxes
65 percent manufacturing / 35 percent service economy
Thousands of bombers

2007:
We have lost half of our military, and what remains is much less well trained.
US Citizens work 6 months of the year for the government.
15 percent manufacturing / 85 percent service economy.
A few hundred bombers.
Considerable, sometimes vast, reductions in every area of government supplied services as compared to 1973.

I also believe that a part of our military was taken over by Negroes and used to take over South Africa (which, being a Yankee, as a basic concept I support).

I suspect that either the Fourth Reich, spread around here and there mostly on islands, island countries, South America, Australia, and a few other places here and there, or the Negro element in Africa and the Middle East, or possibly both (mistakenly) believe that:

1) Russia and China are the only remaining threats they face

2) If the depleted "slave state" of the USA is used as a tool to nuke Russia, the Russian nuclear retaliation will be misdirected and will therefore only be against the USA, and the actual perpetrators located elsewhere will not be touched.

3) China will either participate and destroy itself, or some plan can be generated later to "deal with" them.

One wonders....

Perhaps Putin should openly publish a (very small) subset of Russian Topol-M ICBM targeting data, so that the Russian ICBM destinations might be better understood?

And one final thought.

I'm absolutely befuddled as to how people here can think the US interceptor missiles can be "aimed" against Russia. Then planned interceptor missiles DO NOT have explosive warheads. Rather, they use expanding rod technology; essentially a large steel hoop that expands when it gets near the inbound ballistic missile and tries to take it off course ... before the ballistic missile's warhead arms ... by ripping it apart like a can opener.

So tell me again. What part of the interceptor missile system is a threat to Russia that we're aiming at them??

Jeez. Does anyone here know what they're talking about?? Or, for that matter, even willing to do a little research and learn?? If you are, the website of the Federation of American Scientists (the same folks that bring you the "Doomsday Clock") at www.fas.org is an excellent site for obtaining background knowledge and information on all sorts of national security affairs issues. They're certainly a more credible source than Arkin.

The Rev writes:

"Vladimir Putin essentially is saying, I call and raise you one!

Vladimir Putin called #43's bluff, that's what this is all about. ...

This match goes to Vladimir. The question now is whether #43 will fold or raise the ante?"

Rev, See my comments below about the physics of ballistic missile intercept and why Azerbaijan is most likely an unsuitable location for interceptor missiles.

No. If anyone is bluffing, it's Putin. I'm surprised you didn't do your homework first to understand the details of this issue before you bought into Putin's bluff.

OD wrote:

"Putin is calling the US bluff. Bush says the missiles aren't directed against Russia but against Iran, etc. Azerbaijan is the perfect location for a system to stop an Iranian missile but is useless for stopping Russian ones."

You're wrong, OD. Just as many of the other posts here are.

The physics of ballistic missils intercept provides for an easier kill to occur on the descent phase of the missile, rather than the ascent phase. By and large, a good portion of our national missile defense system technology is predicated on a high altitude kill of a descending missile. Azerbaijan is too close to Iran for our intercept missiles to work; e.g., Iranian ballistic missiles will still be in their ascent phase of their flight. The physics of the intercept problem (time, distance, speed of interceptor missile, ballistic missile re-entry speed, etc.) make Poland and the Czech Republic far more suitable for locating intercept missile sites than Azerbaijan.

Putin undoubtably knows this, but offered Azerbaijan hoping to score points in the press - a press (like Arkin) that makes too many erroneous (ignorant?)assumptions and no longer digs into the issues before arriving at conclusions.

Azerbaijan may, however, be a good location for an X-band tracking radar (similar to the one currently in the Aleutian Islands to detect and track North Korean ballistic missiles targeted against the US mainland).

If anyone truly wishes to understand the issues surrounding the current debate over Missile Defense I suggest you read the Congressional Research Service's Report to Congress on the subject (www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31111.pdf).

If you're truly interested in learning more about complex and multi-dimensional national security issues, you'd do well to trust CRS before trusting Arkin to provide the required background.

"The last I heard, the Russians had guided asteroids that can destroy entire continents, and all it takes is one Russian submarine to survive to bring one of more of them down."

Well last I heard Bush had befriended The Dominion on the other side of the wormhole to take care of any 'guided asteroids'

Someone wrote:

"Vladimir and the Russians know that they have a lot to worry about; America has already practically surrounded Russia."

China would side with Russia if the US started an armed conflict with Russia, as would most of the rest of the world.

Russia is more than capable of defending itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zho8Xh4hQpY

Russia or China both, either alone, could defeat the USA in either conventional or nuclear war. The USA has lost half its military over the last 35 years, and a history of its economy being destroyed over the last 35 years by importing oil it does not need has destroyed most of its manufacturing capacity and therefore its military supply lines have been decimated.

In the Movie "Tora, Tora, Tora", (or was it "Midway", I forget...) Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is seen saying that America represents a serious threat "I have been to America: its industrial might is awesome"

The USA won World War II because of its supply lines and industrial might. The USA had a 65 percent manufacturing / 35 percent service economy. Today it has an 85 percent service / 15 percent manufacturing economy.

USA journalism propaganda (or ignorance) would have you believe that the USA is still (by far) the most significant military force in existence.

Both Russia and China easily have the capability to annihilate our remaining carrier fleets, and without those, most of what relatively little the USA had been capable of military is no longer possible.

I suspect that the Russians and the Chinese both know that if the USA launched a nuclear first strike against Russia, the actual fingers on the nuclear button would not only have been located in the USA, but in South America and Africa and a few other places as well. In particular, the Chinese always know much, but say little.

The last I heard, the Russians had guided asteroids that can destroy entire continents, and all it takes is one Russian submarine to survive to bring one of more of them down.

Attack Russia, and 18 to 30 months later, you all die.

Vlad makes a Queen's gambit move on the board and the empty suit gets the 'runs' over in Germany (Was it Polonium? Was he 'Polonized'?). Anyway, it's back to the future time - The Bi-Polar world is bak (Thank God!)Now the fun starts!

Putin is calling the US bluff. Bush says the missiles aren't directed against Russia but against Iran, etc. Azerbaijan is the perfect location for a system to stop an Iranian missile but is useless for stopping Russian ones.

So if Bush were telling the truth about the system not being directed at Russia, he would have no problem with an Azerbaijan-based system.

Of course, he wasn't telling the truth. So now he's caught in his own web of lies.

As for this silliness about how "it's only ten missiles", that's just their way of getting their foot in the door. The debate occurs when the base is built. Subsequent additions to the base will take place under the media radar - in fact they'll probably be classified.

Give Bush his base, and the US could have 500 missiles there in a few years, with no-one any the wiser, or at least no further occasion for debate or re-thinking.

This IS an anti-Russian system. Its purpose IS offensive - US missile defence was always openly envisaged and discussed in Washington as a tool to mop up the weakened Russian response after a US "disabling" first strike on Russian missile silos. The goal was always to be in a position to fight a "winnable" nuclear war. Thus US missile defense threatens not only Russia but the very principle of deterrence. The Chinese hate it as much as the Russians do. It WILL start a new Cold War if it goes ahead, because nobody who knows anything about these matters believes that the US intends to stop at ten missiles.

There is one chance to stop it. Now. Polls show that the people of the Czech Republic and Poland are dead against having these things on their soil.

A poll by Poland's Rzeczpospolita newspaper found 63% of Poles opposed to having the base on their soil, and just 23% in favour. In Czech polls, 62% opposed the radar base. 78% of Czechs said it shouldn't be installed without a referendum.

In recent weeks, four Czech villages near the proposed radar site held votes on whether to welcome it. In Trokavec, 73 people said no and one person said yes.

In the Hvozdany municipality, 389 out of 409 voters opposed the radar.

In Tene, 139 voted against it and three people were in favour.

And in Zajecov, of 740 votes, nearly 99 per cent, or 728, asked their council to do its best to hamper the US plans. Ten people supported the plan and two ballots were spoiled.

But none of this slowed the US Govt down in the least. They believe the missiles are essential to defend democracy!

==Hmm, Brezezinski? Which long-since-discredited national security dinosaur will we trot out next, Madeline Albright? This is the guy who thought that allowing the Shah to fall was a good idea==

Should we have propped that vicious dictator a bit longer, then? After all, we installed him in an illegal, engineered coup in the 50s, setting the chain of events in motion that are still blowing back manure...

Arkin, get with the times. Azerbaijan has already said it will co-operate. Putin said he's already cleared it with Aliyev.

I give you credit for one thing, at least you're not sticking with the lie that this is all about Iranian missiles. You admit the system is aimed at Russia. Putin's gambit was designed specifically to force Americans like yourself into the open.

I am glad Putin told Bush where he can stick his missles.

I am glad Putin told Bush where he can stick his missles.

I am glad Putin told Bush where he can stick his missles.

It is stupid for US to build a missile defense system in Europe. Let the EU build their own system, why should American tax payers subsidize the wealthy Europeans. The EU$ is getting pricer for us all the time because we are playing the policeman of the world. We need to get to our senses.

Plus it would not work. The technology is not there. The terrorists can bring in suitcase nukes and laugh at our missile defense system.

Russia has more nuclear weapons than the U.S. It could overwhelm any missile defense system through shear numbers. The effectiveness of the Missile Defense system is questionable, and I would rely on deterrence over any such system. it is a waste of money.
By: P. J. Casey

Does the same hold true when you take into consideration the following:

How much of the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal is operable?

Have you included conventional nuclear weapons (America reportedly has about 40,000 of those alone)?

We certainly have fewer hydrogen bombs than the Russians (two to be sure), get my drift?

If Vladimir can lower gas prices in Cleveland, he will be Washington's best friend.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes,

You are on to something! Vladimir should create a cartel with Hugo Chavez. Together they could distribute cheap oil and gas to the American people - then the American people would also look deeply into both of their eyes and souls, and then realize that these are really a couple of real amigos.

Vladimir Putin essentially is saying, I call and raise you one!

Vladimir Putin called #43's bluff, that's what this is all about. #43 has been chiding Mr. Putin all along by saying that the Russians don't have anything to worry about given the American build-up and spread of influence all around the Russian borders.

He has been saying to the man that he looked into his heart, to just join us Vladimir, homey, buddy ole pal.

Vladimire and the Russians know that they have a lot to worry about; America has already practically surrounded Russia.

This kind of reminds me of the 60's when the Cuban Missile crisis took place, that is when America wanted those missles out of Cuba in deference to America having missiles strategically placed in Europe and especially Turkey.

In the end a deal was struck and the missiles came tumbling down.

This match goes to Vladimir. The question now is whether #43 will fold or raise the ante?

Madeline Albright is a discredited national security dinosaur while Condi Rice is correct? Let us compare the record of each: Bosnia/Kosovo vs Iraq.

Reason in the hand of amateurs is overrated.

Trust always in Facts.

Bush is an ediot, He is already dividing the world with anti terror iraq policy and now its russia. Making enemies everywhere, the future will be interesting.

Hmm, Brezezinski? Which long-since-discredited national security dinosaur will we trot out next, Madeline Albright? This is the guy who thought that allowing the Shah to fall was a good idea. The guy who thought that the Ayatollah Khomeini was a western-inspired democrat. Russia's silly attempt to "stand up" to the US on such a trivial issue only demonstrates just how desperate Russia is to remain relevant in the new global order. Rice was correct to point out that one radar system and a few interceptors wouldn't hold a candle to the Russian arsenal, even as depleted as it is, and therefore pose no real threat to Russia's strategic defense capability. Putin's tactic of scaring Europe is misguided, since the US-Old Europe alliance is as weak as it has ever been. The US national security establishment has grown weary of Old Europe's constant whining and continued inablity to take any meaningful action to insure its own security. Old Europe's two-faced rhetoric regarding US power has finally run its course and Putin's attempt to influence American by threatening Old Europe is seriously misguided. If he is really concerned about US anti-missile systems, maybe he should stop supporting the enemies of the US and become a partner rather than an adversary. There is no better way to guarantee Russia's interests than security cooperation with the US. Instead of trying to carve out a rival sphere of influence, Russia should partner with the US to counter the rising influence of China, a country that officially regards Eastern Siberia as its "Northern Resource Area", something I'm sure Gasprom would disagree with. Putin also shouldn't worry about pressure to reform coming from the US, since the closer a dictator is to the US, the safer he is. The US only pressures those dictators and autocrats who are its enemies, like Cuba or Iran. Also, what better market for Russia's huge oil and natural gas reserves than fuel-hungry America. If Vladimir can lower gas prices in Cleveland, he will be Washington's best friend.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes

Russia has more nuclear weapons than the U.S. It could overwhelm any missile defense system through shear numbers. The effectiveness of the Missile Defense system is questionable, and I would rely on deterrence over any such system. it is a waste of money.

Mag Sag said it all.

Putin is a very intelligent fellow. He fully comprehends that Bush lacks critical thinking skills, has real intelligence & a grasp of history.He also comprehends that Cheney is an empty suit even with all his bomblast. Putin did not rise through the KGB by being a fart joking frat boy with a C average.I congratulate President Putin on this masterful smart counterpoint to Bush's stupid idea [most likely push ny the Neo-cons} of placing missles in Europe,
I really do not expect that our president knows how to deal with this except to try and give President Putin a backrub! In previous administrations presidents whether Republican or Democratic would have wise men not wise asses who would sit down and work this out to the mutual advantage of all concerned. Each party to these talks would leave the table with their dignity in tact having saved face .Also each party would have something tangible to report back to thier public and our overall aim of security would be achieved. When you have an administration that throws a working diplomatic framework that helped to prevent another world war out the window our current situation regarding Russia {among other places} is what will develop.
Unfortunately Bush has no understanding of how Russia feels thinks or views its place in history and the world .If he ever really could comprehend that Russia has an underbelly of about 25 million Muslims that used to be part of the Soviet Union, the awful polices of Stalin regarding Chechyna the heavy handed blunderbluss approach towards that country by Putin & Yelstin, the ineptitude of Clinton administration ofiicials ,his own administrations lack of respect towards Russia's 'historical' borders-ie the Ukraine and Russia's imperial tendencies he would have been better able to work with President Putin .
I understand that Presdient Putin has run Russia with a heavy hand but Russia is not the US. To keep telling in public leaders such as President Putin how they should run their country when he Bush has so mismanged our country and totally disregarded the system of checks & balances with his overuse of signing statements and executive orders is sheer folly.Do you not see that Prresident Putin knows a fellow autocrat when he Putin sees one? Do you not see that Putin knows what Bush fails to comprehend-the total failure & collaspse of the Bush foreign policy? Do you not see that Bush like Putin uses the courts and the legal system to advance his political ideology? Do you not see that Putin has been playing Bush like a fool?
It is obvious to me that Putin a former KGB officer is a smart disciplined individual.He does not allow his emotions to run his life.Unlike our presidentt he thinks and comprehends.This is the difference between having an adult as head of your country and a child. I am not thrilled with Putin's rule but it is typical of past Russian leadership whether czar or communist-centralized, military-secretitve, romantic, passionate and grand in design.You will find these themes run throughout Russian literature. You can hear the pride of the Russian people in thier music. It doesnt take a genuis to see that our president is cluless .Let us pray like never before that Bush doesnt do anymore damage in the remaining months on his term. Pray for the best & prepare for the worst.

Putin's offer will be rejected since the plan is to treaten Russia and divide the Europe, especially from Russia.

American neo-cons still dream of a world domination and Russia together with most of the free World clearly stay on its way.

The rejection will show the real intentions to all and discount all the American propaganda to all.

Arkin,

You should have spent more effort writing about how technological limitations and constraints are driving the US proposed missile defense locations (e.g., terminal phase intercept versus ascent phase intercept problems) rather than the speculative and ill-informed opinion you chose to proffer.

Again, you chose to incite passions rather than inform judgement. Either you are not the expert your byline professes, or do not have access to them, or you chose to deliberately forgo expert analysis in arriving at your conclusions. In either cases, you do a disservice to your readers. I am becoming less a fan and increasingly more dissillusioned with your blogging efforts.

It is obvious that Putin outfoxed Bush in such an obvious way that I cannot believe that the U.S. Govt. pundits did not see it coming. Of course, the missle defense system was to be aimed at Russia. However, by making it look like Iran was the one to be defended against Bush sunk his own plan. It was just too easy for Putin to say that he would join in and practically deep six the whole project. How dumb can our own leaders be?

Chas: In local elections in the areas where the radars are planned, about 80-90% of people have voted against their installation.

An "elaborate charade of feigned friendship"?

Nah, one could argue they are soul mates. Both seek to undermine democracy each in his own country in the name of preserving security and stability. Both seek to meddle in other countries in the name of spreading peace and democracy.

And we haven't mentioned the Brit guy who loudly preaches integrity and human rights abroad while sanctioning massive bribery right at home...

Arkin, it appears you're pulling facts out of your tiny hat as well, unless you can cite appropriate sources for this otherwise totally useless analysis. Please spare us your overconfidence; some of us still read the news in a professional capacity and expect professional reporting... Shame on you, Post. This guy is a self serving tool.

In Poland and Czech Republic almost two thirds of public opinion is against US anti-missile installations.
Unfortunately both governments have strong pro-American inclination and thus they don't take into account their citizens' point of view.
Additionally Polish and Czech rulers tacitly consider US military presence on their soil as a hedge against possible Russian expansionist activity.

Arkin says Putin cannot deliver Azerbaijan.

Here goes that argument:

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565030371423814484

joint missile defence system is it a begining for war. If you blog or have a webpage check out http://www.widgetmate.com

Yes, Peter. This beats the heck out of
cumbersome and un-necessary registration
systems.

chas: Poles are largely for it and Czechs
are largely against it.

russia and america could imerge as great power. If you want to get low rate american express credit cards check out http://www.credit-card-gallery.com

Just wanted to note that several of the comments to this article are much more sharp minded, thoughtful and interesting than the artical itself. A big thank to both the commentators and to Washington Post for setting up the system.

Before the Putin hyper-reaction and then the
Putin offer, he'd said the Czech/Polak
bases were a sop to the US defence industry.

I tend to agree.

With Putin's Azerbaijan offer, the Russians
would be left with more to do than just use
"the hammers and nails to pack the boxes"
on a US technology.

Jobs jobs jobs.

Wasn't Bush falling all over himself trying to prove to the world that this system isn't aimed against Russia in any way shape or form? Now it seems, as Arkin writes, that's obviously not the case.

In all the bantering back and forth, I've yet to read one comment from Poland or other countries who would have the defense system. What are their thoughts? Or do they just want the US to take the heat?

This is a childish game of tit for tat instead of meaningful cooperation aimed at the common good. Think about the threat "to point missiles at Europe", how childish is that?

The "W" missile defense plan (ala star wars) is a lever to put pressure on Russia to support the diplomatic efforts to influence Iran. W is saying if you dont help us prevent Iran from developing this capability we will put (defensive) weapons on your border to protect us from this threat.

In the meantime Russia resents being pushed around and enjoys being the fly in the ointment. It makes them meaningful on the world stage again, and thier fragile egos need it.

Once more, the folly of investing heavily in ballistic missile defense reveals itself. The backward thinking of the radical right results in a crisis between the US and Russia, while failing to give us any real protection against a nuclear threat. Does anybody really think that a "rogue state" will bother to put up a massive ICBM system in order to attack the US with nuclear weapons, when they can actually deliver those same weapons and destroy our major coastal cities by sending them in shipping containers? By the time the US develops an effective ABM system, all these countries are likely to have cruise missile technology anyway, which would completely thwart any ABM system. ABM was a stupid idea that has brought us more trouble than protection.

The US and Europe are playing with fire.
The supposed benefits of the missle shield and radar pale in comparison with the damage Russia could do on a much more important front: global economics.
A ticked off Putin could start to accept euros for oil!
The USD and the US and European economies would collapse.
Russia would turn to China as its main trading partner.
Gone is the "shining city on a hill."

Hey John:

I don't agree with Arkin either.

Puttin is calling Bush's bluff. Bush claims that the bases to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic are meant to protect the US and Europe from the missiles of "rogue nations" such as Iraq and North Korea. In fact they're meant as a loaded gun meant to intimidate Russia. Putin has offered the base in Azerbaijan which is obviously much better suited as protection against Iran and North Korea than any base in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush of course will refuse, and thereby will openly reveal what he's up to.
Bush is so easy to outfox...

I am tired watching recent Kremlin's "anti-missile circus"! I think all these Putin's proposals and paper threats are empty propaganda moves only aimed at outsmart Russian public opinion before 2008 presidential elections.

If Putin really wanted to counter American NMD deployment in Eastern Europe, he would simply order starting new IRBM production.

Not words but deeds...

Mr Arkin, I do not agree with you.

Once Putin has the U.S. technology and capability to defend against missile attack, exactly WHAT will his next step be? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but isn't this akin to handing a mugger a pistol and flak jacket and then standing idly by to see what he will do?

Russia has repeatedly stated that it is strongly against any possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The "slide from democracy" seems to appear more in the minds of the western press - not Russian population. This is a good deal to address potential threats from rogue states (not Russia, of course) and step-out of the paranoid and russophobic mentality of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Defense against a small number of missiles is both feasible and useful. Feasible, because it actually is possible to intercept one or ten missiles, and useful because the knowledge that it is feasible is by itself a deterrent to any nation that might consider deploying them. This is quite unlike the Cold War situation with strategic missiles, when there were already so many deployed that no defense was feasible. Deterrence through sanctions sounds nice, but as North Korea has shown it is possible to develop missiles entirely independently.

At the same time, missile defense is no substitute for multilateral diplomacy and must not be used as an excuse to abandon efforts to normalize relations. Nor will missile defense defend against nuclear attack by non-governmental terrorists. Missile defense can reduce the ability of a nation to make credible threats; it does not reduce the ability of a stateless group to wreak havoc.

Hopefully, the US missile defense system in eastern Europe will go the route of the immigration bill in the US. Nowhere.

Putin called W's bluff, that the missle defense system is not meant to defend against Russian missles. Now George has to show his cards, will he put the system on land friendly to Russia? I think not.