US to press forward on missile defence despite Russian objections
US News
Apr 4, 2007, 0:10 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1
Why?
I have yet to hear or read a good reason for this.
Military industrial lobby, and the theoretical maintenance of invulnerable pre-emptive strike capability (subject to effectiveness, in practice).
Remote controlled missiles in Europe controlled by the US. They say defensive against who ? Yah right. Since when is any weapon only defensive. This will be US controlled weapons for any type of use and any target. Bush wars for world domination and oil appropriation.
The U.S. can install weapons wherever they want, but let another country even remotely suggest doing it, they are given ultimatums for instant removal????
'The good guys always win - in the end...'
What if Russian government decided to install the same stuffs in Venezuela.
'Defense'? The USofA has proven that it is not interested in 'defense' by it's 'offensive' 'strike first' policy. Another reader asked the correct question: 'Why'? Missal batteries are a 'means to an end', it is not a 'why'. 'Motivation and intent' like so much here 'are temporary constructs created for the sake of appearances' ... the Art of War. All unfolds according to prophesy.
TO Jamscared,Spot on mate nice comment.
Bush proves once again that if you give him a mouth, he'll put his foot into it. On its face, the plan seems to have merit ... assuming he's talking about anti-missile missiles. But not long ago, someone (and his Secretary of State) warned the U.N. of supposed dual-use facilities and equipment. Even with our own sophisticated satellites, we could see a warhead on a missile ... but still could not tell if the warhead contained a defensive or offensive component. And if we can't tell the difference, why should we expect others to just take our word for it? And if we are quick to worry about dual-use, why shouldn't we expect others to be equally worried?
I'd like to send Bush a case of lollipops. At least he'd have something other than a foot to put in his mouth. And to those who believe his plan is wise, I should probably up the ante from lollipops ... sending them cases of all-day suckers.
...that Russian Iranian nuke reactor progress slowed once the Polish interceptor issue was outed.
Since these are non-nuclear, they are no first strike weapon. Furthermore, they actually protect Russia, since any launch of rogue ICBM's intercepted, saves Russia the retaliation that would happen if Russian warheads landed anywhere.
Apparantly, Mr. Bush understands the issue just fine!
yah but sp4 doesn't understand a thing ..except tinfoil hats.
talk about stupid
Hands up ... all those who think George W. Bush is doing this as a 'favor' to Russia?
page: 1
Similar articles
- Pentagon opens new Air Force tanker competition
- Pentagon cancels Air Force tanker competition (Roundup)
- US missile defence chief: Iran can strike most of Europe
- US Army units to stay longer in Germany
- Pentagon undeterred by cuts in European missile defence
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious; Obama to attend service
- 2. PREVIEW: Sniper who terrorized US capital faces execution
- 3. Fort Hood focusing on healing after shootings
- 4. Fort Hood shooting investigation turns to possible terrorism ties
- 5. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
USA
Your Talkback on this Story