US To Build Ballistic Missile Defense In Poland?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Dec 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The long-suffering US taxpayers might perhaps be excused for wondering what this is all about?

    Russia is annoyed at Poland’s plans to host a U.S. anti-missile system, a top Moscow general said, adding that such a space umbrella in central Europe would only make sense in a conflict with Russia, Reuters reported.

    Warsaw’s new conservative government said in November that it was considering hosting the U.S. anti-missile system, making public what had previously been a subject of discreet talks with Washington.

    “Of course (such a system) would be aimed against us,” General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of Russia’s general staff, told Gazeta Wyborcza. “Rockets from other states would never fly to the West over Polish soil.”

    “Including central Europe in the U.S. anti-missile system would strengthen it in case of a conflict with Moscow ... I don’t expect a nuclear conflict between Russia and the West.”


    A former Polish foreign minister said Washington had asked Warsaw to remain discreet about the shield plans to soothe Russian concerns that the move would be aimed against Moscow.


    Baluyevsky said Russia had no plans to stop Poland from obtaining a rocket shield, saying: “What can we do? Go ahead build the shield, but think what will later fall on your heads.”

    "Russia Angered by U.S. Anti-Missile System Plans for Poland"
    Created: 02.12.2005 16:42 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:42 MSK
  2. They'll be using untermensch slave labour from the ranks of the "rendered"! 8O
  3. I couldn't get a clear sense from the article as to who or what is to be protected by this system.

    Booster-phase interception of weapons headed for North America? If so, is Poland really a logical place for the site?

    Terminal or point defense of European targets?
  4. Since when did a Defense Department project have to make sense? As long as it makes money... :twisted:
  5. Logic is clear enough. American weapon manufactures are hungry for huge profits. This leeches are not inresting in fact that Russia always has missiles that are able to beat this 'anti-missile shield'.

    It is an ideal situation: you sell hardware that will never be used and its effectiveness can't be tested. 9 from 10 of 'anti-missiles' can be changed for wooden copies and nobody would mention it.
  6. good news for the poles anyway going to be some well paid jobs going
  7. Maybe not be in the text, but the answer is VERY simple. The US!!!

    The installation is merely going to be a radar/EW site - not a missile launch site - similar to that planned for the North York moors. The sooner you detect a launch, the sooner the anti-missile missiles can be launched - and the further away from the US that the residue falls!

    It thus, makes Poland a target, without offering any defensive capability - just like the UK. Except in the case of MAD, where a attack on the UK/Poland is seen as equal to an attack on mainland US, and a secondary launch is initiated against the aggressor. Hmmmm!

    The US has never been willing to trade a US city for a European city, and I don't see a change in that now.
  8. Doing what? Manning the security perimeter?

    - Barriersssss ....... hup!
    - Can I see your pass sir
    - Fcuk off ya stoopid local Polishing tw@t. Can't ya see ma yooniform?
    - Barriersssss ....... daan!

  9. Problem is, right now if the Russians accidentally launch a nuclear missile at the US, the US has no chance of shooting it down and the way the logic works out is that they have to fire as many nuclear weapons as they can right back at Russia.
    Ballistic missile defences give you time - if you can shoot down the single missile, you can wait and see what happens rather than shooting back a load of your own missiles. This massively reduces the chance of a single missile firing degenerating into nuclear holocaust.

    As for making Poland a target - target for who? In a general nuclear war, they're screwed anyway so it doesn't make any difference. Rogue states and the like don't have the missiles or nuclear weapons to waste shooting at the bases of an anti-missiles system, and in any case they probably aren't accurate enough to do it any damage. Ultimately the UK and Poland both benefit from the reduced threat of nuclear holocaust at no cost.

    Finally, I probably ought to point out that Russia still has a working ABM system, has had it for some years now, and there is a fair bit of evidence that they built ABM capabilities into their SAM systems (in violation of the ABM treaty as it happens). So while the Russians are no doubt upset that their potential adversaries are now better protected than they were, they are in no position to complain.
  10. Wrong!

    This is a possibility that has been around for over 50 years. There are protocols in place as to how the two nations would react so as to prevent an escalation to MAD. If the Russians 'accidently' launch a single missile, then they accept the loss of a similar, but of greater value, target in retaliation. The very same applies should the US 'accidently' launch - and to the UK, France and China for that matter.


    There is an assumption of 100% infallability of the defensive system in your argument. Which there will NEVER be.

    Not necessary, as you have assumed incorrectly that MAD is inevitable. See above.

    Anybody who's decided to target the US.

    What's the first target in any offensive action? The enemy's (air)defence and comms system. Not so? So, if anybody chose to attack the US, Poland is now a target. Poland is NOT a target without this facility in a US v 1 other state situation.

    Not necessary, as you have assumed incorrectly that MAD is inevitable. See above.

    Who says the attack will be by a nuclear missile?

    So, if the Russians suggested building their own similar facility in, say, Cuba or Mexico, the US wouldn't start bleating like a herd of mountain goats? Hmmmmmm!
  11. well car dealers bar owners etc etc if i was a local mayor in poland I'd be doing just about anything to have the yankee base next door
  12. True. But there are swings and roundabouts in everything these days.

    Menwith Hill is the largest the largest US electronic monitoring station outside the US itself, and performs both military and civil functions. Does Menwith Hill have a major impact on the local economies in Harrogate or Whitby. I doubt it. Nevertheless, here's the personnel data for RAF Fylindales/Menwith Hill:

    That was in 2000, and now, in 2005:

    Apparently, in 1994, it contributed £40 million to the UK economy, although it wasn't specified whether this was an annual contribution or a total. Nor was it specified if this was a US contribution or simply a total US/UK contribution from the base etc etc. See here:

    And I'd be very surprised if the US plans a base of the same scale in Poland. So an economic benefits are likely to be far smaller and pretty negligable - except for the currently out-of-work Polish barrier technician!
  13. Really? Hear about it first time. Russia violated ABM treaty? So why mr.Bush hadn't mentioned it then he discarded ABM treaty?

    All these games with anti-ballistic missile systems (against Russia) are waste of time and you know about it pretty well.

    Our American friends naively think that Russia will spend its resorces to build own strategig anti-missile system. Yes, there are many fools in Russian leadership but not at this extent.
  14. Sergey, it's not against Russia but agaisnt China. Face facts, since Ukraine decided to head westwards Russia is basically out of the global geostrategy game.
  15. If an ABM site went into Poland it might also help protect Moscow.