US To Build Ballistic Missile Defense In Poland?

#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
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/02/russiapoland.shtml
 
#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?
 
#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
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
I couldn't get a clear sense from the article as to who or what is to be protected by this system.
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
brighton hippy said:
good news for the poles anyway going to be some well paid jobs going
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
merkator said:
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!
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
pdf27 said:
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.
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.


pdf27 said:
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.
Wrong!

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


pdf27 said:
This massively reduces the chance of a single missile firing degenerating into nuclear holocaust.
Not necessary, as you have assumed incorrectly that MAD is inevitable. See above.


pdf27 said:
As for making Poland a target - target for who?
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.

pdf27 said:
In a general nuclear war, they're screwed anyway so it doesn't make any difference.
Not necessary, as you have assumed incorrectly that MAD is inevitable. See above.


pdf27 said:
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.
Who says the attack will be by a nuclear missile?


pdf27 said:
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.
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
brighton hippy said:
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
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:

HMG said:
Menwith Hill
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) US military, (b) US civilian, (c) UK military and (d) UK civilian personnel work at Menwith Hill Station. [121780]

Mr. Spellar: As at 26 April 2000, at RAF Menwith Hill there were 415 US military, 989 US civilian, five UK military and 392 UK civilian personnel (excluding GCHQ staff). I am withholding the numbers of GCHQ staff under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000512/text/00512w10.htm
That was in 2000, and now, in 2005:

HMG said:
Menwith Hill
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) US Army, (b) US Navy, (c) US Marines, (d) US Airforce, (e) US civilians and (f) US contractors are working at RAF Menwith Hill. [7813]

Mr. Ingram: As of 1 June 2005 there were: 202 US Army personnel, 103 US Navy personnel, 34 US marines, 178 US Air Force personnel, 269 US Department of Defense civilians and 536 US contractors working at RAF Menwith Hill.

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) GCHQ, (b) Ministry of Defence Police Agency, (c) Ministry of Defence Guarding Service, (d) Royal Air Force and (e) other UK personnel are working at RAF Menwith Hill. [7814]

Mr. Ingram: As of 1 June 2005 there were 125 Ministry of Defence Police Agency personnel, 33 Ministry of Defence Guarding Service personnel, one Royal Air Force Officer and 231 other UK personnel working at RAF Menwith Hill. I am withholding the number of GCHQ personnel working at RAF Menwith Hill in accordance with Government policy of not commenting on intelligence matters.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050630/text/50630w17.htm
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: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-03-25/Debate-6.html

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
pdf27 said:
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).
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.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
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.
That's right. It's basically the same tactic used in the "Star Wars" system. A bluff...or is it? Kind of like Russian Roulette, eh? Maybe the chamber's empty...but maybe not. :twisted:
 
#17
AndyPipkin said:
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.
Andy! Look at map first. Russia is doomed to be involved in all geopolitical games.

Ukraine is not something solid. There is a big difference between Ukrainian East and West. Galitsia was never part of Russia before Stalin while the most economically developed Eastern areas are absolutely pro-Russian.

tomahawk6 said:
If an ABM site went into Poland it might also help protect Moscow.
...from French missiles?

YANK60 said:
KGB_resident said:
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.
That's right. It's basically the same tactic used in the "Star Wars" system. A bluff...or is it? Kind of like Russian Roulette, eh? Maybe the chamber's empty...but maybe not. :twisted:
I think ABM system in Polland will be an excuse to keep significant land forces there. And they can be used agaist Belarus in some scenarios. Further it would be a potential threat to Kaliningrad enclave.

Both objectives are unreachable just now but who knows what will happen in the future?

There is another (maybe the most important reason). Polland (poor country without natural resources and 20% unemployment) has spent $600m in Iraq (it is 10% her military budget). Pentagon is unable to compensate these spendings directly. The project with sensless (from military point of view) ABM will give a possibility to award Polish allies.
 
#18
Possibly...hey, Sergey, don't get me wrong. I consider Russians to be our friends now. But there is a history of animosity between us, and trust is hard to come by, especially if we're talking about nuclear weapons. Are all of the nukes accounted for? If not, where are they?
 
#19
Polland (poor country without natural resources
Apart from rather a lot of Coal, Sulphur , Copper, Amber and Natural gas , and embarrasing riches in Pork based foodstuffs.

But it might as well be all for naught , as the extraction industries are in dire need of modernisation.
 
#20
PartTimePongo said:
Polland (poor country without natural resources
Apart from rather a lot of Coal, Sulphur , Copper, Amber and Natural gas , and embarrasing riches in Pork based foodstuffs.

But it might as well be all for naught , as the extraction industries are in dire need of modernisation.
And the fastest growing economy in Europe, for the last three years :roll:
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top