Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dean_acheson
1. If Russia wants to develop an ABM system (which the US has offered to help them with) then I doubt we would raise too much of a stink about it, as long as we were assured that there were not Mirvs attached to these "ABM" missles.
2. We don't have alot of say if Mexico lets Russia puts up a radar system. I mean, what is Mexico going to do, boo Ms. America or send waves of illegal immigrants across our borders?
|
You certainly mean all that rethoric only, knowing that it all is not so simplistic as you try to make it appear. At no costs your nation would accept without reacting to be encircled by more and more russian bases functioning as spy posts and tripwires, and close to your borders. Through pressure via internationaol fiance system, and eco nomical measures, the US very well has a significant ammount of power to influence middle and south america, althiugh that immense power currently is picked away at a bit by new polticial alloiances forming up in these regions, and directed against the US. And as you already admitted, you would not ignore a Russian ABM set up in a manner that it could put your ICBM-MIRVs in danger - you said "as long as they do not arm them with MIRVs". So you would only accept them to do what does not seriously question your demand for dominance and unilateralism.
Those bases Bush wants to built: the one onclues most modern hightech equipement and radar, both could reach far into the russian territory, second where there are silos, you could put the declared missiles into - or not, and third it means to send more american soldiers to the Russian border, that would function as tripwires. Think of the Russians what you want, but they do not have another option than to see these plans as an intended provocation, and attempt to strategically seal them off a bit more. they also do not have any reason to trust you, since NATO's excessive expansion to the east was against what has been promsied to the Russians in the early nineties - that there would be a relatively neutral bufferzone between both blocks. Instead, they have NATO at their borders now. that the Eatern givernment asked to join NATO is no argument. That somebody asks for something does not give him the right to demand that his question must be given a positive answer. NATO could have delayed or rejected the requests. The growing Russian aggressiveness may be fostered by their new wealth (energy ressources), but it is also motivated by the constant erosion of trust into NATO's political reliability. If I were them, I would have come to exactly the same conclusions like they did. They already sent one reqaction that just days ago I "predicted" - they have made true their threat to block any western plans on Kosovo. And this is only the beginning, there will coming more from Moscow. For example with regard to the UN security council. Cooperation is something that for the forseeable future you can forget. If someone thinks "no problem, let's ignore the UN like we already did", just consider that Russia exports not only energy, but also nuclear technology, and military goods.
If the Americans want their damn ABm, they should opt for the navy version of the two, and sation the according platforms in the Mediterranean. no need to mess with then Russian by placing the so far inferior of the two versions directly at the Russian front door. This showdown is absolutely unnecessary, imo.
If a man shows up at the garden door of my house with a tele and a gun in his hands and time and again sweeping my house with it, I would not care what he would tell me about garden-photography, but show him why it is a good idea not stay too long there.