Baltic Fears: NATO Debates Directing Missile Shield against Russia

Der Spiegel ^ | August 25, 2014 – 11:16 AM

[Olog-hai]

NATO officials are considering deploying a long-planned missile defense system—aimed at protecting Europe from attacks from the Middle East—against Russia as well, Spiegel has learned.

Calls for such an expansion to the system’s remit, which is backed by the United States, are growing in Poland as well as in NATO member states Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. […]

But the majority of NATO members, especially Germany, are opposed to the proposal, warning that it could result in an unnecessary provocation of Moscow. …

[wetphoenix]

With scramjet technology in sight it is about time.
Why won’t they ban ICBMs at once?

[DoodleDawg]

NATO officials are considering deploying a long-planned missile defense system—aimed at protecting Europe from attacks from the Middle East—against Russia as well, Spiegel has learned.

Is NATO going to help pay for it or will we be picking up the entire bill?

[Ben Ficklin]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

[DoodleDawg]

Very nice but that doesn’t answer my question. Is NATO paying for it or will we be expected to pick up the whole bill?

[McGruff]

the majority of NATO members, especially Germany, are opposed to the proposal, warning that it could result in an unnecessary provocation of Moscow.

Well duh.

[Ben Ficklin]

The money is fungible, so who specifically pays for this specific item is not relevant. Being the hegemon, the US will provide more money and manpower than other members of NATO.

The other side of the coin is who, or what nations, benefit from spending the money to build and staff.

Hegemony

[Grzegorz 246]

“especially Germany, are opposed to the proposal, warning that it could result in an unnecessary provocation of Moscow.”

It’s not even funny anymore...

[Olog-hai]

Many of (the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine’s) tenets re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine, which was described by Senator Edward M. Kennedy as “a call for 21^st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.” …

Sure, because the imperialism of “the rest of the world” (especially the former Second World, in which the “Muslim World” could theoretically be included due to commonality with Second World philosophy) is so much better and not tyrannical.

I never understood why Reagan did not try to find some kind of case against Ted Kennedy to get him thrown out of office by legal means. The “Borking” incident should have been the impetus.

[DoodleDawg]

The money is fungible, so who specifically pays for this specific item is not relevant.

It's relevent if the U.S. is expected to pay tens of billions of dollars to implement a missile shield that the majority of NATO does not want and will not pay for.

[free_life]

Oh no don’t cause a unnecessary provocation of Moscow as Russians invade nations and set up paramilitary forces right under your cowardly noses.