Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington talking to Warsaw about possible U.S. missile base in Poland
CNEWS ^ | November 16, 2005 | ROBERT BURNS

Posted on 11/17/2005 1:13:40 AM PST by twinself

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. and Polish officials are discussing building a base in Poland from which U.S. interceptors could shoot down long-range missiles as part of a global defence network, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

It would be the first American strategic missile defence site outside U.S. territory, and would be designed to defend all of Europe against intercontinental-range missiles - primarily those launched from the Middle East.

No decision has been made to proceed with a missile defence base in Poland and alternative sites in Europe are a possibility. But the Pentagon official said Poland appears to be the most likely host country for the kind of American military installation that would have been unthinkable before Poland joined NATO in 1999.

The official discussed the matter only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The Pentagon has made no public announcement of its discussions with Polish officials, although it has made known its extensive consultations in recent years with NATO allies on the threat posed by ballistic missiles.

On Monday, Poland's new prime minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, said he was opening a public debate on whether to host a U.S. missile defence base.

He did not specifically say Washington was interested in installing ground-based interceptors of the sort that the Pentagon has recently installed in Alaska.

"This is an important issue for Poland, related to our security and to our co-operation with an important ally," Marcinkiewicz said.

He leads a new conservative government in Warsaw that took office on Oct. 31. The previous government had expressed concern that missile defence co-operation with Washington could harm relations with Russia, which had opposed Poland's decision to become a member of NATO.

The U.S. military has no permanent bases in Poland or other Central and Eastern European countries formerly aligned with the Soviet Union. The U.S. does have bases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia such as Kyrgyzstan.

U.S. officials have been discussing with new NATO members Romania and Bulgaria the possibility of basing some U.S. troops there as part of a repositioning of U.S. forces around the world.

U.S. officials have been considering a number of possibilities for extending the American missile defence network to include Europe, although most of the focus has been on defences against short-range missiles.

Long-range missiles are considered an emerging threat, in the view of Bush administration officials, because of the proliferation of technologies that would allow countries such as Iran and possibly Syria or Libya to build extended-range missiles. The threat is especially worrisome when coupled with nuclear warheads.

The current U.S. defence system against long-range missiles is limited mainly to an installation at Fort Greely, Alaska, where at least six missile interceptors are in underground silos, linked to a command and control system. It is designed mainly to shoot down missiles fired at U.S. territory from North Korea, with future expansion planned.

The Pentagon official who discussed the Polish option said that if a missile defence base were built there, it probably would be the only one needed to defend Europe against long-range missiles, although radars, other sensors and interceptors designed to combat shorter range missiles also would be needed for a complete defence.

The official estimated that a site in Poland would not be ready to begin operating before 2010. He offered no estimate on how much it might cost or when U.S. officials were likely to make a decision to proceed. Also undetermined is whether the site would be controlled jointly by U.S. and Polish forces or possibly with a NATO role.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: allies; allypoland; mds; militarybases; missiledefence; newnwo; pentagon; poland; russia; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-419 next last
To: RusIvan
Just one comment, I'll quote myself from # 175:
It's pointless to discuss with a person, who is completely braindwashed with historical (or maybe better would be to say his-storical) "knowledge" deriving from the old, good Soviet tradition.

As far as historical discussions with you are concerned.
181 posted on 11/20/2005 6:46:04 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan

To be killed by somebody by a deasease means that a person injected sth or one was infected in purpose. What happened was the POW's died of deaseases because nobody in that circumstances could have helped them...


182 posted on 11/20/2005 6:51:35 AM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: lizol

And you see tbrough your lens with perfect clarity?


183 posted on 11/20/2005 6:52:04 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: vox_PL

For instance, RusIvan once said that 10 million Poles in the USA is impossible because Poland's population in the 18th and 19th Century was 20 million. ==

You lying vox_PL and you know it. Shame on you.

I told you that 10 mlns of poles emigrees to USA in 19 century (which you calimed) was impossible because US Census Beurau in 1990 reported that WHOLE number of people who clainmed polish ansestry is about 10 mlns. It was in 1990!!

SO it means that for 2 centuries (19&20th) to end of 20th century (1990) poles in USA did never reproduced. Means 10 mlns poles (according to you) came in USA and same number were in 1990. Is it possible?
Did poles in USA make children more then 2 per family? Can it be that during almost 2 centuries poles birth rate in USA equals mortility? Sametime everyone else increased thier numbers: black, whites, chineses, latinos and so on.

Or may be probably your claim about 10 mlns of polish emmigres are not true.


184 posted on 11/20/2005 6:52:50 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80; RusIvan
Guys - let's give up this discussion about Katyn here, as it's definitely not the topic of this thread.

Or let's move to the thread where the discussion had started.

Mark Steyn: The death of Mother Russia
185 posted on 11/20/2005 6:54:49 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

????????


186 posted on 11/20/2005 6:55:33 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80

What happened was the POW's died of deaseases because nobody in that circumstances could have helped them...==

SO as in german camps. Accually your justification works good for german war criminals. But to late they already were sentenced for killings in thier POW camps.
I never heard that any poles was sentenced for killings in polish POW camps.


187 posted on 11/20/2005 6:55:36 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: lizol

Just one comment, I'll quote myself from # 175:
It's pointless to discuss with a person, who is completely braindwashed with historical (or maybe better would be to say his-storical) "knowledge" deriving from the old, good Soviet tradition.===

I equally may call you as brainwashed by polish nationalistic justification propaganda.
"Poles never did nothing wrong. All wrongs in the world was done to poles".

Lizol didn't you agree that such "victimizing" phylosophy is dangerous. We both may find many examples that such propaganda is destructive toward own people. Look on vox_PL.

Latest example. Those "arabs and blacks" in Paris neiborhood call themselves the "victims" of collonialism. Where this phylosophy drew them?


188 posted on 11/20/2005 7:01:07 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: lizol
"This shows, that it's to protect both Europe and U.S. from the potential threat from the Middle East."

Like I said I don't know details about this system but It looks like It has long range so It doesn't really matter If It is located few hundred miles to the south or north - southern Poland or Czech Republic or Hungary besides I doubt that this system will be able to protect Europe. Iran is not that far from Europe and It takes some time to find out and confirm that missile was launched and every air defense system has some time of reaction and minimal range, which in case of long range system is probably a few hundred miles, so there wouldn't be enough time to shoot It down or would be shot down over our heads and In case of missile with unconventional warhead that wouldn't be a good idea.

"To protect U.S. Poland's location is much better "

For US, not for Poland.

BTW There must be some reason why Germany or France don't like It. They don't want to be protected ? I don't think so.
189 posted on 11/20/2005 7:08:40 AM PST by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: lizol

"Correction - it would be against Russia's interest but only if Russia wanted to attack with nukes Poland or other European country."

The whole thing will be able (maybe) to shoot down a few missiles, so could not stop any Russian attack.


190 posted on 11/20/2005 7:11:19 AM PST by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: lizol

Have you seen the maps I posted?==

I saw your map. I already answered to other Freppers that to launch against Earth spin is energy deficient.

They always launch toward spin (to east) using spin as additional boost or at least to north or south means spin neutrally.
But you trajectory is toward west. It is against spin. SO the speed of your warhead will be surtracted with earth spin.


191 posted on 11/20/2005 7:18:33 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: lizol
????????

My comment, "And you see tbrough your lens with perfect clarity?," was directed at your post #175. You wrote:

It's pointless to discuss with a person, who is completely braindwashed with historical (or maybe better would be to say his-storical) "knowledge" deriving from the old, good Soviet tradition.
As to Polish - Russian relations - I bet there are no special differences between contemporary Russian school books and those ones from Soviet time.
OK - there might be a difference relating to Katyn - as Soviets maintained, that it was a German atrocity. And that stupid (sarcasm) Gorbachev admitted, it was the Soviets, who commited it (if not - I'm sure RusIvan would maintain the Soviet version until today).

It's ironic that you attempt to pull the splinter out of their eye, but cannot see the log in your own.
192 posted on 11/20/2005 7:20:04 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: dervish

"What is your problem with NATO?"

NATO just doesn't work anymore. It can't work when some members are to each other rather enemies than allies.


193 posted on 11/20/2005 7:30:04 AM PST by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Grzegorz 246

putting anything military in those 4 states you mention seems about as likely as another nuke plant in calif.
Too many nutcases protesting and making it impossible.
Go to South Carolina and it would be welcomed. Though not in the center, so sacrafice boston.


194 posted on 11/20/2005 7:32:31 AM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Freelance Warrior

I think you are wrong, you do not understand engagment geometries or timelines. Poland has no particular geographic advantage for defending the United States from missile attacks from Siberia or the Middle East.

The United States would view a situation in which a nuclear armed "rogue state" in the Middle East could exert political pressure on western Europe unfavorably.

The United States should consider Russian sensitivities in these matters. It is not in the U.S. interest to needlessly antagonize Russian public opinion.

How would Russians (or Poles) feel about a U.S. withdrawal from Europe? Would Russians welcome a reunited Germany nursing grudges about the explusion of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe, unrestrained by an American military presence?


195 posted on 11/20/2005 7:58:05 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NY Times headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS, Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
Must be gauling to have the U.S. setting up bases there, at least to the russians. Sort of a psychological butt kicking.

You're overlooking the fact that America freely offered Russia ABM technology.
196 posted on 11/20/2005 8:02:12 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
As I said - I shouldn't be responding to your posts.

Show me where I wrote anything like "Poles never did nothing wrong. All wrongs in the world was done to poles".

I'd rather say, that it's you, who in every discussion takes a very convenient position, that if anything was wrong - that's Soviet Union's fault, but if somethiong was good - that was Russia (or it worth defending in the name of Russia).

As to vox_PL's posts - those are vox_PL's posts and he's the only one who takes responsibility for them.
I'm pretty sure, that - for example - sergey1973 (being a Russian) doesn't support most of your views (and vice versa probably).

Latest example. Those "arabs and blacks" in Paris neiborhood call themselves the "victims" of collonialism. Where this phylosophy drew them?

Yeah, another excellent comparison by RusIvan. They are just like Poles (sarcasm).

This is exactly the thing, that discourages me to keep discussing with you.
197 posted on 11/20/2005 8:19:00 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
Are you sure, that Earth is spinnig to the left side?

I've always thaught, that it's the other way round. That's why the sun rises in the east.
198 posted on 11/20/2005 8:25:23 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan

OK, wrong, wrong - my misunderstaning.


199 posted on 11/20/2005 8:27:01 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
How would Russians (or Poles) feel about a U.S. withdrawal from Europe?

I think Russians would applaud it. Poles would be definitely very, very sorry.
200 posted on 11/20/2005 8:29:53 AM PST by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-419 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson