My gut reaction is to want to say that Russia is over-reacting here. But I can’t help be reminded of the Cuban missile crisis. The U.S. reaction to having missiles 90 miles off our coast is fairly analogous to the Russian reaction over this issue. Even though deep down I really want to find a way to criticise Russia over this, I’m having a hard time justifying a reason to myself.
Russia is threatening to attack Poland with nuclear weapons if Poland plans to put a defensive system in to shield itself from those nuclear weapons. What is deep about that ?
The Cuban missiles were aimed at us.
The Polish missiles are aimed at Iran -- not Russia.
Big difference.
Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, anticipating this very reaction, we quietly offered to place the missile site on Russian soil -- knowing that solution would be rejected.
Diplomatically, this is called "bluster".
In Cuba, the Russians supplied one of their allies with nuclear missiles for attacking America 90 miles from US soil.
In Poland we are supplying our ally with a missile shield to defend themselves from Russian attack.
If your reasoning contains no distinction between attack systems and defense systems, then you need to reexamine the basic assumptions of your logic.
“Even though deep down I really want to find a way to criticise Russia over this, I’m having a hard time justifying a reason to myself.”
The basic difference: We follow Roosevelt’s admonition to speak softly and carry a big stick. The Russians prefer to yell loudly and wield the big stick. Defense versus empire. I’ll take us.
Colonel, USAFR
Yeah, I can see their point too. We wouldn’t want their missiles that close to us. Trust is an issue, obviously.
But we also, as a nation, have an obligation to have strategic defenses from that part of the world. After Russia has taken over Poland is not the time to try and find a place to put our missiles. Especially since Russia are the ones who insist on supporting Iran.
The missiles in Cuba were offensive weapons for destroying American cities.
The missiles in Poland are defensive weapons for destroying incoming offensive warheads.
Is that difference really so difficult to understand?
Maybe we should give Poland offensive missiles with nuclear warheads for destroying Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Russia is already complaining as though we did.
Poland is a NATO country and must be protected. It’s no different than setting up a missile shield in Italy.
That’s the reality and Russia can cry and whine all they like. Which way do you think fallout will blow from Poland?
It would fall on Moscow and everything in between in hours.
Say, you're right, it is analogous. But I have a policy that covers that, which I cribbed from Ronald Reagan: "We win. They lose."
“The U.S. reaction to having missiles 90 miles off our coast is fairly analogous to the Russian reaction over this issue”
Where your analogy fails is that Russia’s missiles in Cuba were offensive nuclear missiles where Poland will have defensive missiles.
Not a small distinction in reality.
No, it's not. We are installing a defense shield to an offensive weapon. In other words we are helping stop destruction while the Russians are threatening it. Do you see the difference? The Russians haven't a leg to stand on, and there is plenty of reason to criticize Russia.
Really? You think that having OFFENSIVE nuclear missiles is the same as having anti-missile defenses?
You really can't appreciate the difference between defensive arms and offensive ones? ...or the differences in the intents of the respective countries?
Are you also one who thinks all killing is equally immoral, regardless of whether such killing is premeditated murder or self-defense?
Big difference. The missiles in Cuba were offensive. These are defensive, designed to shoot down ICBM's. They are pretty much useless when it comes to attacking enemy installations.
There is nothing remotely comparable about the two situations or weapons systems (although I don’t doubt that the Russkies will be eager to try to make it a propaganda point for weak minds). The missiles going into Cuba were OFFENSIVE nuclear-capable weapons capable of striking much of the US East Coast. The ABM system going into Poland is merely 10 DEFENSIVE non-nuclear weapons of no offensive potential.
They cannot pose the slightest threat to Russia no matter what hysterical Russian Generals may pretend. The proposed deployment could only harm offensive missiles launched at Europe, which means they would only be of use for countering an intended or accidental launch of one or a handful of ballistic missiles. That poses no threat whatsoever to Russia’s strategic deterrent of huge numbers of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
“The U.S. reaction to having missiles 90 miles off our coast is fairly analogous to the Russian reaction over this issue. Even though deep down I really want to find a way to criticise Russia over this, I’m having a hard time justifying a reason to myself.”
The Russian missiles in Cuba were offensive missiles. The ones we want to put in Poland are non-nuclear defensive missiles.
Our interceptors are defensive, meant to take out a missile—not a city. And these are quite a bit more than 90 miles away from Russia.
Russia was putting nukes in Cuba. We’re putting nuke INTERCEPTORS in Poland, ones that couldn’t even strike nukes fired at the US over the North Pole.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Surely you can see that?!
I see that others pointed that out before me and you didn’t know. Pls ignore my last post to you...
You forgot one thing: we’re good, they’re evil.
It makes all the difference.
Now you can start over with your analysis.