> Unfortunately many
> paranoids believe the
> former.

They have allies in the West who simply are against missile defense — in the hands of the USA or the West. This is no different than the “nuclear freeze” movement, which was simply anti-US-and-Western political activism of a related kind involving nuclear weapons.

The proposed system is defensive; Russia has no legitimate gripe, and Western critics are simply being anti-Western as they have been before. The location of the system is obviously logical; there is no legitimate gripe about that, either; the only related matter would be how one day Europe would guard against missiles launched from North Africa. The problems are in the realm of who is doing the work and spending the money (USA vs. Europe) and what is realistically feasible versus what is just dreams at this stage. (Note that only fools demand such a system not be attempted if it cannot provide a 100% guarantee of stopping an attack, and only suspicious people say that a defensive system is “obviously” a way to improve first strike capability of the West.)

I can think of no conditions under which this assumption would prove valid.

Iconic Midwest said,
Unfortunately many paranoids believe the former.

For clarity… Which ‘paranoids’ are you talking about… The ones that say, “the system has to be built or we’re doomed”; or, the ones that say, “Build the system and we’re doomed”?

2. There is no “trap” here. Putin was simply faced with realities that were not gonna mesh with his rhetoric anymore. His proposal makes sure Russia has a seat at the table which is what Putin wanted. Bush was making it clear that the U.S. was gonna go forward with or without Russian involvement. Putin could have either maintained his fiction of “encirclement” OR he could conceed that that was never really the issue and make a proposal to join the conversation. He chose the latter.

Unfortunately many paranoids believe the former.

Remember that Bush wanted us to go back to the Moon not so long ago. Do you believe we’ll do it?

Missile defense makes sense but one question that more people need to be asking is why more effort and expense is not forthcoming from Europe, whom the system is intended to protect. That the US may participate makes perfect sense given what is learned from it can be applied here at home, but this should be primarily European, at least in theory.

Oh, that may make “sense” to some, especially since missiles aimed at Russia would go nowhere near Cuba. *scowl*

“Putin could turn west to the EU and been a huge partner in the world stage. Or he could turn east”

In fact, he’s resurrecting a pale echo of the Cold War, becoming not so much pro-East but anti-West.

Most of those remain unsolved. It is this concept that keeps people robbing banks. The fact that they MIGHT just get away with it. The fact that you get CAUGHT is what keeps most honest people honest.

A country such as Iran who has 3 missiles with nukes capable of hitting the USA might think long and hard if she fires her 3 valuable missiles with the chance all 3 could be shot down. Or mabey just two would be shot down and one made it. Or mabey they might all 3 get thru.

The fact is there is no guarantee that any of them will make it across the sea and strike the USA if there is a missile defense plan in effect.

This alone makes the value of such a system priceless. Putin knows full well that with his 2000 missiles that a system with 10 rockets is not threat to his forces. He is playing politics.

A Squirming Bush? Hardly. EU and the West are holding all the cards. The problem is not the shield anyway. The problem is getting Russia to sign off on Kosovo so she can become free and the EU has no longer the need to keep troops in that country.

Also I would encourage you all to do some research on Russia and her Immigration, assimilation problem. If Armageddon is to come. I’m betting Russia will be leading the charge.

Somebody said,

Our Missiles fly over the poles. I should think that those missiles would have a hard time catching up to missiles launched from Wyoming heading over the North Pole.

Somebody,

You’re starting to sound like General Buck Turgidson in “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” and that’s a little scary… in a Peter Sellers / Armageddonish sort of way.

Putin announced in Indonesia in 2003 that Russia was a Muslim country

And the French claimed “we’re all American’s now” after 9/11. It doesn’t make it true, though.

This is the sole reason that Putin is opposing any shield that is intended in any way, shape or form to counter Iran….another Muslim Country.

Putin could turn west to the EU and been a huge partner in the world stage. Or he could turn east and become another drain on the worlds resources and once again plunge this world into political, economic and social woes.

He chose to turn his attentions east. Russia once again is isolating herself from the west and taking on a antagonistic approach to the west. At least this time there is reason. Russia is being assimilated by Muslims and it wont be long before she either errupts in civil war or becomes Muslim dominated.

I would welcome Putin to sink Billion into a 1000 Missile defence shields in Cuba.

Our Missiles fly over the poles. I should think that those missiles would have a hard time catching up to missiles launched from Wyoming heading over the North Pole.

Do you really think that any such anit-missile system (that has not even been designed or tested yet) will ever be built in the future. By the time construction starts, Bush and Putin will both be long gone.

Putin knows better.

Most of the rest of the world does, too.

The relationship could change in a moment. The current hostility due to Russias backsliding on democratic reforms, and assassinations of Kremlin critics like the recent poisoning in London indicate this could happen sooner rather than later.

Tehran has no nuclear weapons and no missiles to carry them. Moscow does. Odds are, if this defense were ever used, it would be to counter Russia, not Iran.

They’re still wondering why anyone questions the good intentions of the U.S. government.