US News
US to press forward on missile defence despite Russian objections
Apr 4, 2007, 0:10 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Pentagon: Data error won't affect Boeing-EADS tanker competition
- Boeing, EADS submit bids for lucrative tanker contract
- EADS announces bid on US tanker contract
- Pentagon extends tanker deadline to accommodate EADS
- Gates: WTO ruling on Boeing, Airbus won't affect tanker deal
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. PREVIEW: Stars, fans and cameras set for Whitney Houston's funeral
- 2. Hollywood's sad story: Stars ruined by prescription drugs
- 3. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
- 4. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 5. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
Older Talkback
page: 1
Why?
I have yet to hear or read a good reason for this.
Military industrial lobby, and the theoretical maintenance of invulnerable pre-emptive strike capability (subject to effectiveness, in practice).
Remote controlled missiles in Europe controlled by the US. They say defensive against who ? Yah right. Since when is any weapon only defensive. This will be US controlled weapons for any type of use and any target. Bush wars for world domination and oil appropriation.
The U.S. can install weapons wherever they want, but let another country even remotely suggest doing it, they are given ultimatums for instant removal????
'The good guys always win - in the end...'
What if Russian government decided to install the same stuffs in Venezuela.
'Defense'? The USofA has proven that it is not interested in 'defense' by it's 'offensive' 'strike first' policy. Another reader asked the correct question: 'Why'? Missal batteries are a 'means to an end', it is not a 'why'. 'Motivation and intent' like so much here 'are temporary constructs created for the sake of appearances' ... the Art of War. All unfolds according to prophesy.
TO Jamscared,Spot on mate nice comment.
Bush proves once again that if you give him a mouth, he'll put his foot into it. On its face, the plan seems to have merit ... assuming he's talking about anti-missile missiles. But not long ago, someone (and his Secretary of State) warned the U.N. of supposed dual-use facilities and equipment. Even with our own sophisticated satellites, we could see a warhead on a missile ... but still could not tell if the warhead contained a defensive or offensive component. And if we can't tell the difference, why should we expect others to just take our word for it? And if we are quick to worry about dual-use, why shouldn't we expect others to be equally worried?
I'd like to send Bush a case of lollipops. At least he'd have something other than a foot to put in his mouth. And to those who believe his plan is wise, I should probably up the ante from lollipops ... sending them cases of all-day suckers.
...that Russian Iranian nuke reactor progress slowed once the Polish interceptor issue was outed.
Since these are non-nuclear, they are no first strike weapon. Furthermore, they actually protect Russia, since any launch of rogue ICBM's intercepted, saves Russia the retaliation that would happen if Russian warheads landed anywhere.
Apparantly, Mr. Bush understands the issue just fine!
yah but sp4 doesn't understand a thing ..except tinfoil hats.
talk about stupid
Hands up ... all those who think George W. Bush is doing this as a 'favor' to Russia?
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story