Russia

2008-11-06 04:37:57

#101

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6007|...

Bertster7 wrote:
It was always really, really obvious this would happen which is why the project has faced such widespread criticism.

Whether the missiles are defensive or not is utterly irrelevant. The point is that they fuck up the whole purpose of MAD. Russia will act to ensure they can overcome any countermeasures put in place, and they are right to do so.

I don't see a missile shield in europe stopping the something like what, 10.000 nukes russia has?

when people start to throw nukes MAD will happen either way, because regardless of which country gets nuked you'll have to deal with all the shit these things eject.

inane little opines

2008-11-06 04:45:03

#102

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6589|SE London

dayarath wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
It was always really, really obvious this would happen which is why the project has faced such widespread criticism.

Whether the missiles are defensive or not is utterly irrelevant. The point is that they fuck up the whole purpose of MAD. Russia will act to ensure they can overcome any countermeasures put in place, and they are right to do so.
I don't see a missile shield in europe stopping the something like what, 10.000 nukes russia has?

when people start to throw nukes MAD will happen either way, because regardless of which country gets nuked you'll have to deal with all the shit these things eject.

It won't actually stop them, just like Russia doesn't need that many nukes for anything. It's more about the perception of it. If the US put greater defensive measures in place, Russia will respond to that. They can't/won't respond in kind because defensive systems are far more expensive, so they respond by increasing their offensive capability in the same region which resets the status quo.

All it is doing is raising international tensions and costing shedloads of money, and for what? The only credible nuclear threat there is, is from terrorists. I'll tell you now, terrorists won't be using ICBMs as a nuke delivery system.

2008-11-06 04:47:24

#103

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6007|...

Bertster7 wrote:
It won't actually stop them, just like Russia doesn't need that many nukes for anything. It's more about the perception of it. If the US put greater defensive measures in place, Russia will respond to that. They can't/won't respond in kind because defensive systems are far more expensive, so they respond by increasing their offensive capability in the same region which resets the status quo.

All it is doing is raising international tensions and costing shedloads of money, and for what? The only credible nuclear threat there is, is from terrorists. I'll tell you now, terrorists won't be using ICBMs as a nuke delivery system.

I can agree on that.

inane little opines

2008-11-06 05:10:18

#104

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6527|Πάϊ

dayarath wrote:
that defense shield in poland is just that, a defensive shield.

when poland wanted a missile defense shield in their country they got it, america is just there delivering the goods.

russia responds with an offensive missile base.

sigh. Oh and if russia wanted to attack the US they wouldn't have to fire their missiles through europe.

and europe is too divided / busy with their own stuff to ever start a war with russia.

Well ok since you people are so dense, let me put it this way.

Poland and the Czech Republic were forced to accept this deal. America is not just there delivering the goods. This whole thing serves American interests, not Polish. The Polish government was just easier to swerve. If you were honest enough you would admit that a country like Poland or the Czech Republic do NOT need a missile defense system. For those who remember, the lame excuse was that this was a defense system against a possible missile attack on Europe by Iran! (lol) So enough with the bullshit excuses etc. Admit it.

_ƒ³

2008-11-06 05:37:06

#105

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6230|Escea

If a defence system was built in the middle of the country the Russian's would still complain about it. If you're going to have a country more paranoid and fearful of anything west of itself, its Russia.

2008-11-06 05:44:38

#106

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6628|London, England

People are missing the point. What is happening is basically Russia are saying "if a nuclear war breaks out between us and the USA, we will also attack countries which base US defensive systems"

Makes sense to me

It's not like they'll ever have a nuclear war, and even if they did, do you really think it would matter if certain countries were hit or not, we'd all be screwed whatever happens

And also, all that NATO/EU stuff will mean that if a war did happen, we'd all be attacked regardless. So, at the end of the day, nothing has changed whatsoever.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-11-06 05:45:33)

2008-11-06 07:51:21

#107

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6783|Moscow, Russia

Bertster7 wrote:
It won't actually stop them, just like Russia doesn't need that many nukes for anything. It's more about the perception of it. If the US put greater defensive measures in place, Russia will respond to that. They can't/won't respond in kind because defensive systems are far more expensive, so they respond by increasing their offensive capability in the same region which resets the status quo.

All it is doing is raising international tensions and costing shedloads of money, and for what? The only credible nuclear threat there is, is from terrorists. I'll tell you now, terrorists won't be using ICBMs as a nuke delivery system.

Berster7 hits the nail on the head, anything said after his points is dead weight.

oh, btw, for those who consider themselves a kickass weapon experts - do you know at which fase of ballistic missile' trajectory it can be tracked and shot down? it almost COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to intercept the damn thing once it is out in space traveling at its maximum velocity surrounded by a shitload of dummy targets - you have to catch the missile BEFORE it reaches that point.
so, tell me again: which ICBMs those missile defence installations in Poland are supposed to protect you from?

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-06 08:20:35

#108

destruktion_6143: Was ist Loos?; +154|6634|Canada

Schwarzelungen wrote:
woooooo ww3

with a global economy, there will never WW3, no country can stand alone against the world, not for long that is.

2008-11-06 08:21:49

#109

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6351|tropical regions of london

destruktion_6143 wrote:
Schwarzelungen wrote:
woooooo ww3
with a global economy, there will never WW3, no country can stand alone against the world, not for long that is.

thats what alliances are for

2008-11-06 08:25:37

#110

destruktion_6143: Was ist Loos?; +154|6634|Canada

God Save the Queen wrote:
destruktion_6143 wrote:
Schwarzelungen wrote:
woooooo ww3
with a global economy, there will never WW3, no country can stand alone against the world, not for long that is.
thats what alliances are for

with a global economy, even alliances need other countries, so no, alliances dont help much.

2008-11-06 08:28:56

#111

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6351|tropical regions of london

destruktion_6143 wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
destruktion_6143 wrote:
with a global economy, there will never WW3, no country can stand alone against the world, not for long that is.
thats what alliances are for
with a global economy, even alliances need other countries, so no, alliances dont help much.

we had a global economy all throughout the 20th century. I think you mean a global, interdependent economy, and I still disgaree.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-11-06 08:29:30)

2008-11-06 08:32:28

#112

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|6763|Scotland

It's a slightly naive way to put it....

They are putting missiles there in response to your deployment of the "Anti Missile system" in Poland. Which, in turn, is the US's response to the building of a naval base in Venezuela.

Another cold war? I smell it. It would be catastrophic for the world.

2008-11-06 09:03:38

#113

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6769

oug wrote:
Well ok since you people are so dense, let me put it this way.

sorry we are all dumb hillbillys and you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking smart and all. Go make a pita or something.

2008-11-06 09:39:22

#114

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6563

M.O.A.B wrote:
If a defence system was built in the middle of the country the Russian's would still complain about it. If you're going to have a country more paranoid and fearful of anything west of itself, its Russia.

If you're going to have a country more paranoid and fearful of anything 7000 miles east and a little bit south of itself, its USA.

2008-11-06 09:44:31

#115

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6508|so randum

usmarine wrote:
oug wrote:
Well ok since you people are so dense, let me put it this way.
sorry we are all dumb hillbillys and you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking smart and all. Go make a pita or something.

one condescending line should not be met with another.

I agree with mek et al on this matter, it's just another fucking dick waving contest.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-11-06 09:48:23

#116

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5869

one point people have not mentioned it seems, The U.S are putting the offence shield on foriegn soil, but Russia are putting their defence shield on their own soil if im correct

nothing wrong with Russia

also this is a good read

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/32894

A growing number of European politicians are voicing fears over the U.S. deployment of a missile shield all across the continent. More than 50 British MPs have called for a public debate into an issue which many fear could result in a new global arms race.

As well as the UK bases, America has also agreed deals for similar sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But the longest serving MP in the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, says it is an unnecessary scheme.

“I think that the intensions of the Russians are anti-war and I don’t think Russia has any desire to attack Europe or the UK,” Dalyell said.

finally, someone in the U.K speaks out

Last edited by rammunition (2008-11-06 09:48:43)

2008-11-06 09:50:57

#117

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6351|tropical regions of london

Finally!

2008-11-06 09:56:08

#118

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6769

FatherTed wrote:
I agree with mek et al on this matter, it's just another fucking dick waving contest.

i said that like 3 pages ago.

2008-11-06 10:00:51

#119

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6508|so randum

usmarine wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
I agree with mek et al on this matter, it's just another fucking dick waving contest.
i said that like 3 pages ago.

I havn't the brain power to trawl through 5 pages sorry, reports sorta kill me.

kudos to you though.

<3 mandarin + skittles

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-11-06 11:07:24

#120

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6527|Πάϊ

usmarine wrote:
oug wrote:
Well ok since you people are so dense, let me put it this way.
sorry we are all dumb hillbillys and you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking smart and all. Go make a pita or something.

yummy

what do hillbillys eat?

_ƒ³

2008-11-06 11:17:59

#121

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6769

we eat hairy greek women

2008-11-06 12:50:57

#122

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6394

I cant understand how people are OK with living under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

I also cant understand how people think this shield will allow the US to do anything. Missiles launched towards North America would come over the North Pole, or the South Pole in the case of FOBS. Missiles only travel across Europe in CoD4.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-11-06 12:51:12)

2008-11-06 13:01:36

#123

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6461|The Twilight Zone

Commie Killer wrote:
I cant understand how people are OK with living under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

I also cant understand how people think this shield will allow the US to do anything. Missiles launched towards North America would come over the North Pole, or the South Pole in the case of FOBS. Missiles only travel across Europe in CoD4.

Thats why its pointless to place missiles in Europe. And stupid.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-11-06 14:26:18

#124

MGS3_GrayFox: Member; +50|6175

.Sup wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
I cant understand how people are OK with living under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

I also cant understand how people think this shield will allow the US to do anything. Missiles launched towards North America would come over the North Pole, or the South Pole in the case of FOBS. Missiles only travel across Europe in CoD4.
Thats why its pointless to place missiles in Europe. And stupid.

Bullshit. Bush played COD4 and thought it was real, and he ordered a missile defense system be planted on Europe.

2008-11-06 14:28:09

#125

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6769

you know...we cant just place them where ever the hell we want. people had to agree to them. so, and of course, no discussion about that at all.

BF2S Forums Russia

Bertster7 wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Schwarzelungen wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Schwarzelungen wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Schwarzelungen wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

oug wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

usmarine wrote:

oug wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

usmarine wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

usmarine wrote:

oug wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Board footer