New Defense Shield In Poland?

Question

What are the odds of a Russian missile or nuclear attack on Poland after the new defence shield the US has installed there?

Baring in mind what the Russian General stated, "Poland is exposing itself to an attack - 100 percent."

Are they just empty threats or are we on the brink of something much bigger?

Answer 1

i cant wait until russia puts its defence shield in CUBA !!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

The missile defence system is not their just to protect us from Russian aggression it is their to protect us from certain middle east countries who may be building there own nuclear missiles

Answer 3

i think it was just a heat of the moment thing. I doubt they Willl actually attack poland.

Answer 4

a new cold war is rising up with the invasion of georgia and possibly ukraine, although russia will NOT attack poland for it is part of NATO and that will lead to WWIII and there is NO WAY they will launch a nuclear attack because they are smart enough to realize that the world will end as soon as they launch 1 nuke too poland. although they might deploy SS-21 missiles just like they are pointing them at tblisi.

Answer 5

We're on the brink of nothing.

This is a classic case of history repeating itself.

History showed us that the USA reacted with similar words, not so veiled threats and bravado when the old Soviet Union planned to base missiles in Cuba. Remember that anyone? The shoe is now on the other foot.

It's just the same old, same old to me and we're all still here spinning around in space behaving like squabling children.

Answer 6

"He who has nothing to hide, has nothing to fear."

If Russia has nothing to hide and is not planning any kind of attack, why are they so worried about a *defense* shield.  The system will not be there to attack anyone, it will be there to "prevent" and/or "stop" attacks......

Answer 7

Look how America reacted to Soviet plans to deploy missiles on Cuba

Answer 8

The best advice to President George W. Bush on how to conduct foreign affairs with Russia is still the comment of Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Regrettably, the Washington, D.C. crowd, including the President and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are instead speaking harshly. They seem unaware that we no longer have a big stick in hand. Our armed forces of nearly 200,000 are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and we literally are without reserves that could fight a war with Russia, that must, in any event, be avoided at all costs.

In the meanwhile, we have to make a decision. Do we want to engage Russia as a full partner in our efforts to keep the peace or do we want to humble them as we have for a number of years when we were aided by their declining economy. Their economy is no longer in decline. Instead, it is now booming based on oil and natural gas wealth. Russia now supplies European countries as a whole with two-thirds of their energy needs. The Russians have chafed for years as a result of the U.S. including the Baltic states and Poland in NATO and proposing NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine.

The Russians have made clear that they see the installation by the U.S. of radar in nations on Russia's borders to guide antiballistic missiles to their targets as a threat to Russia's missile system, notwithstanding the U.S. assurance that our ABM installations are intended to deal only with rogue nations such as Iran. The Russians recall how determined we were - successfully - to keep Soviet ballistic missiles out of Cuba. That crisis in 1962 was resolved with the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for a commitment - which we carried out - to remove American missiles from Turkey, Russia's neighbor. Clearly, they are as distressed as we would be if Russia were to include Venezuela and Bolivia in a military alliance.

What we are doing in lieu of speaking softly is having Condoleezza Rice denounce Russia, comparing it with the former Soviet Union when it invaded Czechoslovakia to put down the "Prague Spring" in 1968. It is important to remember that it is almost universally agreed that it was Georgia that commenced the current hostilities. This after the Georgia President Saakashvili was, according to the Times, "warned" by "Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried against escalating the conflict." Having ignored the advice, Saakashvili launched an attack on the Russian forces ending with Russian forces overwhelming the Georgian army which retreated to southern Georgia. The Russian forces in hot pursuit were asked by France's President Sarkozy to end the hostilities.

They agreed, but demanded and got the right to engage in military activities under certain circumstances, which by most accounts they have abused. Georgia started the hostilities, but we know that Russia was waiting for the opportunity to smash Georgia's military forces to serve as a lesson to states that were part of the Soviet empire and now want to join the West and NATO.

President Bush is compounding all the errors made to date by delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia with U.S. military personnel and with counterproductive rhetoric. An example of such rhetoric is the Pentagon's statement in The Times on August 14th: "On a day the White House evoked emotional memories of the cold war, a senior Pentagon official said the relief effort was intended to show to Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want." Surely we want to avoid at this time a physical conflict with Russia that could occur by accident or design.

In my view, these are the steps that we need to take: First, President Bush should meet with the leaders of Congress, and Senators Obama and McCain, to map out an agreed bi-partisan approach.

Whatever actions are required legislatively and executively to upgrade and enlarge our Armed Forces to deal with the situation should be taken and we should make sure that all of our American leaders in public office agree to speak with one voice and that is the voice of the president who under the Constitution conducts the foreign policy of this country, presuming there is an agreed upon policy.

The NATO nations in Europe who deserted us when we needed their military support in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now cowering in fear that the Russian bear is back with a ravenous appetite. Relying on our defense umbrella, they will now rush to join us and swear unwavering support, which, sadly, we can never fully rely on again.

Second, an immediate meeting should be arranged between Bush and Putin to afford us an opportunity to convince Russia that we are not their enemy. Our goal should be that we do for Russia what we would have them do for us were the situations reversed. Threats by both sides, physical and verbal, should immediately end.

In sum, the renewed hostility between Russia and the U.S.  

Answer 9

He was pointing out the bleeding obvious really, Now anyone who wants to use that route for a missile attack has to take out the shield first. I am sure An American general would say the same thing of any one who has shield to protect them. Besides don't forget the Magneto line that was supposed to stop the Germans and what did they do they went around it.  

Answer 10

So?

Answer 11

The Polish have a cunning plan - they have sent most of the population to London

Answer 12

No chance. Is simply sabre rattling.

Answer 13

they said they nuke em if they go ahead, the russians usually keep their word.

Answer 14

Russia will attack in the future. Stay tuned.

Answer 15

No idea.

A nuclear strike is out of the question as Russia knows that NATO have an equally large supply of nuclear weapons as itself.

War?

I doubt it as both NATO and Russia know that they cannot win in the grand scheme of things.