digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Russia to deploy new nuclear missile

reuters.com — Russia hopes to deploy a new nuclear missile next year designed to penetrate anti-missile defenses and will build eight submarines to carry it, defense officials said on Thursday. The latest statements underline Moscow's determination to upgrade its nuclear strike forces on land, sea and air...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mattmy, on 10/02/2008, -2/+79yeah, that's not scary at all...
    • gquaglia, on 10/03/2008, -19/+12Considering how ***** Russian military hardware is, your statement is true. Maybe they will build the subs with substandard leaky reactors to poison the crew and under paid, under motivated sailors to run them.
      • bodisatvah, on 10/03/2008, -2/+9I think you overestimate the difficulty in making nuclear weapons and deployment systems when you have time and money.

        The knowledge and how-to is readily available, and all you need is meticulous design and manufacturing which is made easier with government funding.
      • oldhick, on 10/03/2008, -7/+3You overestimate Russia's ability to use knowledge and how-to. They typically just went for extreme power and size in lieu of agility, targeting, and accuracy.
      • bodisatvah, on 10/03/2008, -3/+9That's a gross oversimplification, oldhick, and a likely product of your exposure to US propaganda about Russia being some big lumbering bear or some *****.
      • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -7/+3gquaglia just repeated everything he heard on fox news. little does he know how truly ***** american military hardware is. some farmer in yugoslavia shot down a f-117 with a rocket from 60's he found in russia's junk yard.
      • oldhick, on 10/03/2008, -2/+6Dang, propaganda got me again... I was just looking at the Hind choppers and the mobile nukes and the huge and slow russian tanks and the prop-driven bear bombers and...
        But you're right, those were the old days and its a new century.
        For the record, I'm not doubting Russia's military might. I think they'd put up one heck of a fight and who knows who would win. Russkies certainly have determination and commitment on their side.
        The story of the F-117 getting shot down is actually a great one. They used some pretty ingenious techniques to detect and track the plane. Creativity is of critical importance in combat!
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/03/2008, -10/+9I gotta tell you, I looked into Putin's eyes and all I saw was 3 letters. K, G, B.
    • MRintheKeys, on 10/03/2008, -7/+4But it's NEW and IMPROVED!
    • noen, on 10/03/2008, -7/+15Yeah, thank you George ***** Bush for re-igniting the cold war.
      • DestroyFascism, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9Even better when America has no money left...

        I will piss myself laughing if the Carlyle group move to China taking all American sponsored technology with them...F*kers1
      • doctorfungi, on 10/03/2008, -4/+7Yes, yes. Everything is George Bush's fault. This has nothing to do with Russia reasserting itself on the global stage.

      • DulcetTone, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, Putin's personal evil mania is not part of this turn of events.
    • fadetoone, on 10/03/2008, -4/+6Even more scary is the fact that it requires 8 subs to carry it. Seems a tad excessive. :-P
    • mohsenxp, on 10/03/2008, -5/+4I don't care. As long as America is reminded it is not the only power in the world I'm happy.
    • csw1342, on 10/03/2008, -1/+11Well as long as we have Alaskans to see them coming, should be a non issue.
    • Wornstrom, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5not to me... the anti-missile shield isn't there to keep Russia at bay, it is there to defend against missile capabilities of rogue nations. Russia can nuke the US any time it wants with all the subs they already have. This just evens the odds a bit with the new proposed missile shield, and keeps us both balanced at the top.
    • stevets, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5680/putinrears ...
    • warriorscot, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4To be honest I would be more frightened by a new conventional weapons program as Nuclear weapons are a big white elephant nobody will use them unless they are completely suicidal. More damage can be done with conventional weapons than Nuclear ones and you can actually use them.
  • MacBookForMe, on 10/02/2008, -21/+3I would rather say that this mission has been already accomplished by Putin in last years:)
  • tanz, on 10/02/2008, -6/+42"If we can't have Georgia NOBODY can!"
    • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -1/+11you can have your dictator-producing *****.
  • uzhas, on 10/02/2008, -12/+50Logical countermeasure to all "friendy" US politics in eastern european region. NATO in Baltic countries, open support of anti-russian governments in Ukraine and Georgia, missile defense in Poland. The funny thing is that those countries forget how close Russia is and how far overseas is US. We all can see what happened to Georgia after all the support, promised to georgians by US. They got nothing but Bush/Rice hypocritical "supportive" speeches.
    And what a joke this missile defense system is. It's not effective even against 40-years old russian SS-18 Satan. The best counter-nuclear measure is just presence of your own nuclear ballistic missiles. So all those billions for missile defence are coming from US taxpayers pockets into bottomless hole.
    • stonebear, on 10/03/2008, -9/+32That's the whole idea; to trick Russia into the old reactionary Soviet cold war role, so the good old days can resume for American war profiteers. This sort of thing is exactly what the neocons want her to do, as was the action in Ossetia. For everything Russia builds, US war profiteers can build ten to counter it. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster for them, and now they are rectifying that. The Iraq occupation is indeed a bonanza for them, but the profits don't hold a candle to the those of the cold war. The way Putin is playing along with this neocon wet dream makes me wonder if he has not already sold out Russia to the Illuminati bankers who occupy the top of the NWO pyramid, and who are ultimately behind American corporatism as well.
      • uzhas, on 10/03/2008, -3/+8Very good point. But present political and economical situations are not in favor of US now. So, if this is what neocons want - so be it. Again, even old Russian missiles will outpower US missile defence, so these news are more just "muscle flexing" than anything else.
      • Picer, on 10/03/2008, -2/+14Limiting the military industrial complex should be a priority.
      • DreKor, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5Wait, "good old days"? I thought they were living in the good new days right now! I actually saw an SUV at the grocery store yesterday with a Black Water bumper sticker, in Green Bay, WI. These assholes are way too mainstream now.
    • MacroDaemon, on 10/03/2008, -10/+6I live in one of those countries, and we know exactly how close Russia is. And Russia's no good neighbor, I can tell ya that.
    • Tynan, on 10/03/2008, -5/+4The missile defense system isn't intended to stop a full scale attack by Russia. It's intended to stop small-scale attacks by small "rogue states" like North Korea.
      • bjzq8, on 10/03/2008, -2/+3Exactly. The missile-defense system wasn't intended to deal with any more than a few missiles at a time...I don't know why the Russians are feeling threatened by it anyway. You can't start half a nuclear war.
      • stevets, on 10/03/2008, -3/+3You're absolutely right, 10 interceptor missiles pose no threat to the Russian nuclear deterrent. They've got thousands of nukes.
    • damack, on 10/03/2008, -2/+2The timing of this is puzzling Americas ***** is owned by China and their threatening to shut down the good ol US of A:

      http://digg.com/world_news/CHINA_DECLARES_ECONOMIC ...

      America can't do anything without Chinese loans let alone invest in expensive weaponry so why get into a spending war when the hand that feeds you is closed?!
  • Singulariter, on 10/03/2008, -21/+26Sarah Palin's Russian defense system will save us all.
    • DreKor, on 10/03/2008, -0/+17a goalie stick and a big glove?
      • Jeffler, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2The worst part is the best goalies right now are Two Canadians and a Russian. Unless Miller or DiPietro have been working on their game, this already insane suggestion would also be futile. :P
    • MRintheKeys, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7No she can see the Russian missles fired from her front porch and give Washington a phone call to let them know they are should be expecting guests.
    • iamabootdisk, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5buried for being too funny? SPRDS is a gem! hahaha
  • UltramegaOK, on 10/03/2008, -12/+64Or as Palin and Bush would say, Nookyoulahr.
    • edrodgers731, on 10/03/2008, -13/+3Not that you are unique in this, but you sound just like the rednecks you are bashing.

      Hillbilly you: "You talk funny! Are you stupid or somethin'?"

      You may as well pick on Obama's facial growth.
      • nesagwa, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5What?

        Hillbillies making fun of an accent or being well spoken is not the same thing as making fun of someone for mispronouncing such a simple word seemingly on purpose.
      • analogkid01, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6"Nuuu-cleee-arrrrr...wwwwwwessels."
      • darkha1f, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Cap'n... there be whales here
      • djholybolt, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2*WHEEW!*
        that was the whole joke flying over edrodgers731's head.
      • mesasone, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2@Nesagwa: Actually, according to linguists both pronunciations are correct.
    • poidh, on 10/03/2008, -1/+7Clinton also used to say nucular.
  • irishjays, on 10/03/2008, -0/+20Of course they are going to say this. It would be a surprise if they said, "These missile defense systems are fine pieces of technology, good move America, peace out."
    • nebion, on 10/03/2008, -0/+9They aren't just saying it, I'm pretty sure they'll also do it.

      The missile defense system is a waste of money because it'll always be easier (and much, much cheaper) to develop countermeasures than to keep the missile defense system effective against those countermeasures.

      This was covered in detail in Scientific American several years ago.
      • noblepaladin, on 10/03/2008, -2/+1There are only a few countries that are capable of developing their own missile technology. Most of these countries are allies to the United States. Also, all these countries all have nukes so a nuclear stalemate will prevent war anyways. The missile defense system is effective against all the countries that are not capable of developing their own technology. These countries buy old cold war era missiles which can be defended against. The argument is whether we need to defend against these countries. I know most people here think we should cut down on defense spending... but in the past few years the US has pissed off a lot of people.
      • doom777, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2The missile defense is meant against Iran, not Russia,
      • uzhas, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3The one in Alaska as well?
  • rubored, on 10/03/2008, -26/+10***** Russia.
  • onionbagel724, on 10/03/2008, -4/+48AHHHH MOTHERLAND!!!
    • banido, on 10/03/2008, -0/+19But i'm le tired...
      • coyote1284, on 10/03/2008, -0/+19Take a nap, THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES
    • utahnkid, on 10/03/2008, -0/+15What's going on eh?
    • Jeffler, on 10/03/2008, -0/+8WTF MATE?
    • metroidragon, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6*****' kangaroos.
    • specialK16, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Alaska can come to.
    • CATSCEO2, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5I guess thats why they call this place random...
      • specialK16, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4You don't know what we are talking about?
      • utahnkid, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2That's pretty ***** up man.. My best friend died being random.
      • CATSCEO2, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2@specialK16

        I do, its just not in the same order as the flash (ie random).
  • VigRoco, on 10/03/2008, -1/+27Who's ready for some WWIII action?

    (with a Fallout 3 situation soon to follow that up)
    • 3nvy, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4As long as we get our Fallout 3 lunchboxes, too.
    • flashingcurser, on 10/03/2008, -0/+14I just hope all of those 50's cars and spiked shoulder pads make it through the blast. Otherwise, I'll real disappointed when I come out of my vault.
    • Llanowar, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Well, we all want videogames to be very realistic. Might have our chance there.
    • MusicMagi, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1it's all cute fun & games for u kids until the ***** really hits the fan and you get drafted.
    • stanfy86, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2screw the draft!

      Let a man decide for himself what battles are worth fighting.
    • dotMH, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Doesn't every Fallout game have exactly the same situation?
      So why Fallout 3 situation specifically?
    • Cornfedhusker, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2I accidentally the whole world!
  • liquisoft, on 10/03/2008, -1/+22Something tells me this has already happened. Why would Putin allow people to know about something he is planning? My money is on the idea that this has already been developed, and now he's ready to egg people on.
    • bieber, on 10/03/2008, -0/+9Or it will never be developed, and he's showboating. Either way the effect is the same, because who's going to risk calling his bluff?
    • Togusa09, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Politics... Like back in the cold war, it was as much about what you could talk about building as what you actually could build.
  • trafficlight, on 10/03/2008, -4/+19Palin got us covered. She knows what to do when Putin rears his ugly head. That airspace is as good as clear.
    • Recoilman, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1It appears that mainstream America still is not getting that V. Putin is no longer Russia's President. As Prime Minister, I believe his role is more focused on domestic matters. He will not be rearing his head in US Airspace over a giant cold state nearly devoid of human life.
      • hungryduck, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2This fellow commenter was being sarcastic. I think Palin once said that she can see Putin over In Russia and will make sure he won't rear his ugly head.
  • DarkBlueAnt, on 10/03/2008, -4/+2Our nukes aren't good enough already, I guess.
  • briLo, on 10/03/2008, -5/+2Yeah......this ought to get real interesting!!!!
  • dicer999, on 10/03/2008, -5/+9I wonder if we can paint flames on it....
    • djholybolt, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2it's not a matter of if... it's a matter of what KIND of flames he's throwin on that bad motha.
  • Senturion, on 10/03/2008, -9/+15Great job with that missile shield America, way to reinvigorate the arms race.
    • doom777, on 10/03/2008, -9/+4missile shield = anti iran. Get your facts straight.
      • TrevorBradley, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6Original poster is right here... Even if the missile shield was built in response to countries like North Korea (there was no talks of Iran having nukes when the program started) the US had to tear up a treaty with Russia to build anti-ballistic missile tech.

        That treaty was signed to curb nuclear proliferation between US and Russia. What did you expect would happen when it was torn up?
      • UltimatrixmaN, on 10/03/2008, -3/+4"missile shield = anti iran. Get your propaganda straight."
      • Senturion, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5Good to see you're dumb enough to buy the argument that North Korea or Iran would ever:

        a) possess a missile that could even reach America
        b) be stupid enough to bomb America knowing they would be wiped from the face of the earth.

        The missile shield is a clear escalation of the arms race, if you take of your "America" hat for a second and think about it from Russia's point of view it was clear that it would antagonize them.
      • PigGeneral, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2These are most likely the same freaking missiles they have always had. Because the missile shield doesn't really work against them anyway.
  • scfraser6, on 10/03/2008, -13/+6Sarah Palin: I thought it was spelled NUCULAR
    • Clbull, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I thought that was good, I digg you up for that
  • jonshipman, on 10/03/2008, -9/+5Whew, at least they're not nucular missiles.
  • Romax, on 10/03/2008, -2/+36Welcome back COLD WAR.
    • narupo, on 10/03/2008, -12/+3Yeah this time I hope its the US turn to.......
    • flashingcurser, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6It never went anywhere.
  • Allivian, on 10/03/2008, -2/+7Man.. Why do I get the feeling we've all just got strapped into a roller coaster and haven't even reached the climatic drop yet?
    We're still goin up.

    This problem is only going to get worse.

  • Dagreenman, on 10/03/2008, -2/+14Only Big Boss can save us now.
  • FlyingPhotog, on 10/03/2008, -2/+27Cold War 2.0
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/03/2008, -3/+8Next bush will be asking for more money for new nukes it never ends.
    • darkened, on 10/03/2008, -2/+7We should have new nukes, and personally I think we should have neutron bombs so we have a viable thermonuclear weapon that won't irradiate the world if we need to use it again.
      • dupswapdrop, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2Yes can can always find money to kill people and bailout billionaires
  • goosegoosegoose, on 10/03/2008, -6/+6Kewl! I hope I can see it from my window
  • pcghost, on 10/03/2008, -5/+11Russia stopped scaring me when oil broke a c-note to the down side. Without huge inflated oil revenues, they go back to being broke like the rest of us.
  • Modiga, on 10/03/2008, -1/+12The missile can build submarines!?
  • systemghost, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9Here I was thinking that we were past the culturally barbaric dark age of Mutually Assured Destruction..
    • subliminalurge, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7Mutually Assured Destruction is one hell of a lot less barbaric than plain old Mutual Destruction.
    • NOD32user, on 10/03/2008, -3/+2 Mutually Assured Destruction or just MAD for short.
    • Tynan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7Actually, the age of MAD has been the most peaceful golden age in the history of humanity. As long as the nukes don't actually get launched, nuclear bombs have done more for peace than anything else.

      Unless you think we were doing better through WW2, WW1, and the continuous wars before them that swept the globe since pre-humans started living in groups.
    • CATSCEO2, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3MAD helped us get through the Cold War, watch WarGames (the 1983 version). Global Thermonuclear War is just like Tic Tac Toe, no one wins so you might as well not play.
  • Weed86, on 10/03/2008, -2/+2Yes!, i more step closer to nuclear annihilation!...
  • scot333, on 10/03/2008, -2/+4way to waste money russia! you'll never get to use it.
    • nirav72, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7as if we don't waste money on nukes?


    • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -5/+2but israel's neighbors might. we can only hope
      • doom777, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2noone will ever give bulava to Israel's neighbors
    • twiztidsinz, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4I hope you get raped.
    • rollerblader, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1better than wasting it on nascar
    • tmc1, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1yeah, they won't but the Arabs who purchase them will.
  • jonyblack200, on 10/03/2008, -17/+4You know it has been a very long time since America ruled the ***** out of everything in the world. The most interesting thing is that oohh so many people are forgeting about the basis, the foundations, the first grounds of all this human suffering and pain...Great Britain.
    But coming back to this topic I think its about time that American government actually ***** up big time and people would realize that all (most) Americans are brain washed and that the government is the TERRORIST. Russia is the only one capable. However everybody is forgetting what is going to happen to China and India very soon (little thing called lack of space) and then everybody, my beloved Russia, the ***** America and small ***** hole GB will be ***** and perhaps then all of us will change our perspectives and actually understand the stupidity of all of this!

    Anyway good night everyone
  • smartass007, on 10/03/2008, -6/+3behave pooty poot...otherwise, i'll send yulia tymoshenko over to give your ass a hard spanking.

    what? yes, i promise.
  • localzuk, on 10/03/2008, -0/+25It isn't even slightly surprising - the UK and USA have been upgrading their systems, so why shouldn't they?
  • malonie, on 10/03/2008, -8/+10In Russia........ nevermind, theres nothing to joke upon this story
    • JGib, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5But can it run...... ah forget it
    • rframpton, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3It's a tr.....no, that won't do.
    • Clbull, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Missiles Build You?
    • stonebone4, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4Just paint flames on...wait, no, that's even worse
    • Dejacque, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3Do a barrel ro...that probably won't work either.
    • EntropyFan, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2***** you, two of my friends died not finishing jokes!

      Not even sure where that one came from. Any know?
    • Chrysalii, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Mass Carriers = Instant Win
    • Tynan, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2How many missiles are we going to have?

      OVER NINE THOUSA... no.
    • beamster, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2^^^Stream of fail^^^
  • RickyTheRiot, on 10/03/2008, -1/+23It's called sabre rattling. For those of you who never experienced the cold war, this sort of announcement was a regular occurrence in the 80's. It's political brinkmanship.

    However, flip this situation around, instead of "missile defence" systems placed in Ukraine and Poland which will be capable of knocking out Russian missiles regardless where they are aimed, imagine Russia based a "missile defence" in Cuba that would stop American missiles. Do you seriously think America would sit around and just go, "OK". No it would develop missiles that can beat the defence systems.
    • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5yeah, that's called a cold war, something that we thought stopped after SU and USA reached neutrality. sadly USA is backing out of its agreements and starting another cold war with their missiles in poland.
    • doom777, on 10/03/2008, -4/+4Listen, the missile defense is meant to stop Iranian missiles, not Russian ones. Iranian missiles fly straight (and barely, even at that). They can be taken out with the shield. Russian ones couldn't be even 40 years ago.
    • flashingcurser, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4Well technically an ICBM defense system in cuba would have no effect and be completely useless. I think most would find it comical. Our missiles go over Canada/North pole from Montana and over the north pole directly from Alaska.

      As a side note, missile defense in Poland does nothing for the US. It does a hell of a lot for western Europe. Poland is very much in favor of a missile defense system, they haven't forgotten the Iron Curtain.
      • RickyTheRiot, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3FlashingCurser, your knowledge of "what it does for Western Europe" is obviously somewhat out of touch. Despite this defence system being placed in Eastern and not Western Europe, these things are being put in at the request of the US Government, and backed up by political bargaining and financial assistance.

        If you seriously think any European wants some American controlled and American run defence system sitting in their garden all the time shouting out "I am a legitimate target, bomb me", then you have some rethinking to do. Please don't think you are "doing us a favour" as you are not, it's the reverse, we are doing you that favour of allowing it to be deployed on our land.

        As for the reference to Cuba, it was a hypothetical question, the closest analogy I could get. It's obviously not exact although thanks for pointing it out..
      • flashingcurser, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Other than keeping russia from blowing our supposed allies off of the face of the earth, what exactly does this do for the US?

        How exactly did the US strong-arm these countries into this deal? They have nothing the US wants. The US has nothing, other than missile defense systems, that they want. Poland's biggest natural resource is coal lol The US is the is saudi arabia of coal.

        (I dugg you up for dialog, someone else dugg you down)
      • RickyTheRiot, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Two answers..

        1) "Other than keeping russia from blowing our supposed allies off of the face of the earth, what exactly does this do for the US?"

        For a start the missile defences will not stop missiles hitting Eastern or Western Europe from Russia, they are intended to stop missiles emanating from places like Iran and aimed for Israel and America (if they could reach). To suggest it is intended for European defence is questionable at best, and unsupportable at worst.

        Your Government is also adamant that this is for stopping Iranian missiles. Not Russian ones. And btw, we (the EU) still has a good relationship with the Russians, we are all Europeans and far more connected than you realise. You have to understand, and I am sure you do as you seem a lucid and sensible debater, that America has been around as a nation for a fraction time in comparison to the countries in Europe, Middle East and Asia. We have been fighting for centuries, in fact millennia, and the power is very carefully balanced. The last thing we need is a country that doesn't even sit within the geographical region militarising certain areas that are of benefit to them and no-one else.

        2) How exactly did the US strong-arm these countries into this deal?

        Reverse the question, why would we want them taking into consideration the answer to (1)? All it does is make us look more aggressive to Russia, something we don't need. Ukraine and Poland want to join NATO and are in dire need of financial and military support. The Americans were willing to deliver on that so long as we allowed you to place your missiles. It's a fairly obvious trade. You also forget that one of the biggest oil pipelines in the world goes from Russia, through the Ukraine to Europe. Providing us with oil and Russia with cash. It is in America's benefit to help Ukraine. Especially so considering the problems in Georgia. A situation that your Government has had problems distancing themselves from with numerous rumours of coercion involved in the attack on Russian peace keeper troops (granted they were on sovereign Georgian soil, but I am sure you are aware of the implications).

        I hope that clears up some of how I see it.
      • PigGeneral, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I'll dive in for dialog.

        The countries agreed because they are part of NATO. The whole rogue state thing launching a missile. It is laughed off as unlikely, never to happen, but it is certainly not impossible. Letting 1 strike you is 1 too many. If the ABM success rate is > 50% against single launches, that is enough to give people pushing the button pause if they only have 1 missile, that your only asset would be naught and you cannot even bloody the opponent's nose.

        For the cost of the ABM, it is money well spent as a deterrent to those types of threats. Elected leaders don't want to go down with history looking at them in hindsight going "for only x million dollars, Paris would still be standing" or any such sentence you see multiple times in history books.

        Russia is just sabre rattling. It is doubtful they have a new nuclear deployment platform ready. They don't need one. I have heard nothing of test launches or anything of the like. Strategic assets aren't something you just build in a lab and "hope" it launches when you need it. Their current missiles overwhelm ABM systems as is.
      • BabyWookie, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2"Poland is very much in favor of a missile defense system, they haven't forgotten the Iron Curtain."

        Their leaders are very much in favor of it (mainly, because they are getting a lot for it), but there's a whole lot Poles (probably the majority), who do now want American weapons on their soil.
      • peaceofpie, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2Somehow they forgot the Nazis, why can't they give the new Russia a chance?
  • 0biKwiet, on 10/03/2008, -2/+4We are, they just didn't get the memo. Russia is like the kid who just move on past high school, but instead of high school, it's the cold war.

    If I were president I'd just keep "announcing" things like advanced missile shields just to watch them flush their money down the toilet.
  • amightywind, on 10/03/2008, -4/+7Good to see the US missile defense effort is a achieving its goal. It is very important to consolidate the security of Eastern Europe and extend it to Ukraine and Georgia. Russia's nuclear deterrent is increasingly obsolete. They realize that they are slowly being encircled by missile defenses. They greatly fear US strategic technology. Soon US directed energy weapons will be able to destroy any land launched missile soon after launch. Their submarine forces are a joke. Bleed them.
    • glucoseboy, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6The whole point of submarine-launched missiles is that they can park them right off the coast. How many laser intercept batteries are you going to need to cover the eastern and western seaboards of the US?

      We'll be the ones bleeding if we try to fight offense with defense
      • amightywind, on 10/03/2008, -3/+4Like I said, their subs are a joke. The US already has an effective sub detection air/spacecraft. Be a skeptic about missile defenses. Remember 30 years ago when Teddy Kennedy said you couldn't hit a bullet with a bullet? Ronald Reagan's vision is coming true.
      • majortom1981, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Considering the fact some of the East Coast best defences where on long island and where all closed down. (an island that sticks out into the atlantic from the rest of the coast is a great place for a base.
    • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -4/+4amightywind is an angry jew who's hiding behind us flags.
      • Dejacque, on 10/03/2008, -2/+2amightywind is a 14 year old kid who somehow has all this time to post on Digg with his dozens of user accounts.
    • erkokite, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4This might have been true 10 years ago. However, with the recent influx of oil money, Russia now has the ability to develop and field new advanced weapons systems.

      They are developing a stealth fighter (in the same class as the JSF at least), which should be flying within a year. Or the Lada class submarine, or their S-400 SAM system, or their new missiles. As someone earlier pointed out, Anti-missile defense systems are ineffective against modern Russian missiles, and are more expensive and difficult to modernize and upgrade than the missiles which they are designed to block.

      It is true that the US has the advantage in strategic weapons systems, but Russia seems to be catching up. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't like being surrounded by NATO countries any more than we like having Russian missiles placed in Cuba. DEW weapons will be great, sure, but it will probably be a while before they are fielded widely, if at all. Last time I checked, they won't be out of the prototype stage for a while, and it would still be impossible to defend against a large number of missiles.
      • amightywind, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3"has the ability", "should be flying within a year", "seems to be catching up"
        I'll believe it when I see it, and I never do. The Russian leadership is as incompetent as they are despotic, like always. Russia has the same GDP as South Korea. Considering its size and population, resources, and education level it is easily the most under performing economy in the world. It has virtually no competitive industries besides energy and metals. Oil prices are slouching back to $50. The Ruskies have no economic growth platform when energy tanks, as it always does.
      • BabyWookie, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2CIA World Factbook (2007):

        Russia GDP (PPP) $M: 2,088,000 #7
        South Korea GDP (PPP $M: 1,201,000 #14

        Since the turn of the century, rising oil prices, increased foreign investment, higher domestic consumption and greater political stability have bolstered economic growth in Russia. The country ended 2007 with its ninth straight year of growth, averaging 7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. In 2007, Russia's GDP was $2.076 trillion (est. PPP), the 6th largest in the world, with GDP growing 8.1% from the previous year. Growth was primarily driven by non-traded services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports. Despite higher energy prices, oil and gas only contribute to 5.7% of Russia's GDP and the government predicts this will drop to by 2011. Russia is also considered well ahead of most other resource-rich countries in its economic development, with a long tradition of education, science, and industry. The country has more higher education graduates than any other country in Europe.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Uh... guys. This guy is actually serious. He is an insane, blood-thirsty neocon hawk. You shouldn't digg him up.
  • JasonCox, on 10/03/2008, -12/+7Bush, you should have never backed out of the ABM treaty you dumb *****.
    • doom777, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6why? America could have been blown up to pieces overnight 40 years ago. Nothing new happened.
  • ahhell, on 10/03/2008, -14/+5Someone needs to get rid of Putin..STAT!
    • bigstinky, on 10/03/2008, -2/+13Russia has every right to do what they deem necessary to ensure their safety as well as their war power. Why do people think the US should be the only country allowed to have nukes? To have a crushing military? To be able to protect themselves from attack and respond as necessary? We are not the police station of the world. Russia is a super power like it or not. We would be better served allying ourselves with them, rather than pissing them off with idle threats ala - McPalin. OOOH Putin rears his head...What about Medvedev? He may have a say in things...But most people do not educate themselves beyond our cozy little boundary's.

      Too many times has this country stuck it's nose where it does not belong. We need to focus on the US, not the problems of the rest of the world. I.e. Implementing our ideas of democracy where people do not need nor want our assistance.

      Papa Bear will not be trifled with and if you want to see the ultimate bitch-slap, continue screwing with them. It will all be over before you know it.

      As an American I'm not so arrogant to believe we are the be all end all in the world. There's a lot more out there than this little chunk we've secured for ourselves. And believe it or not, there's a lot more animosity towards our foreign policies, and our "shining beacon of light on the hill of freedom" rhetoric than some of you might care to believe.

      You may want to call me un-American for my sentiment, but at least I have opened my eyes. At any rate none of what I think is relevant beyond my tiny little circle in this world anyway. I'm just voicing an opinion. And it is your right to disagree with me.
      • Apophis574, on 10/03/2008, -8/+2So America and all of Europe should have allied with Germany and Hitler back in the 30's-40's? I know its a slightly extreme comparison, but its pretty much the same thing....
      • bigstinky, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Apophis574...

        No disrespect, but that's not even close to what I was getting at. Please elaborate on your sentiment so I can respond accordingly.

        My point implies that Russia as a sovereign nation and a world super power has a right to do what they deem necessary to strengthen and protect their country. The U.S. rightfully does the same thing. And I am thankful. Our nukes keep their nukes at bay.

        Again, the US in my opinion should do more to ally with Russia.

        The arrogance of our potential leaders to think they can smack Russia down shows their naivete. Russia does not need "our" permission for anything. Do you think we ask theirs?

      • Apophis574, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2So we should ally with someone regardless of their history, and their current stance in the world, just so we don't piss em off? Which is comparible to: Should we have just allied with Germany just so we don't piss em off?
      • bigstinky, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2I believe we should ally ourselves with Russia as leverage against a potential common threat. The Middle East. As well it would behoove us to have common ground with relation to China. We can't go around angering the world's world superpowers...More can be done diplomatically. Just think if China wanted all their money back...NOW!

        Being an ally has nothing to do with avoiding "pissing them off" as you eloquently put. One does not always have to agree on all points to be an ally.

        Where has Russia been a detriment to you in history Apophis? Was it the almost Kennedy nuke issue? They were an ally during WW2 and the atrocities you "might" be referencing are with regard to the genocide of their own people in the gulags of Siberia shortly after the war ended. But I honestly don't think that's the case with you. You seem to fear the commie boogyman Reagan painted for you.

        By the way, Are you trying to compare modern day Russia with Hitler's Nazi Germany? I really hope that's not the case.
      • Apophis574, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2"Being an ally has nothing to do with avoiding "pissing them off" as you eloquently put. One does not always have to agree on all points to be an ally."
        ---
        "We would be better served allying ourselves with them, rather than pissing them off with idle threats ala - McPalin."
        Just taking your words...

        It's not the commie part I fear (the most), it's the boogyman part. Oil prices are going down, and that's a bad thing for Russia. And I would not put it past them to start some conflict just to drive up the prices of oil.

        And as for the common threat in the Middle east, I agree. But again I would not put it past Russia to ally themselves with Iran or whoever first. And the Nazi Germany comparison is extreme like I said, and in no way am I saying Russia is the same entity.
      • bigstinky, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Fair enough Apop. We could debate the ally issue for hours. You bring up a good point though and I agree things cannot always be cut and dry. There are always shady deals to be worried about, but I would lay most of those on the Russian underground.

        Thanks for responding and forgive my smarmyness. Upon re-reading my posts I could have come across with a little less jab, if you will. I meant no disrespect.

        My initial stance remains with regard to Russia's right to maintain their country as they please.
      • Apophis574, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Oh ya dude, I agree they have a right to do whatever they want..

        what a nice debate instaed of a ***** OFF ***** debate that normally takes place on digg. lol.
  • TSK05, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7Considering that there are no working anti-nuke missile defenses (when I say working, I mean tested on real missiles - not dummy scrap metal with a rocket on its back and no countermeasures at all), did they just add another chaff or flare and call it a missile "designed to penetrate anti-missile defenses"?
    • Zervaman, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Probably have lots of dummy warheads mixed in with some real warheads.
  • UselessTrivia, on 10/03/2008, -10/+3I know the government and the media are trying to play this down...but at what point are we going to stop kidding ourselves and admit that Russia is trying to start another Cold War?
    • djoobacca, on 10/03/2008, -4/+5are you serious? it's the us that's trying to start another cold war.
      • Leviathan433, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Gentleman, gentleman - can't it be both?
  • Thinbev, on 10/03/2008, -5/+6This is why the American government wants to attack Russia:
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/business/pl ...
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43254§ion ...
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ...

    It's all currency warfare.
    • sodade, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Very interesting links, but I don't think that the US Govt wants to attack russia - no, they want to get back to the cold war. It is so much easier to rape the american taxpayer when you have a clear "enemy." 10 years form now, this whole "terrorism" thing will be forgotten.
  • scot333, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4And russia wields its red CAWK!!!!
  • sgtiger, on 10/03/2008, -3/+7Want to know what's really scary? If McCain/Palin win this next election...

    VP Palin, where do you stand on this crisis?

    "Here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit!"
  • banido, on 10/03/2008, -1/+15Red October standing by.
  • HumanNouveau, on 10/03/2008, -6/+9I've done a lot of work with Russian and Russians, and I can tell you that in the Russian language and thought, their is very little difference between the meanings of the words "fear" and "respect." When Russia is feared, the people feel their country is respected. This is a dangerous situation. Ignoring Russia's often repeated positions on their desire for a NATO free space around their borders is dangerous. We may disagree with that policy, and it may make sense to do things diplomatically to move toward NATO inclusion as a long-term goal, but we've clearly not done the things, or waited the time that is needed.

    I don't have the whole answer on how to gradually integrate Russia into the rest of European and Asian economic and political processes, but if the soul of our policy boils down to thwart, ignore and overwhelm, they're going to make themselves heard and felt. And they will do that in ways that are destabilizing and damaging.

    Time for a thoughtful and practical foreign policy. No more soulful eyegazing from the future US administration, please. And no more talk ***** and carry a stick.
    • TSK05, on 10/03/2008, -1/+11"I've done a lot of work with Russian and Russians, and I can tell you that in the Russian language and thought, their is very little difference between the meanings of the words "fear" and "respect.""

      I was born in the Soviet Union and lived in Russia for over 10 years and I can tell you that you're full of *****. There is a big difference between fear "bayatsa" and respect "uvashat"

      "When Russia is feared, the people feel their country is respected" - this however is true. But this is the same for any country.
      • HumanNouveau, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Actually, I think we're saying the same thing. There is a difference in definition between the two words, but there can be causal relationship between the two, the one that you agree with. That causal relationship is broadly held in Russia. To be feared is to be respected.

        I would like to differ with you strongly on the idea that that is true of "any country." There are many country's in the world that are respected but not feared. I do not believe that the US or Russia need to be feared to be respected. That seems to me to be the low road to respect. The alternative is to be respected as a leader; a positive contributor to peace and stability.

        Sadly the US seems to have moved onto the low road -- respect through fear -- in recent years. This has not always been the case in our history. We should strive to regain respect in the world through our other positive attributes.
      • HumanNouveau, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2http://mirbudushego.ru/kpb/pary/p117.htm :)
    • flashingcurser, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2They could easily create a NATO "free space". Simply pull back all of the people from their own border about say 200km and voila you have a "free zone".

      I don't think that is what you or the russians meant. What the russian mean is that they want NATO to stop defending borders with russia. Russia means that when they want to attack one of their neighbors they should have the ability to have a really good foothold in that country first.
  • RadicalEdward, on 10/03/2008, -2/+7Ya this doesn't remind me of CoD4 at all....
  • papamike, on 10/03/2008, -1/+15About time! Video games have gotten so boring without having the Russians to fight. Somewhere Tom Clancy is popping a bottle of champagne.
  • tekism, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9This whole world is ***** doomed one day someone will get irate and press a button and we are all *****, I say drink, smoke, ***** and have a good time because u never know which day is your last.
  • HopeMonger, on 10/03/2008, -6/+12all of the McCain/Palin tough insulting talk about Putin and Russia is really paying off.
    • TSK05, on 10/03/2008, -3/+4Lets sit down with them and have a talk, ask Putin to stop deploying the nukes - I am sure that'll work wonders.
    • PolishLogic, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Yep, I'm sure that this happened because Putin said "McCain and Palin make me mad".

      /facepalm
  • shamess, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5Metal Gear?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.