?
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | |
| Russia expects access to US defence shield in Czech Republic | |
| 2008-10-21 | |
| Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday that Moscow expects to be given permanent access to parts of a US anti-missile shield to be installed in the Czech Republic, Russian news agencies said. "A non-permanent presence, meaning limited visits, changes nothing except to reinforce our suspicions," Lavrov said on arriving at the Armenian capital of Yerevan, where the Russian president is on a visit, the Ria Novosti news agency reported. "We welcome the idea of a permanent Russian presence and a permanent check, both physical and technical, and this would assuage our fears," Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying.
Moscow has vehemently objected to the stationing of the missile defences in the former Soviet bloc countries, insisting that it could one day be turned against Russia. | |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #33 That's for the older systems which used expoding warheads to form a ring X-section. For the exoatmospheric vehicle this is not needed since kinetic energy is so great (it is just going to weight it down). Damn. That time working for Raytheon and I don't know jack. Rats. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-10-21 18:38 |
| #32 and GC This is the only large law firm I had experience servicing but that was in the 80's... so I tend to view you through the glasses shaded Ming Ashtrays |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-10-21 17:00 |
| #31 What international law? You got that right. Although I am sceptical of the concept there is apparently such a thing. It's just they always fail to cite the laws they invoke. However, with respect to Russia. Weapons trade is allowed, is it not? U.S. sells. France sells. Well, Russia also sells. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 17:00 |
| #30 Where GC posts from Many of our clients are international in scope and so are we. The firm has a multi-disciplinary office in Paris and consistently cultivates associations with many other prominent law firms throughout the world. Additionally, we are actively engaged within a preferred network of firms from countries around the globe. With this panel of firms, we work with the highest caliber of lawyers of choice within each country when the needs of a particular matter arise. These non-exclusive arrangements involve representations of clients in a number of practice areas, including cross-border corporate and finance, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property, joint ventures and other disciplines for which the associated firms and their lawyers are highly regarded. SO I ASSUME - SAUDIS fund GC? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-10-21 16:58 |
| #29 As for the access, that was offered to Russia before the agreements were finalized, but they were not then interested, as I recall Nope, Russians were never allowed a permanent presence. Just now Chechs are toying with an idea of "scheduled visits," which is not even theirs to begin with. Obviously, this is not going to work. The permanent presence is needed to allow for real-time monitoring. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:56 |
| #28 What international law? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-10-21 16:54 |
| #27 G C, anti-missle missles do indeed have a warhead that explodes. It's just that our targeting and control systems have gotten so good the anti-missle usually hits. That's for the older systems which used expoding warheads to form a ring X-section. For the exoatmospheric vehicle this is not needed since kinetic energy is so great (it is just going to weight it down). |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:49 |
| #26 To those willing to buy in full compliance with the international law. To whom has Russia been selling such interesting things lately? I seem to recall Russian nuclear and missile technicians in Iran and Syria, crossing paths with the North Koreans. What was the claimed reason for needing a missile defence shield in Central Europe? As for the access, that was offered to Russia before the agreements were finalized, but they were not then interested, as I recall. But do please explain to me how international law forbids defensive weapons when another country makes threats, such as Iran toward Europe -- while I have some grasp of the laws applying to Americans resident in the EU, such complicated things are well beyond my ken. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the opportunity of a useful session of Rantburg University. Professor General_Comment, you have the floor. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-10-21 16:47 |
| #25 Who are you billing while you're posting here? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-10-21 16:43 |
| #24 What do you do -- chase Manhattan ambulances to make them go faster? No, lawyers of this kind do not typically work on Manhattan - those are the personal injury attorneys. Besides, this practice is not allowed. You must have seen in a Paul Newman movie. Has not happened in real life for decades now. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:40 |
| #23 G C, anti-missle missles do indeed have a warhead that explodes. It's just that our targeting and control systems have gotten so good the anti-missle usually hits. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-10-21 16:36 |
| #22 "...I do a whole lot of good for this country." What do you do -- chase Manhattan ambulances to make them go faster? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-10-21 16:36 |
| #21 Looks close to me, but I guess it is a matter of taste or idiosyncratic sensitivities. Moron is fine then. I'll use that one next time around. Thanks. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:34 |
| #20 CG --- But you would not know that b/c you are a f-ng troll who does not pay attention. There's no double standard in using "moron" #10 & #11 as compared to "f-ng troll who does not pay attention." |
| Posted by: A Mod 2008-10-21 16:29 |
| #19 leech on society I disagree with this characterization. Without going into much detail I do a whole lot of good for this country. So, there! |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:24 |
| #18 Besides, the Russians can't do much about anything since their society is crumbling faster than your credibility EXCEPT launch a nuclear attack. Their population is collapsing, they have no real infrastructure, no real way to keep the majority of their military up to speed and no real options other than a nuclear one to keep China out of the Siberian oil and gas fields. You must be out of your mind. Regarding each and every point in your blurb. Also, the U.S. is not the only country enforcing the "international law." |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:14 |
| #17 General Comment: ? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-10-21 16:14 |
| #16 To those willing to buy in full compliance with the international law. You know what international law is at the end of the day without the US to enforce it? Ink stains on decaying paper. And me, a troll? Apparently you haven't been around very much. And apparently I hit a nerve. Besides, the Russians can't do much about anything since their society is crumbling faster than your credibility EXCEPT launch a nuclear attack. Their population is collapsing, they have no real infrastructure, no real way to keep the majority of their military up to speed and no real options other than a nuclear one to keep China out of the Siberian oil and gas fields. So, go back to your sycophant job and continue to be a leech on society. I'm finishing lunch and am going back to help pay for all those nice missiles and the stupid bailout plan. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-21 16:06 |
| #15 Careful now, GC --- that last post is getting a little close to being off base. You've played nice so far, not mess it up. And posts # 10, and # 11 are just fine with you. Double standards? Censorship? "not mess it up" - patronizing. I will play nice if those will play it nice. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 16:02 |
| #14 Careful now, GC --- that last post is getting a little close to being off base. You've played nice so far, not mess it up. |
| Posted by: A Mod 2008-10-21 15:55 |
| #13 Considering the Russians can completely overwhelm the defenses, what is the fear about 10 anti-missile missiles? It is not just those, there is more coming all over the place. And as I said the other day it's the radars we don't want. But you would not know that b/c you are a f-ng troll who does not pay attention. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 15:52 |
| #12 "They aren't the ones selling weapons to any nation that opposes the US. To those willing to buy in full compliance with the international law. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 15:49 |
| #11 I vote moron. |
| Posted by: Beavis 2008-10-21 15:47 |
| #10 Which fears and suspicions do you have? Russians are not the ones trying to build a new "iron" (err interceptor) curtain. Not the peaceful Russians! They aren't the ones selling weapons to any nation that opposes the US. They aren't the ones building new nukes and mobile ballistic missiles and pointing them at the west. They aren't the ones throwing anti-western rhetoric any chance they get. They aren't the ones giving nuclear tech to nations hostile to the US and the West. Considering the Russians can completely overwhelm the defenses, what is the fear about 10 anti-missile missiles? Either you are completely naive or a complete moron. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-21 15:45 |
| #9 "What do the Russians propose to offer in return? Both we and the Czechs have fears and suspicions that need assuaging, after all." Which fears and suspicions do you have? Russians are not the ones trying to build a new "iron" (err interceptor) curtain. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 15:36 |
| #8 "An interceptor is going to have a minimal payload as it's only expected to create enough shrapnel to shred a nearby missile." It does not have shrapnel. It is a kinetic kill vehicle with IR guidance. |
| Posted by: General_Comment 2008-10-21 15:34 |
| #7 Depending on who is sitting in the White house next year, the Russians may very well get everything they want. Has not the Obamassiah ssid that HE WILL CHANGE THE WORLD? This is an example of the everyday nickle and dime stuff the President can do with a stroke of a pen. |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-10-21 15:03 |
| #6 rj, think there is an old sit-down version of Missile Command sitting around out this ways if it could be helpful ;) |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-10-21 14:53 |
| #5 What do the Russians propose to offer in return? Both we and the Czechs have fears and suspicions that need assuaging, after all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-10-21 14:36 |
| #4 Turning interceptors into offensive weapons. An interceptor is going to have a minimal payload as it's only expected to create enough shrapnel to shred a nearby missile. It could be used offensively but it would be pretty sad in the damage department. It would be much easier to use a sub-launched missile designed to have a real punch that could be submerged beneath the baltic sea if we wanted to mess with the Russians. Putin and the Russians are afraid their arms sales will die off if everyone believes there is an effective anti-missile system (they created Scuds after all). They also hope that they can learn something to improve their own anti-missile and anti-plane defense systems, again to increase sales. The Russians should just shut up and wait for Obama to give them what they want. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-21 14:26 |
| #3 We should create a fake base and let them have access to that. Computer generated animations can be used to fake tests and show them how our base can knock down millions of incoming rockets. It could be fun. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-21 14:22 |
| #2 Help me out here, guys. Just how easy is it to turn intercepter missles into offensive weapons? |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-10-21 14:17 |
| #1 Expect in one hand, expectorate in the other, and see which one fills up first. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-10-21 14:05 |