Who dislikes this measure? Russia (UPI story here). They seem none too happy that any of its former Socialist Republics would have any type of missile defense. The question is why? It's a defensive system. It has no ulterior offensive capability. It's not created to target cities.
As the Bear continues to tone up and beef up its atrophied muscles and as Vladimir Putin moves from the role of president to prime minister, one can only wonder what's going on with the Russian discomfort.In fact, it's gone beyond discomfort. “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a released statement. That would be like Washington DC incarcerating its citizens for having guns to protect their homes. Wait a minute. Bad example.
Some may compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I hope the differences are obvious. The USSR attempted to place nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. Canned sunshine a stone's throw from Miami beach?? Nuclear missiles, when last I looked, turn cities into glass. Defensive? Not so much.
The US missile defense shield? Conventional weaponry (i.e. no nukes). No fallout. Intended to destroy only incoming threats.
Perhaps the most disconcerting scenario sees the Czechs setting up the defense and the Russians blowing it to bits. Now what? My fear that the US would do nothing. The Bear would bloody the nose of the West, and the strongest western player (America) would do nothing, not because we do not have the military capability (oh, we do!), but because I do not believe that our nation has the belly to stand against a direct challenge from a formidable foe. I fear, like Neville Chamberlain, we would try and make nice, seeking (personal) peace (and affluence) in our time as the ultimate good.
So why the bluster? Why the baring of the incisors? Have the hammer and sickle returned?
What gives in the land of Gog?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment