3 ms·
> If they really wanted a strategic buffer, they'd have created one using their own, existing territory Russia is big but the homeland is in western Russia, th
by _8j50 4y ago
> If they really wanted a strategic buffer, they'd have created one using their own, existing territory
Russia is big but the homeland is in western Russia, they would have to move their big cities to the east, far away from trade routes and gas pipes to europe and at an impractical cost.
Keep in mind, the buffer is not just for invasions but for icbms. To shoot down one, the earlier, the better. Once they enter space it's harder than hitting a bullet with another bullet. ICBMs are their proverbial penis and THAAD is a strategically placed castration device if I can be a bit obscene here. This also includes medium range missiles of course but essentially, Russia wouldn't be able to use nukes effectively against countries to its west and south.
- justinclift 4y ago> they would have to move their big cities to the east ... at an impractical cost. Yeah, that seems like the heart of the problem. Apparently the better option was to just invade those wilful neighbours, and force them to use their territory as a buffer zone instead. Except, that's not at all how it's going to play out. Not after the "Fool me once..." Crimea invasion.
- nradov 4y agoYou seem to have some misunderstandings about ballistic missile defense. Even without any Ukrainian or Moldovan territory, all Russian ground-based ICBM launchers are too far away for any NATO country to shoot one down during boost phase. The Airborne Laser program failed and was cancelled years ago. All current missile defense systems including THAAD can only be used during the midcourse and terminal phases. It's actually much easier to hit the "bullet" during the midcourse phase because at that point it's just coasting in an arc.
- _8j50 4y agoFirst of all thank you so much for an actual reasonable and rational discourse. Yours is the only one I have seen so far. I concede that you are correct about intercontinental missile defense. However, why was it neccesary to place THAAD in easter europe in a time of peace then? What I am saying is if what you are saying is true then that means the US and the west acted in such an agressive way in a time when they were pledging to be closer and friendlier with Russia, all as a formal act of an alliance formed to counter Russia. It was literally a campaign promise by Hillary. Is there a prior act of agression by Russia I am not aware of or a non-Russian threat that required THAAD deployment in eastern Europe I am not aware of? I mean, the US could also arm countries with US controlled nukes like with Turkey but does not do so to avoid provoking Russia, so why was the defensive THAAD given the greenlight then? Strategic blunder? Curios on your take. Again, I must thank you for attacking my reasoning only instead of character or intent like others.
- nradov 4y agoTHAAD is purely a defensive system. Deploying it in Europe is not aggressive. And it was only deployed in Eastern Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine the first time, so there was no peace. The Romanians are afraid of another Russian invasion and we have to protect our allies. Turkey is just one of five countries that participate in the NATO nuclear sharing program.
- _8j50 4y agoI just checked and you are again right, I had my facts wrong about THAAD deployment timeline. It maybe a defensive weapon but when you're a NATO member by way of article 5 along with everything else NATO offers it becomes yours to use. If canada and mexico were russia's allies and russia had a similar technology, would we dismiss it for being purely defensive or work against our neighbors (as with cuba) to change that? Russia's main military strength is their nuclear forces, a defensive weapon changes variables in "mutually assured destruction" it is that much less mutual what the fallout from nukes would be. I am not supporting Russian reasoning, simply describing it.