Missiles of November

Russia takes the opportunity to test welcome President-elect Obama to the world stage.

President [Dmitry] Medvedev ordered missiles to be stationed up against Nato’s borders yesterday to counter American plans to build a missile defence shield.

Speaking within hours of Barack Obama’s election, Mr Medvedev announced that Russia would base Iskander missiles in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad – the former German city – next to the border with Poland.

He did not say whether the short-range missiles would carry nuclear warheads.

Taking advantage of the world’s attention on the US elections, Mr Medvedev also cancelled plans to withdraw three intercontinental ballistic missile regiments from western Russia by 2010.

In his first state-of-the-nation address, Mr Medvedev said the missiles would be deployed “to neutralise if necessary the antiballistic missile system in Europe”. He added that Russia was also ready to deploy its Navy off Kaliningrad and to install electronic jamming devices to interfere with the US shield, which relies on a radar station in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland.

Well. I think that it doesn't take too much discernment to figure out that today's Presidential Daily Brief that DNI Chief Michael McConnell is conducting for the president-elect--his first top secret intelligence briefing--will have a distinctly Russian flavor.

Nato’s eastern members greeted the Russian move with dismay.

Gee, ya think?

Comments

[Paul_In_Houston]

My greatest fear about Obama?...

On election day, the Ace of Spades website posted a picture of two Iraqi women, with purple-stained fingers showing they had voted in an election.

It was a "Get Out The Vote" message, noting that whatever hardships or inconveniences YOU may experience by voting, "These women literally risked their lives to vote".

My first reaction to that was, "And THE ONE can hardly wait to sell them out".

One of my biggest worries about Obama is that his rhetoric on Iraq, and rumored comments about Israel, show an almost casual willingness to sell out allies when convenient.

A commenter on another blog asked, “Who appointed us to be their guardians? Why is it America’s job to make sure they are safe?”

I feel the answer is we'd rather not have the entire world as a nuclear-armed camp, based on the idea that the more countries that have these things, the greater the likelihood that some will eventually be used.

Our alliances with these countries, to protect them, are not out of the goodness of our heart, but for what we see as our own best interests. Sell one out, and you can bet the others will sure take notice.

It seemed that commenter was advocating, “To hell with them, let them take care of themselves!”

Well, the problem there is they might do exactly that, and we might not be too thrilled with the results.

If countries under threat (Taiwan, maybe South Korea, even Japan) feel reason to believe that our word is no longer any good, they’ll almost certainly feel the need for self-sufficiency in nuclear arms as the only real deterrent to someone like China. And note, those countries mentioned ALL have the necessary economic, industrial and technical wherewithal to go nuclear. All they need do is make the decision.

Others, in the Middle East will want them to deter Iran. How about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Maybe Libya decides that abandoning their efforts was a mistake. THOSE countries may lack the technology, but they can certainly afford to finance it.

It could just go on and on.

THAT, I feel, would be a very likely result of us deciding to just disengage ourselves from these countries.

We’ve tried successfully, and for a long time, to convince others that they did not need them, because WE would provide the protection of a nuclear umbrella.

When they decide we cannot be relied on, the whole thing unravels.

If that commenter gets his wish, and they take care of themselves, it could get real interesting for us as well.

Seeing that we also reside on the same planet, I think it almost impossible we would remain unaffected.

So, standing up for our allies is not merely a nice thing to do; it makes the hardest kind of common sense.

Simply put, we protect others in order to protect ourselves. Abandoning them, selling them out, would be an unbelievably short-sighted (as in STUPID) thing to do, and would hurt us more in the long run. No one would trust an agreement with us; and why should they, given such a record?

Instead of being worth anything, our word would only be noise.

And that would be tragic, because WE set its' value, by our actions.

[Fausta]

And Putin's making plans for an official comeback, too (click on my URL)

[PCachu]

(To be read in best available Boris Badenov voice:)

"Welcome to world stage, comrade Obama! Always is pleasure to be dealingk with fresh mea-- err, face! Please to ignore knife I am holdingk behind my back, is merely part of physical therapy for carpal tunnel. Let us speak of international cooperation, and perhaps hidden location of moose and squirrel."

[mnotaro]

Obama sure has a long road ahead of him...I think a lot of the public will be disappointed in the months and years to come after they realize the separation and the division that Obama and the elite socialist illuminati will bring into our country.

[Xpressions]

You were right to say test, because every country will be testing the left-wing illuminati, because they know they're not ready.