European Tribune

European Salon de News, Discussion et Klatsch – 16. May

by Fran
Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:54:44 PM EST

On this date in history:

1960 - Nikita Khrushchev demands an apology from US President Dwight D. Eisenhower for U-2 spy plane flights over the Soviet Union thus ending a Big Four summit in Paris.

More here and here


Welcome to the European Salon!

This Salon is open for discussions, exchange, and gossip and just plain socializing all day long. So please enter!

The Salon has different rooms or sections for your enjoyment. If you would like to join the discussion, then to add a link or comment to a topic or section, please click on "Reply to this" in one of the following sections:

EUROPE - is the place for anything to do with Europe.

WORLD - here you can add the links to topics concerning the rest of the World.

THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER - is the place for everything from environment to health to curiosa.

KLATSCH - if you like gossip, this is the place. But you can also use this place as an Open Thread until the one in the Evening opens.

SPECIAL FOCUS - will be up only for special events and topics, like elections or other stuff.

I hope you will find this place inspiring – of course meaning the inspiration gained here to show up in interesting diaries. :-)

There is just one favor I would like to ask you – please do NOT click on “Post a Comment”, as this will put the link or your comment out of context at the bottom of the page.

Actually, there is another favor I would like to ask you – please, enjoy yourself and have fun at this place!

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
EUROPE
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:55:51 PM EST
Merkel gives up on God in EU treaty - EUobserver.com
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - German chancellor and Christian Democrat Angela Merkel has voiced regret there will be no reference to Christian roots in the revised EU treaty, amid controversial remarks about damage to churches in Turkish Cyprus at a meeting of religious VIPs in Brussels.

"You know what my personal view is. I would have liked the constitution to deliver such a reference. But as president of the European Council, I see there is not much of a chance," she said on the prospects of God appearing in a preamble to the EU text. "I can't hold out any hope," she added.

Her statement comes in the context of Germany's push to fix the broad outlines of a new EU treaty - still called a "constitution" by some - in late June, following months of bilateral consultations with EU states after the rejection of the original EU constitution in 2005.

The God debate is at least as old as the 2002 convention that wrote the old EU constitution, with Roman Catholic states like Poland and the Vatican pushing for the reference, but with France and the UK worried over national secularist traditions or damaging relations with Islamic EU candidate Turkey.

The EU's 50th birthday declaration in March rejuvenated the discussion. But in the end the birthday text made no reference to Christianity, while praising "identities and diverse traditions of member states" and how the EU is "enriched" by a "variety of languages, cultures."
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hallelujah.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 02:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ratzinger should excommunicate her.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 02:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He can't - she's Lutheran.

Neener, neener, neener!

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...and despite her past in that church during 'communism', I sometimes wonder if she has any faith deep down (as opposed to public displays before party members)...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder if she isn't just making noises for the benefit of the more reactionary elements in her party.

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It could backfire, if they decide she's not being "tought on Secularism".

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think they already think so, this is the appeasement not the trigger.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EU needs to move from 'post-Soviet era' strategic thinking - EUobserver.com
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The EU remains in post Soviet-era strategic thinking and has yet to adapt itself to the new threats posed by terrorism and radicalised Islamic ideology, according to Portugal's foreign minister.

Giving a preview of his country's priorities when it takes over the EU presidency on 1 July, Luis Amado on Tuesday (15 May) at a meeting of NGO Friends of Europe indicated Lisbon will shift the political focus of the bloc towards euro-Mediterranean and African countries, which he said were the origin of many of these new challenges.

"I think we need to understand that the strategic environment has changed after the 9/11 events," said the minister referring to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001.

He added that the bloc is still working in a "post-Soviet era," with much of the focus on Europe's borders to the east.

Instead, said Mr Amado, the EU should find the same "strategic vision and leadership" that it used to keep peace in its eastern neighbourhood after the disintegration of the Soviet empire - which eventually resulted in the EU taking on eight new member states from the region - in a new focus beyond Europe's southern borders.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um.... What does this mean?

The members of the current Portugal government demanded pullout from Iraq in opposition (which IIRC was then done by Barroso's successor as election campaign measure, but failed to give him victory), so probably not a full adoption of the neocon line.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"A new focus to the south" sounds a bit like Sarko's Mediterranean shtick.

(They all want to go to Malta...)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"I think we need to understand that the strategic environment has changed after the 9/11 events," said the minister referring to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001.

Yeah, instead of being afraid of Russia we should be afraid of the US.</snark>

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the snark for?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:55:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pre-empting the Atlanticists.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brown's Britain: Striking an EU-US Balance | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 15.05.2007
Passionately pro-European and Atlanticist, Tony Blair sought good relations with both the EU and the US, although his pragmatic successor Gordon Brown is more likely to achieve both.

From Winston Churchill to Tony Blair, every post-war prime minister has been consumed by a foreign policy that has boiled down to the choice between Europe and the United States while trying to establish an independent British role in the world.

Although Britain emerged as an allied victor from the ashes of World War II, some say she won the war, but lost the peace.

Her vast imperial empire had disintegrated, and the "special relationship" with the United States, a partnership forged by a common heritage and the war, went through rough patches after the Suez Crisis in 1956.

 

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Wartime leader Winston Churchill (right) chose the US over Europe

The Anglo-French conspiracy to topple Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser met with US hostility, shattering both British pretensions in the Middle East and illusions about the loyalty of its closest ally.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Imperial Empire"?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh... DW should really hire an English proofreader!

BTW, sidenote to Migeru who noted it, that gross error in Deutsche Welle's English article on the Bremen elections, writing the Greens have been out of all regional parliaments instead of governments, has been corrected (presumably following a feedback from me).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the M$ Word grammar checker is not good enough? I want my money back!

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad is. Competent not.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Empire just moved its seat from the UK to the US, but there is continuity in a way that the British Empire doesn't have with earlier European Empires.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:43:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FT.com / Europe / Brussels - Britain to be offered opt-out on EU justice

Britain is to be offered an "opt-out" from some of the most sensitive parts of a revamped European Union constitution, as Angela Merkel, German chancellor, steps up efforts to negotiate a deal on a treaty.

Ms Merkel's allies have identified Britain and Poland as the biggest obstacles to an agreement, but her team remains confident it can end five years of constitutional wrangling at a Brussels summit next month.

ADVERTISEMENT

To help win Britain over, Ms Merkel, who holds the EU's rotating presidency, is said by colleagues to be willing to let London choose whether to take part in police and judicial co-operation on criminal issues when national vetoes in the area are abolished.

The move could help unlock an agreement on a streamlined treaty to replace the EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005, allowing the bloc to play a more active role in the world.

But Poland remains strongly opposed to a proposed change in EU voting weights, while Britain has other concerns about a charter of fundamental rights - which businesses fear could give workers more rights to strike - and a change in the status of EU foreign policymaking.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Britain has other concerns about a charter of fundamental rights

I would like to know who exactly in Britain is responsible for this position. (Blair I'd guess - or is it a FO or Treasury project?)

I would also like to know why there isn't more noise about it coming from the press here.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I will vote "no" again if the charter is not modified:


Article 17
Right to property

    1. [...]
    2. Intellectual property shall be protected.

The most extremist stupidity, a worldwide first in a right document: no way.

I haven't looked at other points in details, I vaguely remenber read ing articles a while ago saying that this charter weakens other existing rights in a significant way.

But may be "pro-yes" people have a detailed analysis of what the gain of this charter vs what we already have in ECHR for example?

http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Property is theft, dammit! Even John Stuart Mills agreed!
The principle of private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country; and less so, perhaps, in this country than in some others. The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of just partition, or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many and large traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I forgot the section title:


Chapter II - Freedoms

I have no problem with property of rival goods. Although the most important and always ignored points are temporal aspects of property:

  • initial repartition (including how long to look in the past for "robbery")
  • what every newborn is entitled to? (housing?)
by Laurent GUERBY on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "right to have my property protected by the state" is a "freedom"?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Version 2.5 of the CC License 'protects' your intelelctual property.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My blog is public domain, not using CC.

For software GPL was set up as a protection against the abuses of the IP system. Without an IP system, the GPL is far less usefull in protecting anything from anything, since freedom is restored.

The modern BSD licence is equivalent to public domain BTW (legalese to remove any implicit warranty and that's all).

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The only thing all of the CC licenses protect is your right to have your work attributed to you. This amounts to impose by licensing what is an elementary courtesy.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but the Charter does not necessarily mean anything more than that; so the clause pointed out by Laurent, per se, is not reason enough to reject the whole thing.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be a major mistake to let something like that go.

We all know who put it there, why and what will be the use of this "right".

The USA constitution has the right thing to put on the topic (assuming you want some), and it's a very simple sentence written a while ago.

It's must protect IP vs may restrict freedom to protect IP if it promotes progress.

BTW, this is why lots of people are rejecting (and rightly so) those EU "constitution" texts: they write down the policies instead of simple rules to guide the political process.

The US constitution has the right wording here, enabling the political process instead of writing down current policy fads.

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is consistent with Britain's position on Schengen, for instance.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can we give them an opt out on the EU?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's the European Economic Area. They still enjoy free movement of labour, but without the political rights.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Someone remind me how the UK (or anyone else) being in a free-trade/movement area without the "cost-increasing" obligations doesn't make them parasites.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because they no longer get a say on norms and standards.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The EEA members pay a fee to the EU in order to have access to the EU, but don't have many of the obligations (and don't get structural funds).

Better a parasite than a spanner in the works, I say.

EEA Freedoms

The EEA is based on four "freedoms": the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. The countries enjoy free trade with European Union member countries, however they have to adopt a large amount of European law. EEA have little influence on the decision-making process in Brussels.

On the other hand, the EEA countries have none of the financial burdens associated with EU membership. However the EEA countries contribute financially to the Internal Market. For example after the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004 there was a ten-fold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years). Unlike EU members, they do not get any money back via policies and development funds, it is purely for access to the European market.

EEA legislation

The non EU members of the EEA have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. (1. pillar)

These three members have no representation in EU Institutions such as the European Parliament or European Commission. In February 2001, former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg described the situation as a "fax democracy", with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission.

Essentially, the EEA is the European Economic Community, without the political advantages. I think it wouldn't work for the UK either [social policy, consumer protection, company law and statistics], they'd probably prefer to go the Swiss way (Bilateral Agreements).

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The agricultural lobby in the UK, which includes many rich Tories and corporates like Tate & Lyle, wouldn't want to give up the £4 billion or so it gets from the CAP.

Structurally I think the UK is pretty much where Whitehall wants it to be - able to exert Atlanticist and Neoliberal influence while stalling populist measures and preventing deeper union.

The answer wouldn't be to throw out the UK, but to start changing some of the terms of membership. Which of course isn't going to happen.

It's indicative that slightly obsequious enthusiasm for joining the Euro in Blair's first term has been quietly dropped from public discussion. And I don't think there's anywhere near enough political support for it to make it even worth attempting.

Lots of true blue types are ready to have patriotic apoplexy on cue if it ever comes close to happening.

Which is a rather depressing view of UK politics. You can go to war on the basis of a lie, you can remove political freedoms, but if someone threatens to turn your currency over to Yurp, you're ready and waiting to start an uprising.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oink!

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blair brings heartache to Berlin on EU treaty

Ten years after Tony Blair promised to put Britain back at the heart of Europe, he finds himself in a position familiar to many of the prime ministers who preceeded him: standing in the way of a new EU treaty.

Allies of Angela Merkel, German chancellor, have identified Britain and Poland as the two biggest obstacles to getting an outline agreement on a new treaty to modernise the EU at a summit next month in Brussels.

Ms Merkel believes she can accommodate the demands of most other countries in the weeks leading up to the summit, but Britain and Poland fall into a tougher category.

The Polish problem is easy to understand, if far less easy to solve. Lech Kaczynski, Polish president, says the proposed new treaty - which creates a population-based voting system - gives too much power to the Union's biggest country, Germany.

But when one senior European official was asked which country was the biggest challenge, the first reply was: "Great Britain, as usual." That sense of foreboding was underscored at a meeting on Tuesday in Berlin of treaty "sherpas" - senior officials from national capitals - one of whom reported being "shocked" by the forcefulness of the British contribution.

As usual.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As usual:
Allies of Angela Merkel, German chancellor, have identified Britain and Poland as the two biggest obstacles to getting an outline agreement on a new treaty to modernise the EU at a summit next month in Brussels.

Ms Merkel believes she can accommodate the demands of most other countries in the weeks leading up to the summit, but Britain and Poland fall into a tougher category.



Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Feminist, socialist, devout Muslim: woman who has thrown Denmark into turmoil | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
In the land that launched the cartoons war between Islam and the west, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid finds herself on the frontline, gearing up for a new battle.

The 25-year-old social worker, student and town councillor describes herself as a feminist, a democrat, and a socialist. She has gay friends, opposes the death penalty, supports abortion rights, and could not care less what goes on in other people's bedrooms. In short, a tolerant Scandinavian and European.

Article continues She is also a Palestinian and a devout Muslim who insists on wearing a headscarf, who refuses, on religious grounds, to shake hands with males, and who is bidding fair to be the first Muslim woman ever to enter the Folketing, the Danish parliament in Copenhagen.

For the extreme right, the young activist is a political provocateur, an agent of Islamic fundamentalism bent on infiltrating the seat of Danish democracy. To many on the left, Ms Abdol-Hamid is also problematic, personifying through her dress the reactionary repression of women and an illiberal religious agenda that should have no place in her leftwing "red-green" alliance of socialists and environmentalists.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
personifying through her dress the reactionary repression of women and an illiberal religious agenda

Yes, this 25-year-old woman running for Parliament sounds clearly repressed.  If only she would liberate her hair and wear miniskirts, she would know true freedom.

<bangs head on desk>

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:05:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
an illiberal religious agenda that should have no place in her leftwing "red-green" alliance of socialists and environmentalists.

Next we'll know the Nordic Green Left is going to institute a headscarf ban. Now seriously, I wonder whether she'll end up being thrown out of the party.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the Danish Wikipedia:
I 2005 blev hun valgt som suppleant for Enhedslisten i Odense Byråd. Der kom hun for første gang i mediernes søgelys, da hun forud for kommunalvalget pludseligt nægtede at give hånd til mandlige kolleger, men derimod hilste ved at føre hånden til hjertet.

...

Asmaa Abdol-Hamid blev Danmarks første muslimske tv-vært på en public service-kanal, da hun i 2006 blev studievært på DR2-programmet Adam og Asmaa, sammen med Adam Holm. Organisationen Kvinder for Frihed samlede 500 underskrevne protester mod, at Asmaa som troende muslim bar tørklæde (hijab) i programmet.

Rough translation: In 2005 she was elected to the Odense City Council with the United Left, and came to the attention of the media for the first time, because she refured to shake hands with male colleagues, whom she instead greeted by bringing her hand to her heart. ... She became Denmark's first muslim TV presenter [vært?] on a public service channel, on the DR2 program Adam and Asmaa, with Adam Holm. The organisation Women for Freedom gathered 500 signatures protesting against the fact that, as a devout muslim, Asmaa had work a headscarf (hijab) on the program.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can read Danish?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought the  most shocking part of my comment was the 500 signatures.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Asmaa had worn a headscarf

Hopefully obvious from the context.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the land that launched the cartoons war between Islam and the west, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid finds herself on the frontline, gearing up for a new battle.

Not for the first time (Danish wikipedia):

Hun var talsmand for de 11 muslimske organisationer, der politianmeldte Jyllands-Posten for blasfemi og racediskrimination efter avisens publicering af Muhammed-tegningerne.

She was [a] spokesperson for the 11 Muslim organisations which sued Jyllands-Posten for blasphemy and racial discrimination after the newspaper's publishing of the Mohammed Cartoons.



Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
although I find some aspects of her positions to be contradictory, I find the whole idea to be very hopeful.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gulfnews: What is Sarkozy's foreign policy?

Although foreign policy played little part in France's presidential election, the newly elected president Nicholas Sarkozy has already announced a major change of course on a number of key issues.

The first change concerns relations with the United States. In his first speech after victory, Sarkozy said that the first message he wished to send was addressed to the United States.

"We are on your side," he said, indicating that France would abandon Jacques Chirac's policy of scoring points against the US whenever possible. "Our recent separation was tragic," Sarkozy added, recalling Chirac's campaign to prevent the liberation of Iraq in 2003.

By all accounts, Sarkozy is the most pro-American president that France has had under its Fifth Republic that started in 1958.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FT.com / World - Eurozone growth continues to outpace US

The eurozone's robust economic growth rate slipped only modestly in the first three months of the year and still comfortably outpaced the US as the damaging impact of higher German VAT failed to live up to expectations.

Gross domestic product in the 13-country region increased by 0.6 per cent in the first quarter, after a 0.9 per cent rise in the final three months of 2006, according to Eurostat, the European Union's statistical unit. The latest figure compared with a 0.3 per cent rise in the US.

ADVERTISEMENT

With growth expected to accelerate again in the second quarter, the latest data led economists to revise up forecasts for the full year, which could see the region matching last year's 2.7 per cent annual growth rate.

Eurozone growth was supported by a stronger-than-expected performance by Germany, which saw GDP rising by 0.5 per cent in the first quarter. That was only half the pace seen at the end of last year, but economists had expected a sharper slowdown as a result of a three percentage point increase in VAT at the start of the year. The country's statistical office said that consumer spending had been "braked significantly" but growth had been powered by strong investment spending.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cyclical.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A survivor bids adieu to the Elysée

(...)

In 1997, only two years into his first presidency, he called early elections to win a bigger majority for Alain Juppé, his prime minister, and endorsement for economic reforms. Instead, he suffered a dramatic reversal, and victory for Lionel Jospin's Socialist party, forcing him into a stalemate of "cohabitation". That was the end of economic reform.

And thus the Jospin years, which saw record growth, record job creation, a fall in budget deficits and the overall tax take, are summarily dismissed.

I could scream.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or you could draft an LTE.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why not do both?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drafting a LTE while screaming?

Should make for an interesting read.

by Nomad on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He could send them an e-mail written in ALL CAPS with "sorry for screaming" in lower-case at the end ;-)

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=05&year=2007&base_name=tax_e vaders_for_increased_fore

Tax Evaders for Increased Foreign Aid

     

That is not the name of Bono's organization, but perhaps it should be. The NYT devoted an article to the Irish rock star's complaints about a particular crisis of credibility among wealthy countries who have not carried though on their commitments to help poor countries. Such words are especially ironic coming from Bono. He became a Dutch citizen a few years back to take advantage of a provision in the Netherlands tax code that applies a very low tax rate to royalty income.

It is good to see the NYT devoting attention to the important issue of helping the world's poor, but there are many individuals and organizations that are engaged in this task who both have more expertise than Bono and don't have the same issues of credibility. The space probably could have been better used presenting the views of Joe Stiglitz or Jeffrey Sachs or Doctors Without Borders, rather than a multi-millionaire rock star who apparently believes that others should pay the taxes for what he considers an important moral committment.

--Dean Baker

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
WORLD
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:56:13 PM EST
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | US to ignore Russia missile fears
The US will not allow Russia to stop it from deploying anti-missile defences in Europe, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said in Moscow.

"I don't think anyone expects the United States to permit a veto on American security interests," she said after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

Earlier, they agreed to tone down the rhetoric in public exchanges.

These were the first talks since February when Mr Putin accused the US of seeking global dominance.

Washington is not seeking confrontation, but wants Moscow's co-operation over sensitive issues such as Kosovo, Iran and missile defence, the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says.

But the agreement to tone down the rhetoric does not mask the continuing differences and the sense in Moscow that Washington has long been ignoring legitimate Russian concerns, our correspondent says.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 11:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | No breakthrough for US and Russia
Russia and the United States have defined their differences. They have not settled them.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced that Washington and Moscow had agreed to tone down the rhetoric in their public exchanges.

The recent tension between Russia and the United States has been characterised by tough, critical, statements from both sides.

This seemed to be the sum of what they could agree on.

Condoleezza Rice is still willing to make strong statements.

During the talks Russia repeated its opposition to US plans for a new missile defence system in Europe.

Afterwards, the secretary of state was dismissive.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Such result was expected as Ms Condoleeza Rice did not bring anything worthwile she could offer to her Russian hosts. Opposite she anticipated she could wring some concessions from Russians. But these times are over. And Putin showed he is not inclined to stretch helping hand for sinking Bush team which is feeling heat on all fronts. Bush probably hoped to escalate Russian-Eastern European tensions to make Kremlin more negotiable but this strategy did not bring immediate benefits. The fallout of this strategy was deterioration of Russia-EU relations and that suited Washington well.
by FarEasterner on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok..

that's more important that  it sounds..

I think I must say it again and agian no matter waht..

Russia won the arms race... period.. (punto pelota).

There is no way the delivery system of nuclear weapons can me countermeasured... russia is so far ahead on deliery plattforms  that the US can hardly see russia shadow.

This program is about a compeltely different game...it is about money and companies and infleunce in the area of Russia....

It is a dark game.. that I hope someone will one day explain me....but it is not about nuclear weaponry per se.

Russia is going to be a super power no matter what happens.. that's what happens when you have the best nuclear weaponry in the world ... with a 20-30 years advantage...

So I guess the US must ahve been thinking about a weird way to compensate...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 05:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, what delivery systems are we talking about here?
Russia's Current ICBMs:
  • SS-18 'Satan' (R-36M)
  • SS-19 'Stilleto' (UR-100N)
  • SS-25 'Sickle' (RT-2PM Topol)
  • SS-27 (RT-2UTTH Topol-M)
Elimination of the SS-18
In the last decade Russian armed forces have been steadily reducing the number of R-36M missiles in service, withdrawing those that age past their designed operational lifetime. About 40 missiles of the most modern variant R-36M2 (or RS-20V) will remain in service until 2020 and will be then replaced by newer MIRV version of Topol-M.
Operational history of the UR-100
The UR-100N reached initial operating capability in 1974, and by 1978 an inventory of 180 launchers were reached. In 1979, the UR-100UTTH became operational and by 1983 had replaced many older missiles and reached maximum inventory of 360 launchers. This had fallen to 300 by 1991, and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many in Ukraine became property of that nation. 170 remained in Russia, although treaty obligations required the rearming of the missiles with single warheads. Russia retains some UR-100UTTHs in its inventory with the potential to retain as many as fifty by the end of the decade. Recent political developments have led to plans to rearm the missiles again with MIRV warheads as a response to American deployment of a National Missile Defense system.
Elimination of the SS-25
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union 81 launchers were deployed in Belarus. They were all returned to Russia by November 27, 1996. As the lifetime of the SS-25 was designed to be about 10 to 15 years, the missile will be progressively retired over the next decade. It will be replaced by the road mobile version of the Topol-M (SS-27) missile.
SS-27
According to The Washington Times, Russia conducted a successful test of their evasive payload delivery system. The missile was launched on November 1, 2005 from the Kapustin Yar facility. The warhead changed course after separating from the launcher, making it difficult to predict a re-entry trajectory.

...

On December 15 2006 Moscow reported that the Topol-M soon would be re-equipped with multiple re-entry vehicles. Later the Russian Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov said: "We will begin to equip the Topol-M mobile missile system with multiple re-entry vehicles in a few years."

Hmm, maybe installing missile interceptors as close as possible to the launch sites is a way to get around the "evasive payload delivery system" and "multiple re-entry vehicles" problem.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
SS27 plus SCBM plus final stages of early division-evasive delivery system.

No way the US can get that in 20 years (with the present waste of money and research in the pentagon).

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:39:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting, I didn't realise that there is this field of US lagging-behind. However:

No way the US can get that in 20 years

What is the significance of this? I would think that unless Russia (and China) develops its own missile interceptor systems, less advanced delivery systems will suffice for the USA.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well it depends..

at the present stage nothing really...you are right.

It is still MAD... but if russia would develop such systems of interception.. well it will the end of the world as we know it...besides.. would they ever work? who knows

I would expect (if russia ever gets a Dick Cheney)the goal for russia would be to achieve a delievery system where russia would get heavy casualties for a nuclear war but the US would be completely anihilited.. in this way there is still a balance of fear but russia has the heads-up. I do not know if this scenario is possible in the future.. but right now russia can clearly deliver more weapons than the US in the same period of time... so the US would be anihilited sooner than russia would do.

I am just wondering.. I have no idea what russia wants or pretends in this stupid US driven race

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'd need a lot of missiles to prevent a significant first strike.

More than that, you'd need a lot of missiles that actually work.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't need to be prevention: reducing the effectivity of a potential first or second strike is also of strategic significance. To which Russia apparently responds.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 06:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but when you're talking about thousands of MIRV missiles, even if you reduce that by 90% - a success rate which is pure science fiction - it's still effectively game over.

Just five successful ground bursts would be enough to render huge swathes of the US uninhabitable for at least a few years, and dangerous for decades.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 07:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the significant factor is how the russians would think that it effects US psychology. With a Defensive system in place, when there is any form of alert, then the Russians have to factor into their calculations that the Americans may be thinking that they can run a successful first strike, because they have some form of missile defence.  Because this factor exists then it becomes less of an advantage for the russians not to launch, as  if they wait then  the initial impacts may reduce the number of retaliatory missiles that they can fire to a level that the US defences can manage.  

It's all fairly academic anyway due to the failure rate of the missiles. Look at the failure rate of satelite launches, they are often de-militarised ICBMs and they have been taken and had a couple of months work  done to make sure they deliver, and you still get a significant failure rate. Take the same kit, stick it in a field and let your average squaddie look after it, reliability should fall somewhat.

The last mass launch that I read about on exercise had special levels of preparation and managed to run to about 40% successful launch rate.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 08:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Americnas know perfectly weell that any of their present iof fiture systems is completely useless in front of the SS27 and the SCBM... not even talking about the new generation....

So the Americans know it and the Russian know it... it is just that both know soemthing else that we do not know...

but the irrelevance of the US system defense shield in front of the SS27 is.. well is like trying to destroy the moon with a pebble.... they both know....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say that as more countries become neuclear capable, different things are needed to give a country a comparative advantage. Preferably something that will be ludicrously expensive to create, so that  any upcoming state can't get in on the act.

Anti Balistic missile defence is ideal for that. To get it working (if you actually can) would cost ludicrous ammounts of money.  If you just (Just!!!) throw a few hundred million(!) at the problem  then run a few tests that appear to work you can announce that  you have a successful system against small values of numbers of missiles you can basically immunise yourself against small powers. whereas they have to take into account your massive retaliation.

Neither actually has to work, but if the two countries who have been long term major adversaries provide the best alibi for each other and allows their relative standinjg in the world to be maintained.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the significant factor is how the russians would think that it effects US psychology.

Do I need to point out that if it's a matter of US psychology, we're already in an eccentric polar orbit around Planet Fa La La?

The last mass launch that I read about on exercise had special levels of preparation and managed to run to about 40% successful launch rate.

Which would apply equally to the shield, presumably.

The shield doesn't make sense as a strategic issue. It's known not to work, which effectively makes it useless. And unless the US is planning to match launch numbers - which would mean huge forests of missiles, given launch failures and kill ratios - that isn't going to change just because a few Scud-missers are parked next to Krakow.

Now if - as kc says - there's a lot more going on here that we don't know about, like nuclear tipped short-range missiles being pointed at Moscow, then we have Cuba 2.0, only this time with a certifiable lunatic in the driving seat. Which is much more of a problem.

I'd hope even BushCo would be smart enough to realise that parking short range nukes in Poland is a Very Bad Idea.

But we all know that sanity isn't a consideration for these people, so we'll have to wait and see.

And my take on the psychology of the US is that Bush wants his nukular war - a small one would do, but a big one would be better - as a final 'Look at me!' tantrum that we can all remember him by.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
like nuclear tipped short-range missiles being pointed at Moscow, then we have Cuba 2.0, only this time with a certifiable lunatic in the driving seat.  

Now you are starting to get the picture.  

Polish foreign policy may not be survival-oriented, but the Russians know precisely what the stakes are.  

(Yeah, Poland is now Ground Zero.  Smart move, guys!)  

By the way, the Cuban Missile Crisis was provoked by the US placing nuclear missiles in Turkey.  Part of the deal US President Kennedy cut with USSR Premier Kruschev was taking those missiles out.  The debacle cost Kruschev his job, but it cost Kennedy his life.  

Now pResident Bush thinks he can redo the Cuban Missile Crisis and win.  But he has no clue what Putin will be coming up with in response.  I don't either, but I am sure it will be nasty.  

Putin just told Condi:  "Okay, no more talk, and I won't even publicly complain.  You will see what we do in response after we have done it."  

I am sure we will.  

by Gaianne on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 06:47:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd hope even BushCo would be smart enough to realise that parking short range nukes in Poland is a Very Bad Idea.

Are there Polish blogs that you can cross-post that comment to?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 06:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is Beatroot, but on one hand, it is not too friendly to the running government (heheh), on the other hand, someone praising Barroso as great politician for defending low-cost airlines is not necessarily ET-friendly.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sat May 19th, 2007 at 08:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm, maybe installing missile interceptors as close as possible to the launch sites is a way to get around the "evasive payload delivery system" and "multiple re-entry vehicles" problem.

I think that's exactly the point. In a few year's time, Russia will consolidate all its ballistic missiles around the Topol. The others are just too old, often fully liquid-propelled (really crappy technology which had the long launch delay and the high failure rate), and nobody understands those designs today, pretty much space-cowboys era.

Although the number of topol's will be much lower than what Russia has had in the past, it will be a useful deterrent because of the evasive manoeuvering, and the warhead hardening (the russians claim it will still detonate if it has been irradiated, as long as the ABM nuke goes off over 500 m away, which is a very very close encounter as these things go).

And then comes the boost-phase interceptor concept, with light-weight interceptors running near-parallel to their target and a very manageable relative velocity...

Beautiful in the mind of Cheney: catch the land-based topols with the interceptors after all the russian subs have been sunk by virginia-class hunter killers. Et voila ! The guy really thinks he can pull the stunt that he had no time to pull at the end of the 80's (USSR collapsed before he could nuke it, poor sod, how he must have been disappointed)

Unfortunately, I cannot help but think of the next logical step to consider for France: since the US may well turn a dictatorship and nuke the Russians on the sole ground that no other nuclear power should be allowed to exist (the UK is a vassal, it does not count here), France should be next on its list, followed by China, India-Pak, etc... Especially considering that France will appear as a colonial rival, having no oil, no gas, no uranium of itself, and needing these in proportions of the same order of magnitude as the US imports.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, I cannot help but think of the next logical step to consider for France: since the US may well turn a dictatorship and nuke the Russians on the sole ground that no other nuclear power should be allowed to exist (the UK is a vassal, it does not count here), France should be next on its list, followed by China, India-Pak, etc... Especially considering that France will appear as a colonial rival, having no oil, no gas, no uranium of itself, and needing these in proportions of the same order of magnitude as the US imports.

After the US nukes Russia there's no list left to be next on.

Assume for a second that France's National Security apparatus is thinking along the same lines... What are their options?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very few unfortunately: I mean, very few that could deter the US from "enlarging" the footprint of their attack to any non-obedient country sufficiently developed to oppose total military domination.

I assume that an administration determined for first-strike is also willing to suffer some direct damage (e.g. enough nukes will always get through to guarantee that "redundantly processed" targets like NY and DC will be wiped out), given that their own strike will generate enough radioactive fallout and disruption to crops (through temporary global cooling) to harm a large share of their own population.

Short of total annihilation (1000 MIRV on civilian targets in the US), there is no deterrent against a fascist America. This must be the conclusion the soviets reached 40 years ago, since it's just what they sized their arsenal. And just when they started being "sensible" and planned downsizing to a few hundred heads assuming this was a good multilateral deterrent in an era where nuclear escalation of local conflict was becoming the most plausible threat, they get Bushco to revive the cold war.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Their only option is to prevent the deployment of US missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is why I think they will go mad about it, and I expect France (unless Sarko the 1st has surrendered) to help Russia retort on the offender.

Pierre
by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have also thoguht about those lines before.. but it is absolutely impossible the more I think of it.

No way you can sunk all the submarines ... it is just impossible.

Furthermore the SS27 is not the last technology in the works... there is the early evasice delievery (divission of the missiles in sub-missiles int he early stages of the launching...know guess whcih one has the nuclear device?) system... I read that it was already finished.. but the source was not completely credible.

In any case even if the next generation of SS27 is not already being built..and all the russians have is the SS27...how are they going to intercept the misssiles from Poland... ?? there is no way... the avalanche of nukes from SS27 is enormous.., very low rate of failure, divission tactics..

So the only way is to destroy them on he ground...

Are you suggesting that the US may have a way to destroy them on the spot...this would have nohting to do with missile shields but with airtstrike capacity...?

And how? I am really interested.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You would have to sink all the submarines essentially simultaneously.

In terms of intercepting ICBMs, even if the US managed to deploy countermeasures on every country that borders Russia, there would still be the possibility of launching the ICBMs over the pole from mobile launchers deep in Siberia.

To destroy the ICBMs on the ground, you'd have to do it from space.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, there are not so many subs to sink if you focus on SLBM. The russians have less than half a dozen left, and around 1990 the US were already pretty sure they had a 688 tracking each of them, all along their patrol, picking them at the exit of the port, because of the immense acoustic superiority of the US subs. And when I say "tracking", I mean real close: check what happened to the USS Baton Rouge.

Of course, now the Russians have the Akula-class, which is on par with the 688 (and they have more Akulas than SLBM launchers), and certainly not far enough from the Virginia to warrant safe "escort" like that. But the Akula could only fire cruise missile, with single-warhead 150kt, and to a coastal city, and not far from US waters (some would be intercepted in the week before getting in position to shoot back). It probably falls in the category of "affordable losses" for neocon planners.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But now comes the Borei class.

Three are in the making.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe too much in mobile ground launchers. An ICBM is a huge beast, so it's not really so mobile, especially over the "roads" of the Tundra...

Pierre
by Pierre on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:56:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is the rail-based launchers, but of course railways are easier to monitor as there is a much smaller length of then than of roads.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 11:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
? A Topol is not bigger than a railroad car. If largew logging trucks can traverse those Tundra roads, so can mobile launchers.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the Bulava (next generation) is half the length of the Topol, just above 12m.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 12:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it is a submarine-launched rocket with a shorter range (8000 km).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 01:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia claims a ground-launched version is expected.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The next generation: SS-NX-30
The Russian military developed Bulava to possess advanced defense capabilities making it nearly impervious to existing missile-defense systems. Among its claimed abilities are: evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures and decoys, and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage. The Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 meters.


Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 10:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I put up a new diary..

Please put ina comment.. I will update