Russia Warning in St Petersburg against interference in third-party global conflicts, Medvedev said: "At some moment such actions, which undermine sovereignty Syria, Iran, North Korea, can end with a full-fledged regional war, or even, and I don't want to scare anybody, the use of nuclear weapons

NATO Missile Defense Forcing Russia To Take Countermeasures
February 2013 The lack of agreement on missile defense may negatively affect Russia-NATO cooperation in other areas, too, because Russian relations to the Western alliance rely on strategic stability, Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko said in Brussels yesterday. As reported on Voice of Russia radio this morning, Grushko warned that if the nuclear balance is upset by the realization of NATO-supported U.S. plans for a stage-by-stage deployment of a missile defense system, this would strongly affect the entire range of cooperation in the framework of the Russia-NATO Council.

Russia''s probable retaliation measures to the missile defense system also were on the agenda of talks which Speaker of the State Duma Sergey Naryshkin had with French members of parliament in Paris Naryshkin stressed that Russia needs "guarantees backed by objective technical parameters that this system will not be targeted against Russia.... When someone tells us in words that this system is not targeted against Russia but refuses to sign a legally binding agreement in deeds, this certainly raises doubts in us," he said, insisting that security should be equal for all countries and indivisible. Naryshkin warned that Moscow "cannot twiddle its thumbs while its U.S. partners make decisions on deploying missile defense elements in Europe and putting them into practice.... But this is surely not our choice." Naryshkin said Russia will have to take measures in response to the missile defense system's deployment.

February 18, 2013 in missile defense, nuclear weapons Tags: iran, missile defense, nuclear weapons By Russ Wellen

It's common knowledge that, when it comes to protecting us from a nuclear launch by a major power such as Russia or China, missile defense has been found woefully lacking. At best, it's supposed to protect the United States and Europe from states with small nuclear weapon programs such as North Korea and Iran. (Even though it's efficacy in those situations is questionable as well.

Nevertheless, Moscow professes to believe that our installations in Europe are intended as a defense against Russia's nukes. It also maintains that missile defense deployed in the United States, as well, is a cover behind which the United States could launch a first strike. Much of its counterstrike, Moscow fears, would then be deflected by U.S. missile defense, while the United States would wipe out much of Russia's remaining land-based nuclear missiles, thus diminishing the latter's second-strike capabilities.

Thus, according to this line of thought, the state against which a state such as the United States is seeking to defend itself with nuclear weapons is motivated to build that many more nuclear weapons and delivery systems to make up for those it would lose in the air and on the ground. That's why missile defense is considered "destabilizing" to the balance of nuclear power.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, you have to keep your eye on the ball.