Russians are so hypocritical stating this is a threat to Russia,when it is just a DEFENCE system!How can a defence system be possibly a threat?The truth is russians simply don't want Poland (or any post-cummunistic) country to be well defended.They want to remain "the strong guy" with the rockets,who can threaten the small eastern-european countries.Now they feel they are loosing this option and stating it is a "threat" to them.

Exactly... I'm actually waiting for Sarmat to come in here and start telling how the Russian government is threatened by the unlawful baphoons in Poland who allow foreign missiles on their soil or something similar. 

I'd personally like a missile defense unit into Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Estonia and Ukraine also. Just to be certain. 

...Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.

What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.

During the Cold War, Washington relied on its nuclear arsenal not only to deter nuclear strikes by its enemies but also to deter the Warsaw Pact from exploiting its conventional military superiority to attack Western Europe. It was primarily this latter mission that made Washington rule out promises of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Now that such a mission is obsolete and the United States is beginning to regain nuclear primacy, however, Washington's continued refusal to eschew a first strike and the country's development of a limited missile-defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing, look. The most logical conclusions to make are that a nuclear-war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States' military doctrine and that nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States...

'08 missile defenses: harking back to the 1980s?

This is not that ridiculous from Russian point of view. USA started several wars past 10 years. At least one of them (Iraq) was clearly due to control over resources. Iran is unsecure for similar reasons. Why should Russia feel safe?

"if Russia uses its ressources as a bitch, it shouldn't be surprised if it gets raped and shot in the face. "

I am not sure I understood your pathetics. I am not sure you understood it yourself.  

The missle defence system in Poland serve the American interest and not Poland interest .

Americans will use it only if is in danger the American interest .With a small search in the past you ll see that american bases in the world do not involve in the local conflicts but only if American interest are in danger.Furthermore the cold war characterized from  the absence of a declared   war .The rival states participated in this kind of war start up a military buildup and political battles for support around the world. These activities included the significant involvement of allied and  satellite nation  in local "third party" wars.

I think Poles would beg to differ. Plus they get fairly big rent $.

yes it is ridiculous and tell you why: in one sentence you talk about "equilibrium", that means USA and Russia are equals, as nculear powers. in the NEXT sentence you compare Russia to Iraq, a third world country, as possible victim of the US. obviously it is YOU who doesn't know what you're talking about, least it betrays your own hypocracy very obviously.

"if Russia uses its ressources as a bitch, it shouldn't be surprised if it gets raped and shot in the face. " "did you hide in a cave the last 20 years or something? Cold war is over and lost for Russia/USSR, get over it, whining doesn't help."   I am not sure I understood your pathetics. I am not sure you understood it yourself.

those are not "pathetics" but i can understand why you can't comprehend what i'm saying.

How about Medjedjev or Putin? Both are Russian, crazy and dictators... 

Temujin; Russia has a lot of cash lots, something US dose not these days.

Now imagine if they and their buds the Chinese decide to dump all those greebacks they hold................

Anton,you seem to be an inteligent man,yet strike me with you're love torwards Russia and hatred to anything western...Just say you'de love to see a new Russian Empire occupying eastern Europe or even a new USSR and stop playing stupid...I'd personally love to see Russia cut into a 100 small countries...

Missile "Defense"? Most people, all governments included, are quite aware that there is nothing defensive about this missile system. The system is basically an offensive one, made to ensure the pre-emptive strike capability of the US. I mean, just look at the official reason--Iranian attack on Europe? Thats just a good joke, we all know Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map before it starts its inevitable conquest of Europe