Obama jettisons missile shield plans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That's what happens when you lose the cold war.

AMERICA-1
russkies-0

---

...

I know you are not fully serious, but not fully joking either. Whatever. If I wish to argue politics, I will do it elsewhere. Honestly, it is not normally a wise idea to debate cold war with an American, especially a Southern conservative non-history one, because you were the opponents obviously, and it makes no sense to do that, as it will not result well on both sides.:shrug: If you already have a Russian, which is a clear bias, then why add more bias??

I think SFTS just wanted to prove your point. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

...

I know you are not fully serious, but not fully joking either. Whatever. If I wish to argue politics, I will do it elsewhere. Honestly, it is not normally a wise idea to debate cold war with an American, especially a Southern conservative non-history one, because you were the opponents obviously, and it makes no sense to do that, as it will not result well on both sides.:shrug: If you already have a Russian, which is a clear bias, then why add more bias??

---

https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2734...gerrall.th.jpg

Im sure most of the excess patriotism comes from being a superpower... I would assume most brits or at least the english were terribly patriotic going back about 100 years or more...

I don't know if I would call the cold war a loss for Russia... it certianly went better for America but I suppose it depends what you call a loss, some people consider USA not to have lost in Vietnam for example...

I think abandoning the shield is a good idea... theres no need to antagonise Russia.. plus point in my book for Obama...

I believe the original intent of the missile shield was to discourage Iran from developing mid and long range missiles... the idea being they'll be useless before they'd get them done. Personally, I believe Iran already has their long range delivery mechanism: a low-level Hizbollah grunt in the US or Europe on an education visa and a rented van. So, looking at it that way, the proposed European missile shield was a big waste of time.

It's secondary purpose was to put American outposts between Moscow and Wasraw/Prague. I think the Poles & the Czechs seriously overestimated America's ability to look the other way when our blood gets shed, even when the aggressor is relatively addresable. We certainly didn't cause any trouble when the USS Cole & 2 of our embassies got bombed.

All in all, I'm not trying to make the argument for keeping the missile shield. I'm making an argument that bending over and asking Putin to be gentle, which lets face it, that's how Obama acted, was a farce tha will only serve to embolden Russian aggression. If he wanted to discontinue the missile shield, there's a dozen ways he could have done it without licking Putin's boots in the process.

Sarmation, you're clearly on a "Russia does no wrong" kick. I can't address that with the limited time I have on the org these days, but if you can claim that Russia has shown no signs of aggression to the outside world since 1989 with a straight face, I don't think there's much worthwhile I could say to you anyway.

As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...

If the US is just a bunch of jingoistic, hateful cowboys running around hypocritcally screwing with Russia while demanding a different standard in our backyard, why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.

If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.

---

Truly scary prospect that but then it would be great to get the old fake economy going again eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I believe the original intent of the missile shield was to discourage Iran from developing mid and long range missiles...

---

Why so? It seems farcical that the US government had the nerve to suggest such thing and the composition to retain a straight face while doing so. Why in Lord's name would one surround Russia with countermeasures when Iran is the supposed potential aggressor. Who would seriously believe US, I mean I never heard a greater lie that people believe in than the claim that Amis are protecting themselves against Iran by putting missiles nowhere close to either Iran or to Us, but right next to Russia.

Really. US could have easily installed those stems in Iraq, Israel would be delighted to station them, and Turkey already did station defences before they were secretly taken down in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba. Considering the distance of Poland and Czech Republic from Iran, dozens of other countries could have based those anti-missiles as well, such as other NATO entities.

I am honestly shocked anyone believes the ballyhoo US is spewing for questionable purposes. I suppose it is just politics - you lie even everyone know that you are. The elephant in the room perhaps... Except that the general populace normally never takes note of the elephant which is apparent to any politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's secondary purpose was to put American outposts between Moscow and Wasraw/Prague.

---

I do believe Poland already had US military bases. And both are NATO countries, who have nothing to gain, but much to lose from increased US presence. Those anti-missile installations will never protect Poland from anything, and in the case of a hypothetical all-out war, they are useless. Furthermore, since Poland and Czezh Republic are EU and NATO sates, Russia would be out of her mind to attack them, unless we wish a WWIII which we will undoubtedly lose. One cannot claim those installations are a nominal deterrence. Georgia was not a NATO member, nor a EU one. NATO was not obligated by any formal treaty to help them, especially when any direct help would be an act of war against Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm making an argument that bending over and asking Putin to be gentle, which lets face it, that's how Obama acted, was a farce tha will only serve to embolden Russian aggression. If he wanted to discontinue the missile shield, there's a dozen ways he could have done it without licking Putin's boots in the process.

---

You bring an interesting point. But I do not see how it could be done any other way. Perhaps you could enlighten me? (No, I am not sarcastic, I am truly curious). Even if it was conceding to Russia, then that is what any nations has to do. No-one, not even America can always have their way, always brute force through opposition, always disregard other nations. Being a tough guy gets nation to nowhere but war or other forms of volatility. Obama could use a more amicable Russia to keep Iran in check, as it is partially in our interests as well to contain nuclear proliferation. You certainly did not see Russia cheering about the DPRK atomics.

Quite honestly, despite that fact that Obama's "softer" politics incense Republicans, I am appalled to witness to just what degree American Republicans are chauvinistic. I mean, do you ever back down or no? Does US need another George Bush to alienate the allies? Hell, I liked Bush to a certain degree, but his relations with the world were in shambles. At least he could have pleased the rest of the NATO and EU more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Sarmation, you're clearly on a "Russia does no wrong" kick. I can't address that with the limited time I have on the org these days, but if you can claim that Russia has shown no signs of aggression to the outside world since 1989 with a straight face, I don't think there's much worthwhile I could say to you anyway.

---

Well, as much as I would love for Sarmatian to be correct, and as much as I am a fan of his, I will have to concede Russia is no good boy. But Sarmatian does have some points though. Far more hostility and indifference was shown by America than Russia.

Russia did their thing and America never reached out, and sticking out your foot for out for us to kiss does not count... Really, Russia let US use is bases to supply Afghanistan, but in return you put bases to further encroach on the Russian "sphere of influence" which was dastardly beyond belief, and wholly unprovoked. That was in 2007, before Georgia. And even Georgia was a mere warning, an attempt to pay back for the US meddling in Kosovo Wars and then the recent Independence you granted to the minuscule province. I ask: why? What could you have gained from that? Do a cost-benefit ratio analysis. Strengthening ties with the second/third most powerful political entity in the world versus appeasing a sleepy, non-oil-bearing Monaco-sized 168th-largest independent region on Earth? You cannot reasonably expect Russia to simply play the US tune, do you? And do not mention gas BTW, as Sarmatian was correct bout that for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...

---

For one, I love it how no Americans seem to remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis Treaty included the removal of US Pershing in Turkey in exchange for the USSR pulling their crap out of Cuba. Also, I do not comprehend what you were attempted to convey in the second part of the paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.

---

Evidence, evidence. You have no idea what is going on there. It is not in Russia's interests for nuclear weapons to proliferate. Any current power would rather have this club as exclusive as possible. More unstable nations with atomics is more danger to the entire world. Put yourself in Russia's shoes. Think. What tangible benefit does Russia receive from supplying Chavez with atomics?

And who is to say they can build fission ordnance? Even with nuclear plants, that will takes decades of research, hundreds of billions of dollars, and immense manpower, both physical and intellectual. Not to mention, Korea is the only one so far who is adept at concealeing their activities well. Iran is the only one to have reasonable success enriching uranium. Venezuela has very far to go, and it cannot do it with Russia's direct help.

The only thing Russia may do this for is to employ it as a bargaining chip. It is not, I repeat, not in Russia's interest for anyone else to have atomics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.

---

Eh? Dr. Strangelov-esque Ripper-Turgensonianism? Why would anyone in US seek what you seem to be implying as a next world war? Y'all folks like lobbing 'em fusion armaments back 'n forth?

Quote:

---

why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.

---

Using it against you?
You mean nuclear power plants to remove the dependancy on oil so he can sell more oil to the chinese with their upcoming refineries for venezuelan oil which wil be fed from the new pipeline to the pacific and the new terminal that is being built for the new fleet of tankers under construction.
Plus of course as part of the energy deal russia gets a partnership in the gas fields.

Go on Don surely amongst all of chavez regular rantings you must be able to find one that at least sort of has a vague implication of the intent you mention:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Really. US could have easily installed those stems in Iraq, Israel would be delighted to station them, and Turkey already did station defences before they were secretly taken down in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba. Considering the distance of Poland and Czech Republic from Iran, dozens of other countries could have based those anti-missiles as well, such as other NATO entities.

---

I don't think you understand how the GMD sytem works. In-theatre missile defence is what Obama is keeping. The missile shield that Obama is scrapping was for long-range missiles. They're designed to launch and destroy missiles at the peak of their ascent before they reenter the atmosphere. Launching them in-theatre isn't really a good idea because the interceptor would have to be able to chase down the missile to destroy it and that isn't practical. In the proposed plans, the missiles would have launched from Poland, guided by the Czech radar system to the interception point. Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense. :yes:

Quote:

---

Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense.

---

Pull out a globe and look at the forcasted range of the missiles Iran is expected to develop after it has finished developing its current development and I think you will see that the placement makes very little sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't think you understand how the GMD sytem works. In-theatre missile defence is what Obama is keeping. The missile shield that Obama is scrapping was for long-range missiles. They're designed to launch and destroy missiles at the peak of their ascent before they reenter the atmosphere. Launching them in-theatre isn't really a good idea because the interceptor would have to be able to chase down the missile to destroy it and that isn't practical. In the proposed plans, the missiles would have launched from Poland, guided by the Czech radar system to the interception point. Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense. :yes:

---

No, I have seen the illustrations, and it is common sense after all, although I was not aware of what specific type of defence he installed. But yes, normally the missiles are destroyed right before the re-entry. The period of ascent is indeed a trickier one to follow.

It would have still been more sensible to stick the defences in Western Europe though. Germany is right next to Poland. Not to mention, if this is to protect US, I am sure it would have to be placed further West.

Eh, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Eh, what do you think?

---

I couldn't say with any authority whether Poland or Germany would be a better site. I would assume that it mainly came down to Poland and the Czech Republic being suitable locations and having governments that were willing to commit to allowing the installations. Both spent a long time under Soviet dominance and were eager forge stronger relationships with the US. Relationships which Obama has damaged by his decision....

In their excuse for scrapping the plans, the administration tries to create the false dilemma that we could either work on that or work on the short-medium range Aegis system. It's false because we were already working on deploying both at the same time. A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

Quote:

---

A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

---

Because as a system to defend against russian long range missiles it was too close and as a sysyem to defend against the longest range(if they ever get developed)Iranian missiles it was too far away

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Relationships which Obama has damaged by his decision....

---

He has damaged the short term relations, and improved the long term relations, a fine move IMO.

Those in favour of this shield have lost their base in their populations, they stand ready to be voted out in favour of politicians opposed to things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...

---

Sovereignity in sphere of interest? Where would you exactly draw the bounds of the sphere of interest? (For both Russia and the US?) It is an euphemism for saying you're going to keep a close look on the countries surrounding you and if you deem it necessary bully them into acting a little more friendly towards you...

As for why the missile shield wasn't positioned in, say, Germany: where exactly would the missiles be detonated in the event of a successful interception? Try and think about the arc of the projectile, the consequences of destroying it mid-air *should* their be any fissile material in a warhead... And why do those countries think that starting more grand arms projects is a dangerous precedent? Try and think why those international treaties on *reduction* of arms were put into place & practice.

Finally it's worth noting that part of the deal in 1962 involved the removal of nuclear warheads in Turkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

---

Robert Gates defends the new strategy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Gates

The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.

---

As we all know, it was Gates's earlier recommendation upon which the original plan was based. In the above article, he explains that the change in plans was based on updated information and analysis of the strategic situation.

Even if a desire for better diplomatic relations with Russia went into this decision, the purely military considerations appear to be compelling enough to argue for the change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Finally it's worth noting that part of the deal in 1962 involved the removal of nuclear warheads in Turkey.

---

Someone does not read the previous posts like a good netizen should :juggle2:

I mentioned Turkey and the removal of missiles from is as a part of the Cuban Missile debacle two or three times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Someone does not read the previous posts like a good netizen should :juggle2:

I mentioned Turkey and the removal of missiles from is as a part of the Cuban Missile debacle two or three times...

---

If you were reading the forums carefully (about) 6 years ago you would have seen that I mentioned it two or three times during a discussion with Gawain ~;)

Its all about diplomacy, going back to the point that many people have made part of the deal for Cuban missles being removed where that the ones in Turkey were removed (though I understand it took them a while to actually do it) I don't know if theres nessecarily a direct pay off with this other than improving relations with Russia, but that itself isn't a bad thing...

in theory the pay-off will be a new START agreement which Obama is keen to get, though russia doesn't really care is it has far fewer functional delivery platforms that current treaties allow (or can afford to maintain).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

in theory the pay-off will be a new START agreement which Obama is keen to get, though russia doesn't really care is it has far fewer functional delivery platforms that current treaties allow (or can afford to maintain).

---

Perhaps, but the rest of us certainly cares about there being fewer nuclear missiles in the world.

no doubt.

Its not so much that I see American or Russian nukes as threatening... it just give more legitimacy to coerce others into stopping or limiting thier nuclear capabilities if we are prepared to do the same...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Its not so much that I see American or Russian nukes as threatening... it just give more legitimacy to coerce others into stopping or limiting thier nuclear capabilities if we are prepared to do the same...

---

The less there are in the world, the smaller the chance of one of them blowing up something.

Plus I don't like the idea of the assorted expiration dates coming in rather fast. There is a difference between keeping a train on the track even if its 25 years past its technical lifetime; and doing so with nuclear warheads... Mind, those expiration dates are all about assuming that proper care & maintenance has been provided to ensure that the conditions were kept adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The less there are in the world, the smaller the chance of one of them blowing up something.

---

Actually it's more like the less nuke's the world has the more likely they are to be used especially nowadays with all the stealth technology being developed and the stuff already in use like the B2 etc.

As the gap between smaller nations and the bigger powers reduces the incentive to have a nuke is palpable as it will prevent invasion and plus people will feel they could even get away with using one or two.

Of course as the number increases the likely chance of a mistake in the game of checks and balances increases too.

As long as the number is not less than say a hundred or so not approaching cold war levels the situation is more stable not safer just more stable.

Accidents really would not come into the decision to have them but they might be used as a way to capitalize on a percieved weakness of a member of the nuclear club by another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Plus I don't like the idea of the assorted expiration dates coming in rather fast. There is a difference between keeping a train on the track even if its 25 years past its technical lifetime; and doing so with nuclear warheads... Mind, those expiration dates are all about assuming that proper care & maintenance has been provided to ensure that the conditions were kept adequate.

---

Likely Russia and China suffered more from that than US the serious economic problems in Russia especially during the late eighties and nineties probably ended up with them having to mothball a lot of stuff.

Well, it turns out that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

Quote:

---

Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, it turns out that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

---

......and saddam had one too, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, it turns out that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

---

Well I for one am glad this administration wasted a year engaged Iran in constructive diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

......and saddam had one too, right?

---

Well, I would like to think that the intelligence sources used were a little better than the ones used to develop the WMD in Iraq report.

On the whole, the military tech capabilities folk seem to be a bit more reliable, though their dates are always a +/- thing.

The supreme leader of Iran announced that nuclear weapons are tools of the devil or similiar and they are taboo for muslims to use, or even have. Let's hope that is an opinion they keep.