Obama jettisons missile shield plans

[Xiahou]

He claims the reason was technical, I think we all know it was a political one. Russia was never happy with how cozy the US was getting with their former satellites and the missile shield was symbolic of that. So naturally, Obama caved on it and left our allies feeling stupid. Sec. Gates, ever the shill, was for the shield before he was against it- his views changing with the administration.

I could go on, but GlobalSecurity.org says it better than I can:

This week, President Obama reneged on a long-standing agreement with America's allies and formally abandoned the "third site" missile defense plan. The U.S. will no longer be deploying 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, a plan formerly regarded as necessary for defending America's friends and allies as well as the homeland from intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.


The decision runs contrary to U.S. strategic interests and will undermine security commitments to America's allies. The new plan to focus on the short- and medium-range threats from Iran:


* Represents a major reversal in American strategic thinking on missile defense,

* Leaves America more vulnerable to the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea, and

* Harms bilateral relationships with key allies in Eastern and Central Europe.


Only Russia has expressed satisfaction with the announcement, which is a public relations victory for Moscow and a green light to Russian aggression and interference in the region. Congress should reject this revised plan, which is based on no new intelligence, and amend the pending 2010 defense spending bill to fully fund missile defense capabilities--including those for the third site. America can indeed afford to spend what it takes to counter all potential Iranian nuclear threats, from short- to long-range.

They go on to put the lie to Obama's claims that long range Iranian missiles aren't a concern...

In February, Iran successfully launched its first domestically produced satellite into orbit using an Iranian-built rocket. As Jim Phillips and Baker Spring note, "this technological milestone, combined with Iran's accelerating efforts to enrich the uranium required for a nuclear weapon, is extremely worrisome. Only ten other countries have successfully launched satellites into orbit. Iran's new satellite-launching capability demonstrates rapid progress toward developing a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)--an advancement that would greatly extend Tehran's military reach."


Global Security Newswire reported in June that "with support from outside sources, Iran within six years could produce an ICBM capable of hitting the United States." This data was contained in a report by the U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center made public by the Federation of American Scientists.

He's throwing away years of development and negotiation and squandering the trust of our allies.... for what? The hope that Russia will become more pliable on Iran?

[Lord Winter]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway. I think MAD is and will always remain the best way to stop nuclear war barring complete disarment.

[Xiahou]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway.

Exactly, the purpose of the shield was to stop rogue actors who would not be able to launch near the number of missiles Russia could. Russia was aware of that too- they knew it was no threat. It really came down to them not wanting us meddling in their former sphere of influence. And Obama knuckled under.

I think MAD is and will always remain the best way to stop nuclear war barring complete disarment.

And if you read further in the article, they don't seem to think Obama has much interest in MAD either.

The President appears to have abandoned MAD and placed all of the U.S. eggs in the disarmament basket. President Obama has already made numerous commitments to reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles and sign onto expanded disarmament treaties while doing nothing to shore up the nation's missile defenses.

[Fragony]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway.

Wasn't meant for that, but I am glad it's gone personally. Russia is not a country I am willing to provoke.

[Sarmatian]

That's because Obama understands that for the long term security of the United States, good relations with Russia are far more important than a missile shield, which costs a fortune and may not even work...

This is not a Russian PR victory but a victory for the Russo-American relations that were going uphill, than suffered a blow because of Kosovo, Georgia and the shield and now hopefully they can go uphill again, and those relations are extremely important for global security, not just security of US and Russia...

[Husar]

Agree with Sarmatian, that warmongering piece of bile you quote in the OP is just a testimony for the author's inflated balls and a "US has to keep it's influence in Europe" stance which is just the opposite of, yet the same as the "Russia has to keep it's influence in Europe" stance. You know what? You can put your rockets back into your trousers, here in Europe we make love, not war with the russian bear.
And Obama understands that.

[Furunculus]

this is a great shame, it is bad for the US as it has burnt allies in europe, it is bad because Poland and Czech have lost trust in the US for using them as pawns in a bargaining game with Russia, and it's bad for Britain as the anglo-centric bent of Poland and Czech is damaged and they will be tempted to look for another geo-political axis for support............. which within europe leaves only the Franco/German axis.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh woe! Some tiny, weak countries in Eastern Europe are upset. Their options besides the USA / NATO? Go back to the country they've been spending 50 years escaping. They have no cards they can play.

The technology is still useful, and I'm sure hasn't been scrapped.
If Eastern Europe want it so much, perhaps they can cough up the money for it.

America has to spend wisely and the missile shield isn't an example of it.

[HoreTore]

Another sensible decision from mr. Obama. I'm starting to like the guy more and more...

Oh, and just why is it simply impossible for his opponents to stop lying? The article said "noone but russia was happy about it".... Uhm, the entire NATO is celebrating it

What will happen next? I think it's quite obvious. Russia will make a friendly move, not a hostile one. And the worlds becomes a little safer...

[Don Corleone]

Has anyone stopped and considered the very likely possibility that Iran is getting their fissible material, centriguges and other necessary components FROM Russia?

They invaded Georgia and forcibly repatriated lands they had scant claim to. We humored them. They shut off gas to all of Europe last winter. We begged them. Now, we've weakened ourselves not to Russia, but to Iran, and made it clear around the world the reason we were doing it was because we're afraid of the Russians.

How can this do anything but embolden further aggression by Putin?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...s.html?showall

[rory_20_uk]

Has anyone stopped and considered the very likely possibility that Iran is getting their fissible material, centriguges and other necessary components FROM Russia?

They invaded Georgia and forcibly repatriated lands they had scant claim to. We humored them. They shut off gas to all of Europe last winter. We begged them. Now, we've weakened ourselves not to Russia, but to Iran, and made it clear around the world the reason we were doing it was because we're afraid of the Russians.

How can this do anything but embolden further aggression by Putin?

So, that's Bad. Giving nukes and technology to Israel is fine (as it was America that did that). Tech to Taiwan? Who could that possibly annoy?

As has been pointed out by Russia and others, the defence system wouldn't have made the slightest difference against a Russian attack - there were going to be 16 missiles based in Europe. Even assuming 100% success that still leaves several thousand more... And I have a sneaky feeling that Russia would have the radar base and missile site high up the list of targets.

They shut off gas as bills weren't paid. They overlooked them not being paid for political reasons.

We've let India and Pakistan develop nukes with barely a murmur. North Korea? Less said the better.

So why is Iran this massive threat? America et al invaded two neighbours, and supplies at least two more with advanced weaponry. We expect Iran to sit there docilely, as to defend itself in any way is apparently aggression - when Israel invades neighbours this is of course defence.

Russia has watched America / NATO erode into what was the Warsaw Pact and is currently digging around in Afghanistan - something they've not liked people doing since at least the 18th century. This is, of course fine. Russia pushing back is an act of aggression.

America seems to feel it can launch missiles into foreign countries without sanction, invade to support puppets and bolster regimes that break almost every human rights law there is going and that's fine.

But no one else is allowed to, OK? Because whatever America does it right, mainly as it is doing it...

[Lemur]

There's been quite a lot written and said on this subject in the last 24 hours. Consensus seems to be that a smaller, sea-based missile defense makes more sense anyway. Note that SecDef asked for this.

[gaelic cowboy]

This is not a Russian PR victory but a victory for the Russo-American relations that were going uphill, than suffered a blow because of Kosovo, Georgia and the shield and now hopefully they can go uphill again, and those relations are extremely important for global security, not just security of US and Russia...

Those relations you talk of were never sincere on either side and thats as it should be if any of us were honest about it.

Russia's strategic interest is to meddle in its near abroad to create arcs of instability which it can then control. This control then puts a space between Russia and Nato which is a sensible precaution for any nation state.

America on the otherhand will attempt any action which enlarges Europe to Russia's border hence the courting of Georgians and Ukraine etc etc. This means that Russia is then at a disadvantage and must commit resources to defending frontiers etc which it can ill afford all very sensible from a US viewpoint.

Missle defence is probably being abandoned because Obama feels he can get a deal from Iran eventually by agreeing to some of Russia's concerns. Pretty soon Iran would find access to certain technology and materials restricted. This means it will be required to do it all itself which may or may not lengthen the timeline to a workable bomb. As a result Iran will be vulnerable to an Airstrike because new kit will be unavailable to buy from Russia.

As has been pointed out by Russia and others, the defence system wouldn't have made the slightest difference against a Russian attack - there were going to be 16 missiles based in Europe. Even assuming 100% success that still leaves several thousand more... And I have a sneaky feeling that Russia would have the radar base and missile site high up the list of targets.

What was all the Russian fuss about so if not to cause division and scaremongering the real reason is that Russia needs to ensure that former satelites are not part of any major Nato projects which forever lock the door on there meddling ability.

Russia has played its hand very well and can now capitalise on a backdown by Washington which is most likely part of its plan for dealing with Iran however ten euro says they will find some excuse to weasel out any deal on Iran. This is because they must ensure Iran can stymie or cramp American influence in the middle east.

This meddling may seem counter productive until one realises that the chaos allows Russia to be seen as one of the big players sorting the worlds problems. A world where the middle east and the Causasus region are stable does not advance Russian strategic interest stability only helps Europe and America.

The missle shield is also being abandoned in order to return Nato to its previous mode the whole Georgian affair and the missle defence plan caused huge ructions and division in Nato and Europe. Russia of course attempted to exploit this so the US is naturally removing the thing which Russia can exploit removing the argument form the table as it where leaves Russia with less cards to deal.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, first of all, there was an overwhelming popular dissent with the decisions of the Eastern European governments, as the people wanted nothing with the missile defences. And as a matter of fact, Eastern Europe is now safer, as Russia no longer has to aim its own atomics at the little nations that would rather mind their own business and prosper than live with the thought of megatons of fusionable material aimed at them.

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.

Finally, from what the BBC News wrote, it seems the missile system merely detonates the warheads hurtling towards a target, instead of disabling them. Basically, just an explosion in a different place. But in what place? Above the territory of the Central Europe?

Leaves America more vulnerable to the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea, and
...And if the missiles are designed to protect against Iran or DPRK(which is utter rubbish), then would it not be logical to place them in Iraq, Israel, Turkey or such to protect again Iran, and in Japan to cover DPRK? I honestly have no idea what Mr. Bush's plan was when he placed those missiles there, to enrage Russia. I see no other purpose. What is the gain?

green light to Russian aggression and interference in the region
I fail to see how Russians can exert aggression and interference on NATO and EU states. Other than the usual natural gas-blackmail. I am beginning to be concerned with the credibility of the OP's sources... Honestly, that statement is downright farcical.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.

Its obvious through bandwagonning with the preeminent power they safeguard themselves and completely ensure Russian meddling is removed. Russian actual dominence of Poland etc is only a few years back and naturally they will attempt everything to continue removing the last vestiges of even imagined influence.

If Russia had been in a position back in the late 1990s to prevent the countries who joined the EU in 2004 they most certainly would have tried but they were not so EU and Nato integration happened. This does not mean Russia has no means to interfere in the internal politics of these countries in fact it makes it imperative from a Russian strategic position.

[Whacker]

So, that's Bad. Giving nukes and technology to Israel is fine (as it was America that did that).

You misspelled "France" as "America". Just a minor point.

[Sarmatian]

Those relations you talk of were never sincere on either side and thats as it should be if any of us were honest about it.

Russia's strategic interest is to meddle in its near abroad to create arcs of instability which it can then control. This control then puts a space between Russia and Nato which is a sensible precaution for any nation state.

America on the otherhand will attempt any action which enlarges Europe to Russia's border hence the courting of Georgians and Ukraine etc etc. This means that Russia is then at a disadvantage and must commit resources to defending frontiers etc which it can ill afford all very sensible from a US viewpoint.

Missle defence is probably being abandoned because Obama feels he can get a deal from Iran eventually by agreeing to some of Russia's concerns. Pretty soon Iran would find access to certain technology and materials restricted. This means it will be required to do it all itself which may or may not lengthen the timeline to a workable bomb. As a result Iran will be vulnerable to an Airstrike because new kit will be unavailable to buy from Russia.

Cold War ended a long time ago, mate, world's a much different place nowadays. Russian desire not to be surrounded by NATO is a perfectly sensible and legitimate one. On the other hand, Russia is a threat as much as NATO makes it.

NATO, or US if you will, and Russia need to have good relations. The alternative to pursuing that course is taking actions that further diminish power and influence of Russia. That may or may not work, and even if it does, it will certainly provoke Russia. What makes it even more complicated is that it is not just US-Russia game, it involves a lot of us in between.

You can poke the bear only to an extent. If you do it too much, it will react. So, one course takes you to an angry bear, the other one to a cuddly bear. Makes it perfectly clear to me which one should be taken, even if it slower, longer and generally more difficult path (which I don't think it is, btw)

[Louis VI the Fat]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.

The wall shot people fleeing from the East to the West, not the other way round.



I doubt the technological and strategic benefits of the proposed missile shield. But I would've liked the marriage of American and East European strategic interests.

But then, part of me secretly rejoices about this as much as I did back when Georgia was left last year to fend the Russians alone. The ultra-nationalists in Poland and Georgia put all their hopes on America (well, on the neo-cons), showing Europe nothing but scorn and insults. With the annual billions of European money steadily flowing into Poland, and the Americans not living up to their promised missile shield, perhaps East Europe will again look to Europe, to democracy, and to the combination of these two, for their safety against Russia.

Guess that life insurance that the Georgians and Poles sought to buy in Iraq didn't pay off after all. Good. Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.

[Sarmatian]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.

The wall shot people fleeing from the East to the West, not the other way round.

Interesting thoughts but the Cold War is over, the wall is torn down, no one shoots from it anymore and the state that did that no longer exists... Welcome to the 21st century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most of NATO seems quite happy with this, only the US conservative movement voicing strong disapproval.

This is, in good part, because the US conservative movement would prefer US military power to be predominant and would like our diplomacy to be closer to the "shut up and do what I say" end of the scale. This tendency is hardly unique to the USA -- lots of our NATO pals and a host of others have done this in the past. Part of human nature.

What is to be done about Russian assertiveness? They too have this tendency.

The missile shield was, at least in part, a way to shore up Poland and the Chek Republic through the time honored "if you attack them, you'll also kill us which we will have to react to" approach. Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting thoughts but the Cold War is over, the wall is torn down, no one shoots from it anymore and the state that did that no longer exists... Welcome to the 21st century.

Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

[HoreTore]

Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

Bah, you know very well that we're doing the very same thing, and you also know that we care first and foremost about ourselves, and the lives of the untermenschen second, just like Russia does.

[Louis VI the Fat]

* Poisons HoreTore with polonium *

[Aemilius Paulus]

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

By this reasoning, US should not have made it to 21st either... HoreTore is correct. And what is that I heard about French meddling in its former colonies?

[Sarmatian]

Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?

This isn't about keeping the bear happy but rather, don't poke it in the eye. There's a fine line between those two.

Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

Same can be said for American interference, and since the break-up of the Soviet Union, I've seen far more American interference than Russian.

Start with wikipedia, it's downhill from there...

And which European democratic state can't decide its future because of Russian interference? If you say Georgia, I swear I'll take the next flight to France and spank your bottom until it goes purple.

And what is that I heard about French meddling in its former colonies?

You mean French still meddle in their former colonies??? Nooo, it can't be...

[gaelic cowboy]

Cold War ended a long time ago, mate, world's a much different place nowadays. Russian desire not to be surrounded by NATO is a perfectly sensible and legitimate one. On the other hand, Russia is a threat as much as NATO makes it.

NATO, or US if you will, and Russia need to have good relations. The alternative to pursuing that course is taking actions that further diminish power and influence of Russia. That may or may not work, and even if it does, it will certainly provoke Russia. What makes it even more complicated is that it is not just US-Russia game, it involves a lot of us in between.

You can poke the bear only to an extent. If you do it too much, it will react. So, one course takes you to an angry bear, the other one to a cuddly bear. Makes it perfectly clear to me which one should be taken, even if it slower, longer and generally more difficult path (which I don't think it is, btw)

You missed my central point both countries interests conflict with the others long term interest

I also acknowledged straight off in my post that not wanting to be surrounded was Moscows central plan.

US Russian relations are still going to be based on mutual distrust which is kept in bounds as it always has been by mutual annihilation.

Your assertation that you can only poke the Bear so long works both ways Russia can only play at the bully as long as it has a big stick and it can only afford the stick by selling oil and gas to Europe. Russia may get some short term advantages by following these plans but eventually the bullied gets fed up calls the bluff and finds it was all just bluster. Hence the real reason for intervention in Georgia inserting complient governments in the region prevents all sorts of long term pipeline projects etc.

The Cold War may be over but the politics will as always be about the cash as it always really has been.

[gaelic cowboy]

This isn't about keeping the bear happy but rather, don't poke it in the eye. There's a fine line between those two.

I would like to know what you mean by this statement about not poking a bear if your talking about the missile shield that is as Tribesman is fond of saying is total bollix.

If this missile shield was so ineffective and costly why kick up such a fuss. If Russian nukes could not be possibly be stopped by it what reason could there be that this was a danger to the Russian US relationship.

The fine line was really on the Russian side they cannot and must not allow anyone in the area termed their Near Abroad to get the idea that they can remove themselves from Kremlin orbit without consequence.

Russia will continue to test and probe for weakness in both the EU and NATO because as they see it it is a matter of survival. All those colour revolutions as they were called caught them napping suddenly the game had changed and they hadn't even noticed they cannot allow anymore such happenings.

[Husar]

Most of NATO seems quite happy with this, only the US conservative movement voicing strong disapproval.

This is, in good part, because the US conservative movement would prefer US military power to be predominant and would like our diplomacy to be closer to the "shut up and do what I say" end of the scale. This tendency is hardly unique to the USA -- lots of our NATO pals and a host of others have done this in the past. Part of human nature.

What is to be done about Russian assertiveness? They too have this tendency.

Yeah, like I said, both have such tendencies and I don't like them a lot.

The missile shield was, at least in part, a way to shore up Poland and the Chek Republic through the time honored "if you attack them, you'll also kill us which we will have to react to" approach. Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?

If we show the bear that we want to work with him and not against him we can influence him, as sarmatian said it may take longer but if it works it creates a lot less tension and problems than a constant struggle to keep the bear down while it's trying to wrestle it's way back to the top.
I mean 1200 years back you wouldn't have thought it possible to have a discussion with a Norwegian as he'd pillage your village but nowadays they're the most liberal hippie commies of us all.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, like I said, both have such tendencies and I don't like them a lot.


If we show the bear that we want to work with him and not against him we can influence him,

Not true the Bear does not care what anyone thinks because it has its own agenda.

as sarmatian said it may take longer but if it works it creates a lot less tension and problems than a constant struggle to keep the bear down while it's trying to wrestle it's way back to the top.

Why does Russia need to get back to the top why this need to fight the inevitable unless its fighting against its own irrelevancy

I mean 1200 years back you wouldn't have thought it possible to have a discussion with a Norwegian as he'd pillage your village but nowadays they're the most liberal hippie commies of us all.

1200 yrs ago the vikings barely had writing and reading in a tribal culture whats Russia's excuse

[Tellos Athenaios]

What was one to expect? Of course the plan was going to be scrapped. It was too expensive given the then economical situation (what with a war or two going on); it goes right against the wishes of the biggest partners of the US; Iraq & Afghanistan are best summarized as a quagmire; it goes right against the biggest creditors & (future) suppliers...