TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- So long, European Missile Shield Plan (and f*ck you, Bush)
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

So long, European Missile Shield Plan (and f*ck you, Bush)

The plans for the Eastern-European missile shield plan are scrapped.

Good..Why the f*ck should we spend money to defend Europe?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Good..Why the f*ck should we spend money to defend Europe?

or Afghanistan..

The lesson for Putin is: Intransingence pays off!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle6838058.ece

quote:

Barack Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard. At a White House appearance today, Mr Obama confirmed that the defence shield envisaged by the Bush Administration, involving a radar base in the Czech Republic and interceptor rockets sited in Poland, was being abandoned. Instead, after a comprehensive review, he had decided to accept the advice of both the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and of the Chiefs of Staff opt for a "smarter, stronger and swifter" system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors. Mr Obama said that latest intelligence suggested that threat of long-range missile attacks from Iran had receded, but the threat of short- or medium-range attacks was a real one. He said that the system would be "phased and adaptive" and used proven technologies to create an effective missile defence system. In a briefing at the Pentagon, Mr Gates said that the new system could be operational six or seven years before the Bush-era shield would have come online, more effectively replying to future threats. The decision was relayed to the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland both by Mr Obama himself, in telephone calls last night, and by US officials visiting the region. The President assured both governments that the decision would not compromise their security. But it clearly prompted some dismay in Central and Eastern Europe, where the Bush plan had been seen as an effective guarantor of US support for the fledgling democracies of the old Soviet empire. It will also send a chill through Russia's neighbours. "This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence," said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. "It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that�s a certain threat." Russia's Foreign Ministry said that it welcomed reports of the US decision but would wait for official confirmation before making a detailed response. A spokesman said: "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States." In his White House appearance, Mr Obama said that he had repeatedly made clear to Russia that its objections to the now-ditched missile defence programme had been "entirely unfounded". The decision to abandon one of Mr Bush's key foreign policy initiatives was quickly denounced by Mr Obama's Republican foes, who accused him of underestimating the threat posed by Iran and of undercutting America's allies in Europe. "The decision announced today by the Administration is dangerous and short-sighted," the No 2 Republican in the Senate, Jon Kyl, said in a statement. Mr Kyl said that the shift would leave the United States "vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat" and would send a chilling message to former Soviet satellites who had braved Moscow�s anger to support the system. "This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe," said Mr Kyl, who pointed out that both Poland and the Czech Republic had sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today the Administration has turned its back on these allies." Senator John McCain, Mr Obama�s defeated Republican White House rival in 2008, said he was "disappointed" with the decision and warned it could undermine US standing in Eastern Europe amid worries there of a resurgent Russia. "Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran�s missile and nuclear programmes, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defences, and those of our allies," he said in a statement. "Missile defence in Europe has been a key component of this approach. I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided."

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman or Afghanistan..

or Canada...wait what?

Cool, Russians now can fuck off.

Crazy. It's not a coincidence either that Obama made the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland... he's sending a message that he's so much unlike his predecessor, that he'll capitulate to anyone; by doing so he's letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. They must be laughing their asses off in the Kremlin right now. Ukraine, Poland, and other fledgeling eastern european democracies trying to escape Russian influence and control for decades are breathing a little easier today... just kidding. Russia already said they won't vote to sanction Iran, which would be the point of scrapping the sheild for Russia's approval. This just a few days after Iran said, "we won't stop our nuclear program" and France said, "yeah we know they're on schedule to make the bomb... we've known for some time now." Fucking Neville Chamberlain in the White House.

quote:

Ironically, the Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran. The consequences of this action in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine and in other countries that feel vulnerable to Russian power, will be disastrous. It is a major American retreat in the face of Russian bullying. And we will get absolutely nothing for it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...ials_head_t.asp

It's not like they're saying "fuck you, you're on your own", Obama is giving them better intelligence through the upgraded interceptors. Besides, why should WE care about defending other countries, don't they have their OWN departments of defense?

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf It's not like they're saying "fuck you, you're on your own", Obama is giving them better intelligence through the upgraded interceptors. Besides, why should WE care about defending other countries, don't they have their OWN departments of defense?

Why should we care? In a nutshell, it serves our interests to be on good terms with foreign allies.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Why should we care? In a nutshell, it serves our interests to be on good terms with foreign allies.

I agree completely, but did you not read the other part of my post?

quote:

Instead, after a comprehensive review, he had decided to accept the advice of both the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and of the Chiefs of Staff opt for a "smarter, stronger and swifter" system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors.

We are already on good terms with Europe, it's not like they hate us for any reason. And we're still helping them out. I don't see what the big deal is.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf We are already on good terms with Europe, it's not like they hate us for any reason. And we're still helping them out. I don't see what the big deal is.

because we are basically selling out the Poles and the Czechs to satisfy Russia's security concerns... and Russia has very little actual interest in giving a shit about the U.S.'s concerns. As the UK Times points out, Ukraine and Georgia's chances of entering Nato over Russian objections have diminished further. The timing is disastrous for Ukraine in particular, given the Kremlin's determination to reverse the pro-Western Orange Revolution and ensure victory for a pro-Russian candidate at presidential elections in January.

quote:

Obama is giving them better intelligence through the upgraded interceptors.

uhhh...

quote:

The White House has put out a �fact sheet� on their policy of Russian appeasement/missile defense surrender. The fact sheet says that the new approach � focusing on SM-3 and sea-based systems (presumably in Turkey) � will �augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats.� That is a lie. This system will provide zero, nada, zilch protection to the U.S. homeland, providing only defense against short- and medium-range missiles to Europe. The fact sheet says this system will protect �our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.� That is a lie. The system that was being placed in Poland is already operational in Alaska. These new plans will now take years of negotations to implement and will necessarily be less survivable as they will not be underground. The fact sheet says that �The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.� That is a lie. The Czechs and Poles get a midnight phone call from the president while Tauscher is already in the air. They were not consulted with and have been given no assurances � because the president is selling them out. The fact sheet says, �We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.� If that�s true, our president is totally clueless about Russian capabilities and intentions � even Bush, who looked into Putin�s soul, was not so delusional as to think U.S. missile defense could be dependent on Russian good will and cooperation. How long til the Russians threaten to throw us out of our �joint� missile defense facilities in order to coerce us into staying out of an attack on Georgia or some other democratic state in their near abroad.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...missile_def.asp

the rest of that article has more good detail.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Crazy. It's not a coincidence either that Obama made the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland... he's sending a message that he's so much unlike his predecessor, that he'll capitulate to anyone; by doing so he's letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. They must be laughing their asses off in the Kremlin right now. Ukraine, Poland, and other fledgeling eastern european democracies trying to escape Russian influence and control for decades are breathing a little easier today... just kidding. Russia already said they won't vote to sanction Iran, which would be the point of scrapping the sheild for Russia's approval. This just a few days after Iran said, "we won't stop our nuclear program" and France said, "yeah we know they're on schedule to make the bomb... we've known for some time now." Fucking Neville Chamberlain in the White House. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...ials_head_t.asp

Ah, so you wouldn't have a problem with the Russians putting a "missile defense" system in Cuba or Venezuela huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman Ah, so you wouldn't have a problem with the Russians putting a "missile defense" system in Cuba or Venezuela huh?

they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace, their navy back in the caribbean for the first time since the 1960's, and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace, their navy back in the caribbean for the first time since the 1960's, and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace,

i doubt that

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace,

i doubt that

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss they already have their planes flying sorties over alaskan airspace and are drilling for oil 45 miles off the cost of Florida.

If that were the case, we'd have a major international incident. Hm, hasn't happened.

quote:

their navy back in the caribbean for the first time since the 1960's,

And you think we don't already do that of their coast? So Russia is supposed to bend over and take it up the ass huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman If that were the case, we'd have a major international incident. Hm, hasn't happened. And you think we don't already do that of their coast? So Russia is supposed to bend over and take it up the ass huh?

According to the story linked at the bottom, as long as the oil rigs are placed "within Cuba's economic zone", which is 45 miles from Florida, there's nothing we can do about it.

Do we have oil rigs right off of Russia's coast? Anyway I dug this up and thought it was interesting; from 2 weeks after the election, Mark Thompson of Time Magazine reporting that missile defense has come too far for any President to shut it down, explaining why Obama will keep it, and that the Russian challenge will force Obama to show toughness by continuing it:

quote:

Richard Danzig, a Clinton Navy secretary... recently told reporters that the Obama team has �a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area and should be invested in.� In fact, during the campaign, Obama said �I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons.� While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to �explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1859393,00.html

Putin/Medvedev- 1
Obama-0


Anyway, as journalist Tony Halpin says: For Putin, the lesson of today's decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends.

Russia seeking to use Cuba and Venezuela's airfields to base their strategic bombers---> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...bers/index.html'

Airforce escorting Russian bombers out of Alaskan airspace (for the 2nd time) ---> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us...anes/index.html

Airforce intercepting more Russian military planes... for the 16th time in this report from the Airforce:--->
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...e_pacaf_040608/

Russian oil rigs 45 miles from Florida---> http://www.topix.com/content/csm/20...es-from-florida

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i doubt that that's not true. The law of the sea provides that the exclusive rights to economic activities extends 200 nautical miles out to sea. where do you get your information? http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...perspective.htm

see my post above this one... buddy.

can the US really afford to put a multi billion dollar defense shield through eastern europe?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi can the US really afford to put a multi billion dollar defense shield through eastern europe?

Yes, but we can't afford health care.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss According to the story linked at the bottom, as long as the oil rigs are placed "within Cuba's economic zone", which is 45 miles from Florida, there's nothing we can do about it. Do we have oil rigs right off of Russia's coast?

Who cares if we did or didn't, and who cares if Russia drills in Cuban waters? Non-issue.

quote:

Anyway I dug this up and thought it was interesting; from 2 weeks after the election, Mark Thompson of Time Magazine reporting that missile defense has come too far for any President to shut it down, explaining why Obama will keep it, and that the Russian challenge will force Obama to show toughness by continuing it: http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1859393,00.html Putin/Medvedev- 1 Obama-0

The idea that Iran is considering launching missiles at the NATO alliance is absolutely absurd. That would be national suicide. Like us thinking about preemptively launching missiles at Russia. No way in hell we'r going to do it. There is ZERO need for a missile defense system in eastern Europe. It's bullshit. Is it no wonder Russia is so vehemently against it? They aren't idiots, they know.

quote:

Anyway, as journalist Tony Halpin says: For Putin, the lesson of today's decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends.

Actually the lesson is Russia won't take it up the ass.

quote:

Russia seeking to use Cuba and Venezuela's airfields to base their strategic bombers---> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...bers/index.html'

The USA has bases all over the world including some very close to Russian territory.

quote:

Airforce escorting Russian bombers out of Alaskan airspace (for the 2nd time) ---> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us...anes/index.html

Not Alaskan airspace, but an "air-exclusion zone".

quote:

Airforce intercepting more Russian military planes... for the 16th time in this report from the Airforce:---> http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...e_pacaf_040608/

Russia flexing its muscles. Gives us a huge incentive to improve relations with Russia. Something a ,useless missile defense shield supposedly to protect against Iran's puny missile arsenal and with the assumption Iran would commit national suicide, would not do.

quote:

Russian oil rigs 45 miles from Florida---> http://www.topix.com/content/csm/20...es-from-florida

Cuba can do whatever they want in their territorial waters.

This was the right decision, full stop.

If anyone wants to argue the technical merits of this then by all means try me. I am obsessed with anything regarding nuclear weapons, ICBM, and ABM.

First please read this article in Newsweek though and come back to me: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215620

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss because we are basically selling out the Poles and the Czechs to satisfy Russia's security concerns... and Russia has very little actual interest in giving a shit about the U.S.'s concerns. As the UK Times points out, Ukraine and Georgia's chances of entering Nato over Russian objections have diminished further. The timing is disastrous for Ukraine in particular, given the Kremlin's determination to reverse the pro-Western Orange Revolution and ensure victory for a pro-Russian candidate at presidential elections in January. uhhh... http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...missile_def.asp the rest of that article has more good detail.

That article is full of crap. The author has no idea what they are talking about.

Aegis ABM is a much more proven system than the GBMD system that was to be deployed. Aegis using the SM-3 Standard ABM missile is meant to hit the targets during boost or pre-rv seperation. This is a better time to hit a ballistic missile as it is when it is traveling the slowest.

If you try and intercept a re-entry vehicle on its terminal descent you are hitting a much smaller, much cooler, and much faster target. There was a reason we put nuclear warheads on the missiles deployed in the Safeguard program.

Never heard of Safeguard? Guess what, the US during the early 1970s had a fully functional anti-ballistic missile system! It was the culmination of years of development from the mid-1950s (yes the 1950s) and actually worked (sorta). It used a two layer defense to hit missiles and re-entry vehicles as they entered the atmosphere over southern Canada that were targeted at the Minuteman missile fields in the Dakotas. The first layer used a giant nuclear warhead to hit RVs as they entered the exosphere, leakers that got through were taken out by the second layer, using a missile that traveled up to 27 miles in 6-9 seconds and used a smaller, enhanced radiation (neutron bomb) warhead to fry the incoming RVs electrical systems. Problem was at first intercept they realized the warhead would create an EMP pulse in the area and it would blind the tracking and guidance radars... The system was active 1 day and then shut down. It was basically a multi-billion, 20 year boondoggle.

Basically the point I am trying to make with that story is this. It is stupid to try and take out warheads or missiles during the post boost phase. Any time during mid-course guidance, bus, or re-entry phase is a crap shoot. You will more than likely fail. Putting big nukes on the interceptors definitely helps, but brings up all sorts of political, environmental, and technical issues.

SM-3 is the way to go. Based off of ships that can be parked in the waters off Iran it would be able to easily intercept Scud type missiles as they leave the ground. The system is proven as well, more completed successful tests than the GBMD or THAAD systems, and better yet it is deployed, not only with the US, but with foreign flag navies as well, mainly the Japanese, with European nations also looking to purchase the Aegis system (it not only intercepts ICBM/IRBM but can defend your fleet from air and missile attack, cook your breakfast and also shine your shoes!). Couple SM-3 with PAC-3 (Patriot upgraded) for limited terminal defense and you have a system that is already tested and already deployed.

Lets get on to the bit about Poland and the Czechs being pissed. Well to put it simply this missile shield would have done NOTHING to defend them. In the event of a nuclear exchange between Europe and Russia, Russias systems do not fly far or high enough to be engaged by the systems that were going to be deployed in those two countries. NOTHING. The missiles fly shallow ballistic arcs or wouldn't even be ballistic at all, as everyone knows the Russians have a huge appetite for cruise missiles of all shapes and sizes. If the Czechs and the Poles want an ABM system they can come and pony up the cash and buy THAAD, PAC-3 or Aegis for themselves. We do not need to pay for their paranoia of Russia.

As for the idiots in the US saying this would weaken our defense against Russia. WHAT THE FUCK!? We already have a great defense. It is called MAD and it has worked for almost 50 years now. Second, look at a map, what is the shortest distance to the US from Russia (central Russia specifically)? Over the north pole. Their missiles wouldn't even be in range of any interceptors, SM-3, THAAD, GBMD, or any other system deployed in Europe or the Middle East. Simply put, their missiles go the other way.

So quit your bitching, stop using this as an unfounded political attack and realize that everyone who has a technical knowledge, conservative or not knows this is the right decision. The only people bitching are Lockheed Martin and Boeing cause they will lose their contracts to Raytheon (though Lockheed still gets money cause they make the bulk of the Aegis system).

How come when I am right none of the conservative members of this forum respond.

I kick arse.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.