Author Topic: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped  (Read 9707 times)

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« on: September 17, 2009, 09:19:51 AM »
I fully expect him to announce that he has "secured peace in our time" on five different networks during his Full Ginsburg this weekend.  Unbelievable.

Also covered in other media, but I thought the Russian take was remarkably restrained since Dear Leader pretty much folded.  I can only assume that there is some quid pro quo with the Russians concerning Iran in this deal somewhere.  It had better be something like total abandonment of nuclear research and free oil for a decade.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/17-09-2009/109344-missile_defense-0
   
US President Barack Obama said during a phone conversation with Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer that the United States was going to abandon the plans to deploy a radar station of the US missile defense system in the republic.

An official of the Czech government said in an interview the local Mlada Fronta DNES newspaper that Prague was expecting official documents from Washington in the next few hours. In addition, a delegation of the US State Department with Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher at that head, was to arrive in the Czech Republic to discuss the issue.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that a U.S. decision to shelve plans for a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland "is a positive step."

Rasmussen said he had talks with the U.S. top envoy to the alliance on Thursday morning about the changes in the plans, adding the full alliance would be debriefed later in the day, The Associated Press reports.

Czech Premier Jan Fischer said Thursday that President Barack Obama told him Washington has decided to scrap the plan that had deeply angered Russia, The AP said.

The news on the subject of the US missile defense system is plentiful today (September 17). The Associated Press, for instance, said that the US administration was about to complete the analysis of plans connected with the deployment of the missile defense system elements in Central Europe. The agency made a reference to Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The governments of Poland and the Czech Republic will be informed about the results of the analysis, the AP said.

An anonymous source at the Obama administration told The AP that the United States was going to approve an alternative missile defense plan in Europe. The source disclosed no details of the intention, but said that it would not contain anything that could raise Russia’s concerns.

The WSJ wrote that the renunciation of missile defense plans in the Czech Republic was based on the slow development of the Iranian nuclear program.

“The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program hasn't progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals,” the newspaper wrote with reference to current and former US officials, who whished to remain anonymous.
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

RaspberrySurprise

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,020
  • Yub yub Commander
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2009, 10:18:50 AM »
Why is it that Russia always gets it's panties in a knot about us placing defensive tech in an area near them? Do they just enjoy being dicks about it?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 10:31:59 AM by RaspberrySurprise »
Look, tiny text!

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2009, 10:20:44 AM »
YAY! Fewer defensive weapons! Yay!!!!

The world will be all puppies and butterflies now!

(However, on the plus side, at least we're just screwing Europe rather than ourselves. I'm sure President Obama will get to that priority soon, though.)
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2009, 10:29:15 AM »
Why is it that Russia always gets it's panties in a not about us placing defensive tech in an area near them? Do they just enjoy being dicks about it?

Yes.

They also really don't have the money to counter such systems. Despite the claims of how dummy MIRV's, extra manuvering MIRV's, mylar balloons, etc. can defeat such systems, those "simple" fixes still take millions/billions in R&D and testing.

And you're giving up warhead payload at the same time. So even if the decoys are effective, the defense system STILL was effective after a fashion. Russia tested some more manuverable MIRV's in response to our ABM systems, but that's a far cry from actualy having the money or logistics base to field them in any significant numbers.

Also, you have to factor in how much of Russia's IRBM and ICBM fleet is actualy battle-ready and functional, without serious maintenence or warhead refurbishmebnt needs (tritium neutron enhancer core etc.). And further how much of that fleet that's "good on paper" hasn't suffered from mismanagment or general kleptocracy and graft etc.
I promise not to duck.

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2009, 10:39:48 AM »
Why is it that Russia always gets it's panties in a not about us placing defensive tech in an area near them? Do they just enjoy being dicks about it?

Russia considers its former satellites to be within its "sphere of influence".  Kind of their own Monroe Doctrine.  The argument can be made that assurances were given that the US wouldn't expand NATO, mess around in their backyard, etc. after the collapse of the USSR.

But they also like being dicks about it.  They have good relations with Iran, and have been using their ability to block sanctions to thwart any efforts in US foreign policy to check Iran's ambitions in the Middle East.  I'm assuming Obama will come out here in the next couple of hours and announce that Russia is on board with pressuring the Iranians to stop their nuclear ambitions.  Win/win for Russia, since they don't care about a nuclear Iran and they don't want us in their backyard.  Lose/lose for the US, since we gave up a major bargaining chip and I highly doubt that the Iranians will hold up their end of any agreement.

It will be interesting to see the Israeli reaction.  If there is a deal that supposedly halts an Iranian nuclear program, it would appear to remove the need for an Israeli preemptive attack.  However, if the Iranians covertly continue the program and the Israelis attack, they will appear to be overly aggressive and condemned for it.  

Micro probably has better insight into that last part than I do.  I haven't seen any Stratfor posts yet, but I'm sure they will have one later today.  Meanwhile, here's a stratfor piece from the 15th:
Quote
Misreading the Iranian Situation

By George Friedman | September 15, 2009
The Iranians have now agreed to talks with the P-5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany. These six countries decided in late April to enter into negotiations with Iran over the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program by Sept. 24, the date of the next U.N. General Assembly meeting. If Iran refused to engage in negotiations by that date, the Western powers in the P-5+1 made clear that they would seriously consider imposing much tougher sanctions on Iran than those that were currently in place. The term “crippling” was mentioned several times.
Obviously, negotiations are not to begin prior to the U.N. General Assembly meeting as previously had been stipulated. The talks are now expected to begin Oct. 1, a week later. This gives the Iranians their first (symbolic) victory: They have defied the P-5+1 on the demand that talks be under way by the time the General Assembly meets. Inevitably, the Iranians would delay, and the P-5+1 would not make a big deal of it.
Talks About Talks and the Sanctions Challenge
Now, we get down to the heart of the matter: The Iranians have officially indicated that they are prepared to discuss a range of strategic and economic issues but are not prepared to discuss the nuclear program — which, of course, is the reason for the talks in the first place. On Sept. 14, they hinted that they might consider talking about the nuclear program if progress were made on other issues, but made no guarantees.
DISTRIBUTION
If you did not receive this report directly from STRATFOR and would like more geopolitical intelligence reports, join our free email list


So far, the Iranians are playing their traditional hand. They are making the question of whether there would be talks about nuclear weapons the center of diplomacy. Where the West wanted a commitment to end uranium enrichment, the Iranians are trying to shift the discussions to whether they will talk at all. After spending many rounds of discussions on this subject, they expect everyone to go away exhausted. If pressure is coming down on them, they will agree to discussions, acting as if the mere act of talking represents a massive concession. The members of the P-5+1 that don’t want a confrontation with Iran will use Tehran’s agreement merely to talk (absent any guarantees of an outcome) to get themselves off the hook on which they found themselves back in April — namely, of having to impose sanctions if the Iranians don’t change their position on their nuclear program.
More Free Intelligence

 

A German Pre-Election Win and Lingering U.S. Tensions
Watch the Video
  
Protectionism and Leverage in Sino-U.S. Relations
Listen Now
 
 
 
 
Russia, one of the main members of the P-5+1, already has made clear it opposes sanctions under any circumstances. The Russians have no intention of helping solve the American problem with Iran while the United States maintains its stance on NATO expansion and bilateral relations with Ukraine and Georgia. Russia regards the latter two countries as falling within the Russian sphere of influence, a place where the United States has no business meddling.
To this end, Russia is pleased to do anything that keeps the United States bogged down in the Middle East, since this prevents Washington from deploying forces in Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Georgia or Ukraine. A conflict with Iran not only would bog down the United States even further, it would divide Europe and drive the former Soviet Union and Central Europe into viewing Russia as a source of aid and stability. The Russians thus see Iran as a major thorn in Washington’s side. Obtaining Moscow’s cooperation on removing the thorn would require major U.S. concessions — beyond merely bringing a plastic “reset” button to Moscow. At this point, the Russians have no intention of helping remove the thorn. They like it right where it is.
In discussing crippling sanctions, the sole obvious move would be blocking gasoline exports to Iran. Iran must import 40 percent of its gasoline needs. The United States and others have discussed a plan for preventing major energy companies, shippers and insurers from supplying that gasoline. The subject, of course, becomes moot if Russia (and China) refuses to participate or blocks sanctions. Moscow and Beijing can deliver all the gasoline Tehran wants. The Russians could even deliver gasoline by rail in the event that Iranian ports are blocked. Therefore, if the Russians aren’t participating, the impact of gasoline sanctions is severely diminished, something the Iranians know well.
Tehran and Moscow therefore are of the opinion that this round of threats will end where other rounds ended. The United States, the United Kingdom and France will be on one side; Russia and China will be on the other; and Germany will vacillate, not wanting to be caught on the wrong side of the Russians. In either case, whatever sanctions are announced would lose their punch, and life would go on as before.
There is, however, a dimension that indicates that this crisis might take a different course.
The Israeli Dimension
After the last round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israelis announced that the United States had agreed that in the event of a failure in negotiations, the United States would demand — and get — crippling sanctions against Iran, code for a gasoline cutoff. In return, the Israelis indicated that any plans for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be put off. The Israelis specifically said that the Americans had agreed on the September U.N. talks as the hard deadline for a decision on — and implementation of — sanctions.
Our view always has been that the Iranians are far from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is, we believe, the Israeli point of view. But the Israeli point of view also is that, however distant, the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons represents a mortal danger to Israel — and that, therefore, Israel would have to use military force if diplomacy and sanctions don’t work.
For Israel, the Obama guarantee on sanctions represented the best chance at a nonmilitary settlement. If it fails, it is not clear what could possibly work. Given that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has gotten his regime back in line, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently has emerged from the recent Iranian election crisis with expanded clout over Iran’s foreign policy, and that the Iranian nuclear program appears to be popular among Iranian nationalists (of whom there are many), there seems no internal impediment to the program. And given the current state of U.S.-Russian relations and that Washington is unlikely to yield Moscow hegemony in the former Soviet Union in return for help on Iran, a crippling sanctions regime is unlikely.
Obama’s assurances notwithstanding, there accordingly is no evidence of any force or process that would cause the Iranians to change their minds about their nuclear program. With that, the advantage to Israel of delaying a military strike evaporates.
And the question of the quality of intelligence must always be taken into account: The Iranians may be closer to a weapon than is believed. The value of risking delays disappears if nothing is likely to happen in the intervening period that would make a strike unnecessary.
Moreover, the Israelis have Obama in a box. Obama promised them that if Israel did not take a military route, he would deliver them crippling sanctions against Iran. Why Obama made this promise — and he has never denied the Israeli claim that he did — is not fully clear. It did buy him some time, and perhaps he felt he could manage the Russians better than he has. Whatever Obama’s motivations, having failed to deliver, the Israelis can say that they have cooperated with the United States fully, so now they are free by the terms of their understanding with Washington to carry out strikes — something that would necessarily involve the United States.
The calm assumptions in major capitals that this is merely another round in interminable talks with Iran on its weapons revolves around the belief that the Israelis are locked into place by the Americans. From where we sit, the Israelis have more room to maneuver now than they had in the past, or than they might have in the future. If that’s true, then the current crisis is more dangerous than it appears.
Netanyahu appears to have made a secret trip to Moscow (though it didn’t stay secret very long) to meet with the Russian leadership. Based on our own intelligence and this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that Netanyahu was trying to drive home to the Russians the seriousness of the situation and Israel’s intent. Russian-Israeli relations have deteriorated on a number of issues, particularly over Israeli military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and Georgia. Undoubtedly, the Russians demanded that Israel abandon this aid.
As mentioned, the chances of the Russians imposing effective sanctions on Iran are nil. This would get them nothing. And if not cooperating on sanctions triggers an Israeli airstrike, so much the better. This would degrade and potentially even effectively eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, which in the final analysis is not in Russia’s interest. It would further enrage the Islamic world at Israel. It would put the United States in the even more difficult position of having to support Israel in the face of this hostility. And from the Russian point of view, it would all come for free. (That said, in such a scenario the Russians would lose much of the leverage the Iran card offers Moscow in negotiations with the United States.)
Ramifications of an Israeli Strike
An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do.
Some have pointed out that the Iranians would be hurting themselves as much as the West, as this would cripple their energy exports. And it must be remembered that 40 percent of globally traded oil exports pass through Hormuz. The effect of mining the Persian Gulf would be devastating to oil prices and to the global economy at a time when the global economy doesn’t need more grief. But the economic pain Iran would experience from such a move could prove tolerable relative to the pain that would be experienced by the world’s major energy importers. Meanwhile, the Russians would be free to export oil at extraordinarily high prices.
Given the foregoing, the United States would immediately get involved in such a conflict by engaging the Iranian navy, which in this case would consist of small boats with outboard motors dumping mines overboard. Such a conflict would be asymmetric warfare, naval style. Indeed, given that the Iranians would rapidly respond — and that the best way to stop them would be to destroy their vessels no matter how small before they have deployed — the only rational military process would be to strike Iranian boats and ships prior to an Israeli airstrike. Since Israel doesn’t have the ability to do that, the United States would be involved in any such conflict from the beginning. Given that, the United States might as well do the attacking. This would increase the probability of success dramatically, and paradoxically would dampen the regional reaction compared to a unilateral Israeli strike.
When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control. In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control.
It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act.
It should also be remembered that Obama reads intelligence reports from Moscow, Tehran and Berlin. He knows the consensus about him among foreign leaders, who don’t hold him in high regard. That consensus causes foreign leaders to take risks; it also causes Obama to have an interest in demonstrating that they have misread him.
We are reminded of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis only in this sense: We get the sense that everyone is misreading everyone else. In the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans didn’t believe the Soviets would take the risks they did and the Soviets didn’t believe the Americans would react as they did. In this case, the Iranians believe the United States will play its old game and control the Israelis. Washington doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu may see this as the decisive moment. And the Russians believe Netanyahu will be controlled by an Obama afraid of an even broader conflict than he already has on his hands.
The current situation is not as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, but it has this in common: Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap. Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. We aren’t so sure.




If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,746
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2009, 10:44:45 AM »
Ironic that they're announcing this on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland in 1939.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2009, 11:43:44 AM »
IMO, it really is just all politics/influence anyway. There's not a very large strategic value to having such a system in place there, in the purest technical sense. Save perhaps having the ability to intercept rouge onesy-twosey launches against W. Europe from the Middle East.

There's launch and coast phase issues to contend with, but I suspect we still have lots of options from other nations, or from sea-based ships in the Mediterranean.

There's damn few realistic scenarios where Russia would be nuking Eastern Europe right now. They'd want a conventional presence in conjunction with some kind of political unrest/pretense to turn them back into true puppets/satellites. Like what happened in Georgia.

It's more of a "We're rich and dominant, and you're not" kind of thing when E. Europe states join NATO or get major western tech/military presences, and Russia needs to avoid that to save face, for their regional influence, and their own internal politics.

Just as how conceeding on that missile placment has a political cost for Obama here at home. Although it's mainly amongst those who don't support him anyway, I'd imagine.
I promise not to duck.

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,948
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2009, 11:55:05 AM »
Quote
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that a U.S. decision to shelve plans for a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland "is a positive step."

Quote
IMO, it really is just all politics/influence anyway. There's not a very large strategic value to having such a system in place there, in the purest technical sense. Save perhaps having the ability to intercept rouge onesy-twosey launches against W. Europe from the Middle East.

Well, maybe they'll do us a favor and hit one of these multinational organization headquarters in Europe... the Hague, the World Court, maybe some UN headquarters...

Europe astonishes me.  Then again, so does Obama.

I don't have any problem with this.  Those defensive missile systems have little-to-no value if defending actual Americans back here at home, and are something that Europe primarily benefits from, in regards to Russia and the Middle East.

Russia invades neighboring states, and they don't want it?

Iran pursues delivery systems with intercontinental range and they don't want it?

Fine.

Bring the installation back here and install it somewhere between Tucson and El Paso.  Mexican ICBM's aren't a big worry of mine... but Venezuela is only a couple thousand miles further south, and Chavez is getting buddy-buddy with Iran and other wonderful countries.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2009, 12:00:38 PM »
BHO makes Carter's foreign policy look good in comparison.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2009, 12:23:03 PM »
Quote
Those defensive missile systems have little-to-no value if defending actual Americans back here at home, and are something that Europe primarily benefits from, in regards to Russia and the Middle East.

Do I not understand correctly that the purpose of the system was to allow early-stage interception of Russian missiles and Iranian IRBMs?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2009, 12:29:03 PM »
The purpose of the missile shield is the interception of small quantities of missile from rogue nations like Iran or North Korea.

The shield lacks the capacity to shoot down more than a handful of missiles, making it irrelevant to a full-scale attack from Russia.

IMO, it really is just all politics/influence anyway. There's not a very large strategic value to having such a system in place there, in the purest technical sense. Save perhaps having the ability to intercept rouge onesy-twosey launches against W. Europe from the Middle East.
Those oneseys and twoseys are the purpose of the purpose of the shield.  Without that capability, what's the point?

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,564
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2009, 12:30:06 PM »
The celebratory vodka is flowing in the Kremlin tonight.

And the Iranians are celebrating by doing, well, whatever they do to celebrate. (Probably involves sheep.)
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2009, 12:33:46 PM »
And I notice that all of the Obama talking heads are spinning this elimination of missile defense in Eastern Europe as somehow improving our defensive capabilities.

 ;/

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2009, 12:35:02 PM »
Do I not understand correctly that the purpose of the system was to allow early-stage interception of Russian missiles and Iranian IRBMs?

The ostensible purpose is to intercept missiles from rogue states, specifically Iran.  I think the Russians (and the Poles and Czechs) view it primarily as providing early-stage interception capability.  I don't think the US has ever officially confirmed that the system proposed could be used for that purpose, however.  As noted, it wouldn't do much to block a full-scale nuclear assault from Russia.

I doubt that the Poles and Czechs are looking toward Iran as the primary threat to their sovereignty, though.  

They are vastly more afraid of bears...
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2009, 12:52:03 PM »
The missile defense systems located in Eastern Europe are for shooting down missiles flying over Eastern Europe, it is not intended to defend Eastern Europe from attack from Russia.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 12:57:42 PM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2009, 12:55:23 PM »
I've felt for years it ought to be up to Europeans to defend Europe.

Am I in concurrence with the current occupant of the White House?

Nope. I'm sure he and Acting Czar Vladimir have made a dirty deal. History will tell.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2009, 12:58:40 PM »
Was it not the consensus of analysts that though the current missile shield was for small-scale launches, later it would be expanded for more capacity?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

coppertales

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 947
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2009, 01:17:44 PM »
It is about time Europe starts being responsible for their own defense.  I doubt if we would come bail their butts out a third time.....chris3

Jocassee

  • Buster Scruggs Respecter
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,591
  • "First time?"
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2009, 01:29:37 PM »
What I see on my screen:

Quote
Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped

Quote
That's gonna smell tomorrow

My thoughts exactly.
I shall not die alone, alone, but kin to all the powers,
As merry as the ancient sun and fighting like the flowers.

SADShooter

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,242
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2009, 01:32:50 PM »
I recognize the validity of both the technical arguments regarding effectiveness of the system and philosophical objection to continued American over-involvement in European defense.

That said, this remains an abrogation of commitments made to allied nations, which will further damage our international credibility among people who have supported our initiatives or might in future, while reinforcing the trend of appeasing potential threats.
"Ah, is there any wine so sweet and intoxicating as the tears of a hippie?"-Tamara, View From the Porch

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2009, 01:55:39 PM »
Meh, it is the usual we can expect from Dems ever since the Dem party was captured by the America-hating left:
Betray your allies, lick the boots of your enemies.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2009, 09:19:59 AM »
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece

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.

If I'm an intelligent Pole or Czech, I'd read 'mobile' as 'able to be quickly removed in the event of need for use'. 

I might be misguided here, but a quick glance at the map tells me that the most effective place to station a mobile 'sea-based' system to defend eastern Europe against an attack from Iran would be in the Black Sea.
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2009, 09:41:49 AM »
Missile defense placed in Eastern Europe is intended to defend Western Europe, not Eastern Europe.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2009, 09:55:15 AM »
They are vastly more afraid of bears...

This bear?

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Eastern European Missile Shield Scrapped
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2009, 12:35:46 PM »
The purpose of the missile shield is the interception of small quantities of missile from rogue nations like Iran or North Korea.

The shield lacks the capacity to shoot down more than a handful of missiles, making it irrelevant to a full-scale attack from Russia.
Those oneseys and twoseys are the purpose of the purpose of the shield.  Without that capability, what's the point?

That was my actual point, but I made it badly and in reverse. I understand such systems are intended for onesy-twosey rouge state launches. And Russia knows this too.

Russia just wants the system blocked for purposes of local prestige and political brinksmanship.

And for the secondary reason that what the U.S./West learns from the intial rouge-state onesey-twosey defense scenarios will eventualy upscale into being a credible deterrent against the much larger Russian capability.

And that due to potential decrepitude of the Russian ICBM and IRBM fleet from funding shortage, mismanagment, and/or outright corruption and graft, they may be a lot closer to only having a onesy-twosey capability than is commonly thought.
I promise not to duck.