No US defense shields for Poles and Czechs

[Reason]

YouTube - No US defence shields for Poles and Czechs - 17 Sept 09

 

[Uriel999]

win!

 

[Reason]

This is likely what we traded Russia in exchange for access to Afghanistan via Russia.

 

[Mini-Me]

This is likely what we traded Russia in exchange for access to Afghanistan via Russia.

If so, there's a sense of irony about how what they wanted from us is better for us than what we wanted for ourselves.

 

[ryanduff]

Makes me think Manchurian Candidate.

 

[RSLudlum]

Many of my proclaimed anti-socialist republican facebook friends can't stop posting about how they disapprove of pulling the system and approve of global security socialism.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The idea of a missile defense shield is rediculous in my opinion anyways. It creates a false illusion that it can protect a country from attack. The costs are extremely high while the costs of evading it are fairly low. I am reminded of the French Maginot line. When is the last time a country attacked another starting with ground based missiles? Airplanes are the easiest way around a missile shield. Or submarines and ships. These can go around the shield and attack from a different direction- making the system worthless. Iran does not have many subs but Russia does (they are the supposed other target of the shield units which were to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic).

If you want to go with ground based missiles when facing a shield you can go with MIRV technology- put multiple warheads on each missile. In the cold war, a valid nuclear deterent was said to be three missiles for each target- to ensure a hit. The defender behind his shield would thus need three anti- missile missiles for each incoming one. Unless they could take you out before the seperation stage occurs, they then need a further multiple of three for each of the MIRVs so if you put seven MIRVs on the top of an ICBM, they need at least 21 attack vehicles for each and every missile you own.

We have so far had very limited success in tests to shoot down an incoming missile anyways. Most of the succeses have come in rigged tests- in one example a "pinging" device was placed in the target missile so that the intercept missile could find it. It has not worked in "real world" situations. The radar system which was going to the Czech Republic was one we were using as a part of the tests of the missile defense system in the Marshal Islands which was being replaced with a new one.

The agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic were more of a symbolic gesture of military partnership than a real strategicly important activity. They will be offered some new technology deal- maybe some other weapons system or aircraft. I think the new deal was to try to appease Russia to get their help on other issues like Iran and Afghanistan.

 

[jmdrake]

The whole "we need this to protect Europe from Iran" argument is/was stupid. Iran launching a balistic missile attack would be an act of state suicide. Even if you thought Iran was that crazy (their not), why would they waste their final act of defiance on Europe when Israel is closer?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Honestly, I think Iran wants a nuke because of us, not necessarily Israel. They want atomic energy because despite being an oil rich country, their production is getting close to their domestic consumption and they need the revenue oil sales bring in. Nuclear energy at home frees up more oil they can export. Then look at the map- the US in on all sides of them now for the most part. Afghanistan and Iraq, and Pakistan. Bush named them as part of the "axis of evil". We keep pressing for more sanctions on them.

They actually offered to help the US at the start of the Iraq war and we still criticized them so the do not trust us. I don't think they intend to actually use it if they get a nuke (they are much more rational than western media may lead us to believe) but want it as a deterent against attack. Countries with nukes tend not to go to war against each other. Even India and Pakistan have been getting along much better since they both announced going nuclear. North Korea also seems to want it for security and perhaps prestige. The US has forces at their border as well. They are perhaps the one country which may be crazy enough to actually use it if pressured enough. But China and South Korea do not want any instability in the North because that could mean millions of refugees coming into their countries.

So maybe a nuclear armed Iran could help make the region more, not less, stable.

 

[Aratus]

potus obama just shelved an EXPENSIVE project.
someone even went to eastern europe to scope
out the property for this new command area and
this has our current buildups as a backdrop to this.

 

[dantheman]

At first, I was excited by this news since it felt like a small piece of the Military Industrial-Complex being done away with. But then when you realize what Obama's actually doing...

"Instead, he said, a more flexible defence would be introduced, allowing for a more effective response to any threat from Iranian missiles." (The Guardian)

This is just rearranging the pieces on the RISK game board. This missile system just gives extremists in the Middle East more reason to hate us and better talking points to recruit more soldiers. When is this gonna stop?

Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-poland-obama

 

[Naraku]

While arming Europe instead of them arming themselves is something I can understand people disagreeing with I just can't wrap my head around why anyone, regardless of their politics, thinks having no defense against nuclear missiles is a good idea.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

While arming Europe instead of them arming themselves is something I can understand people disagreeing with I just can't wrap my head around why anyone, regardless of their politics, thinks having no defense against nuclear missiles is a good idea.

I don't think anyone is advocating "having no defense against nuclear missiles". You have to weigh the pros and cons of installing US military hardware on foreign soil. Is the supposed protection these missiles offer against the miniscule possibility of such an attack worth the blowback that is sure to come?

Chances of a missile attack from Iran or anywhere else: 5% (that's probably being generous)
Chances of the missile shield shooting down all targets: 60% (again... generous)
Chances of blowback to our global military footprint: 100%

If we are really concerned about incoming missiles we should develop a defense on our territory and international waters.

 

[Naraku]

I don't think anyone is advocating "having no defense against nuclear missiles". You have to weigh the pros and cons of installing US military hardware on foreign soil. Is the supposed protection these missiles offer against the miniscule possibility of such an attack worth the blowback that is sure to come?

Chances of a missile attack from Iran or anywhere else: 5% (that's probably being generous)
Chances of the missile shield shooting down all targets: 60% (again... generous)
Chances of blowback to our global military footprint: 100%

If we are really concerned about incoming missiles we should develop a defense on our territory and international waters.

I can sympathize with the idea that we shouldn't be building defenses for other countries, except maybe Canada and Mexico. However, it seems some are against building missile defenses altogether. When Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty a lot of people, probably some here included, were against it. All of the talk was about it sparking an arms race but in the end building a defense against offensive weapons just makes sense.

Betting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people is not my idea of a good gamble. Can anyone here honestly say that Pakistan or North Korea won't just collapse at some point? What's to keep some group or government faction from then seizing some nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles and firing them at us?

 

[TastyWheat]

I could accept that 21st century warfare is different, but how many times in the history of modern warfare (i.e. bombers and intercontinental missiles and such) has one country just randomly bombed another country without provocation or plenty of warning (the USA excluded)? I mean I know we should be prepared for the worst, but I agree with previous posters that some kind of long-range missile attack is extremely unlikely and we're more likely to incur small-scale backlash from our military posturing.

 

[The Deacon]

Strangely enough*, a near-majority of Polish citizens approve.

*or rather, it's strange enough if you're a neocon with fantasies that the USSR still exists.

 

[Naraku]

I could accept that 21st century warfare is different, but how many times in the history of modern warfare (i.e. bombers and intercontinental missiles and such) has one country just randomly bombed another country without provocation or plenty of warning (the USA excluded)? I mean I know we should be prepared for the worst, but I agree with previous posters that some kind of long-range missile attack is extremely unlikely and we're more likely to incur small-scale backlash from our military posturing.

You answer this question then:

Can anyone here honestly say that Pakistan or North Korea won't just collapse at some point?

Now, by collapse you should understand I don't mean like the Soviets I mean becoming a failed state, becoming like Somalia where there is no centralized government. Even if one accepted the ludicrous notion that Russia isn't a threat to Europe or the U.S. there is no denying that many nuclear states are not as stable as the U.S.

 

[TastyWheat]

You answer this question then:

Can anyone here honestly say that Pakistan or North Korea won't just collapse at some point?

Isn't that typically something you see coming? Even if it's not I doubt you'd go from a solid government one day to a nuclear weapon being launched by insurgents the next.

 

[zdenek795]

American politicians lie.
Maybe Americans don't know much about geography - but Poland isn't placed near Iran.

Missile shield in Poland wasn't against Iran only against Russia.

It wasn't for defense of Poland but for USA.

Poland wanted missile shield because because it would be tied with bilateral military pact and we hoped to place Patriot rockets for Polish air defense.

 

[TGGRV]

I could accept that 21st century warfare is different, but how many times in the history of modern warfare (i.e. bombers and intercontinental missiles and such) has one country just randomly bombed another country without provocation or plenty of warning (the USA excluded)? I mean I know we should be prepared for the worst, but I agree with previous posters that some kind of long-range missile attack is extremely unlikely and we're more likely to incur small-scale backlash from our military posturing.

Ha, read about what people were saying about this arm race fallacy before 1989.