Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 157

Thread: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

  1. #121
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,211

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

    Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

    As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
    Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

    Furthermore, why won't MAD work?
    The word fanatics should answer most of your questions.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  2. #122
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    ask the czechs
    There aren't any on this thread. So I'll ask the supporters of this boondoggle instead. Is that cool with you?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    completely copacetic

    besides, prague already replied

  4. #124
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

    The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    It's real questionable if the target was ever Iran.

    First of all, Iran's missile is not reliable nor accurate. Not exactly the type of delivery system you'd want to use if you were a state.

    Second, the actual amount of damage that a few unreliable missiles could do pales against the conventional firepower that Israel could unleash much less us.

    Third, despite the rantings of lunatics that Iran is run by crazy people, the recent election shows that the Mullahs are anything but crazy, but cold, calculating logical rulers. Why MAD doesn't apply has not been answered by anyone here.

    Fourth, Iran will not use a missile when it has much cheaper, much more reliable and infinitely harder to stop means of delivery. The fact that we have not gotten nuked by someone shipping a nuke in a lead lined container ship is a damn good reason to believe in God.

    Fifth, Russia offered to joint share a key radar station that would have been far superior to anything we had in Eastern Europe and guess who turned them down? Really, the defense is geared against Iran and not Russia, but we don't want to share a defense system with Russia? Huh.

    Sixth, we all know that weapons programs get better as time goes on and as Congress pours untold billions into them. While it is in no shape to stop Russia (or even Iran really) at the current moment, it is a logical conclusion based on historical data to think that the system will eventually reach a point where it could potentially stop a Russian first or 2nd strike thereby making nukes actual, usable weapons for a change. Couple this with nuclear reductions and it's a distinct possibility. Same goes for the Chinese. And you'd be an absolute fool to think they don't know this.

    If we were actually into protecting America, we'd be installing extremely powerful radiation detectors all over our borders and ports and actually inspecting cargo containers. Why bother spending billions on a long range missile that may not even work when you can spend a few thousand to ship a lead lined container to America?

    That and it will reinforce anti-American alliances.
    THE STAR WARS FLOP | Foreign Affairs
    My impression has always been that despite the fact that Iran's missiles aren't up to par at the moment, we were preparing for a future where Iran, NK, or another belligerent had that capability.

    My understanding of the system is that Eastern Europe was chosen as the location because it offered the best position to address threats from both of those areas.

    Finally, I've always understood the missile defense system as never being anything remotely threatening to the Russians, nor it being intended as such.

    If I'm wrong on any of these, I'm open to correction.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #125
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    My impression has always been that despite the fact that Iran's missiles aren't up to par at the moment, we were preparing for a future where Iran, NK, or another belligerent had that capability.
    We have pressing security concerns NOW. And shouldn't long-term solutions at least be focused on things that are easy to predict, instead of A) which nations will have nukes in the future, B) which nuclear powers will be the most belligerent toward the United States in the future, C) which of our allies they'll be most likely to strike, and D) if they'll use their nukes at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    My understanding of the system is that Eastern Europe was chosen as the location because it offered the best position to address threats from both of those areas.
    I don't see how. North Korea is halfway around the world, making Eastern Europe just about the worst possible spot on earth for anti-NK interceptors. And if Iran is going to nuke someone, I doubt there are very many European capitals that rank highly on their list. Certainly not high enough (and with enough certainty) to justify this kind of major investment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    Finally, I've always understood the missile defense system as never being anything remotely threatening to the Russians, nor it being intended as such.
    The Russians obviously feel otherwise. Defensive weapons systems can be used for offensive purposes. If Nation A and Nation B are both rational and both have nuclear weapons, they are deterred from provoking one another into war. But if Nation A is protected from Nation B's nuclear weapons, Nation B no longer has its deterrent and Nation A will be more prone to aggressive behavior. This is what Russia is worried about.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-21-09 at 09:37 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #126
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerAngel View Post
    Are you referring to MAD with regards to the US and Iran? If so, it does not and cannot apply to a nation like Iran. In order for it to work, both nations would have to be reasonably certain that they would be destroyed as a result of launching nukes, and that the other nation had the ability to mount a roughly equivalent counterstrike. That is not the case here; our arsenal is far superior to theirs, and so is our ability to shoot down their missiles.
    While that is true, MAD in the sense that Iran will not nuke us because they know what will happen to them. Our potential to turn them into radioactive glass deters them from actually using a weapon.

    As to your other point, you are entirely correct. It's not logical to assume that Iran would give away its best weapons, for any purpose.
    Especially when no country in history has ever done that. Even arguebly one of the biggest backers of Islamic terrorism, Pakistan keeps its weapons under extreme lock and key and screens its military who watch over them for Islamic whackos. Allegedly, they keep them dismantled and seperated for fear of Indian attack and theft.

    However, one should never discount the illogical, as it is still possible. Who knows...maybe they fear having their weapons siezed or destroyed, so they'd smuggle them out of the country and give them to like-minded islamic groups.
    A very good point indeed, but one that does not support the use of a missile defense. I agree that nuclear theft and smuggling is arguebly the biggest nuclear threat to America. Russia has thousands of weapons poorly guarded with even more thousands of pounds of fissile material poorly guarded if guarded at all. Like I said, it's a damn good reason to believe in God because we haven't got nuked yet. Given how poorly fissile material and ready to use weapons are guarded and the awful nature of our borders and ports, not to mention how cheap lead is to line a container...it doesn't seem logical as to why we haven't gotten hit yet.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #127
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    The word fanatics should answer most of your questions.
    So fanatical....they rigged an election. Iran is not run by fanatics. Maybe fanatical to staying in power yes, but not fanatics where they ignore reason and logic. These people are cold and calculating. I've asked this before and no one has answered: when have the Iranian mullahs ever risked their own necks instead of sending someone else to die in their place?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #128
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We have pressing security concerns NOW. And shouldn't long-term solutions at least be focused on things that are easy to predict, instead of A) which nations will have nukes in the future, B) which nuclear powers will be the most belligerent toward the United States in the future, C) which of our allies they'll be most likely to strike, and D) if they'll use their nukes at all?
    I tend to think that the career military men have a better idea of what long-term goals are important as opposed to your arm chair proclamations. Just sayin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't see how. North Korea is halfway around the world, making Eastern Europe just about the worst possible spot on earth for anti-NK interceptors.
    we have a fleet of interceptor destroyers and bases in Alaska AND Hawaii among other places in the Pacific to handle a threat to the Western US or its interest there. The defense in Europe is for... Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And if Iran is going to nuke someone, I doubt there are very many European capitals that rank highly on their list. Certainly not high enough (and with enough certainty) to justify this kind of major investment.
    Having the ability to use nukes is all that is important. Actually using them, is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Russians obviously feel otherwise. Defensive weapons systems can be used for offensive purposes. If Nation A and Nation B are both rational and both have nuclear weapons, they are deterred from provoking one another into war. But if Nation A is protected from Nation B's nuclear weapons, Nation B no longer has its deterrent and Nation A will be more prone to aggressive behavior. This is what Russia is worried about.
    Which is another reason we should get this shield up BEFORE Iran has them. Russia has nothing to worry about anytime in the near future. As said ad nauseum, the sheer volume of the Russian arsenal, ignoring the advanced delivery systems, far surpasses the defensive capabilities of any shield now or in the near future.
    Last edited by scourge99; 09-22-09 at 02:10 AM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  9. #129
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    My impression has always been that despite the fact that Iran's missiles aren't up to par at the moment, we were preparing for a future where Iran, NK, or another belligerent had that capability.
    It is possible, but there are several reasons to suggest otherwise. First, North Korea uses its nukes as an economic blackmail tool and knows full well that any use will destroy the regime. Iran is somewhat along those lines.

    Furthermore, neither Iran nor NK will ever really be able to build enough missiles to actually use them as a viable threat. Their economies are simply too small. It is far easier for them (and exorbitantly cheaper) to do the container ship delivery method if they really wanted to hit us.

    My understanding of the system is that Eastern Europe was chosen as the location because it offered the best position to address threats from both of those areas.
    Indeed, but Bush's stance towards sharing an exceptionally well placed radar station with Russia suggests that it ain't Iran we're targeting. If we were really out to target Iran, we would have jumped at that. Not only would we stuck the Russians with part of the bill (), but we would have gotten a much better position in addition to erasing Russian fears not to mention their resistance to us elsewhere. Honestly, that would have been a win-win and it was during the buddy-buddy days of Putin-Bush. That screams to me we aren't actually interested in defending against Iran.

    Finally, I've always understood the missile defense system as never being anything remotely threatening to the Russians, nor it being intended as such.
    At the moment no. But we all know that billions upon billions upon billions can do wonders to weapon systems.

    When it comes down to it, Russia and to a lesser degree China, are the only two countries in the world we actually face a viable ICBM threat from. And they are arguebly the only two who are opposed to American interests capable of building large numbers.

    If I'm wrong on any of these, I'm open to correction.
    That's an exceptionally good attitude to have.

    IMO, if we were really out to stop Iran, we would have emplacements in Turkey and the UAE, where it is far easier to shoot down medium to short range missiles during their launch stage.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #130
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    I tend to think that the career military men have a better idea of what long-term goals are important as opposed to your arm chair proclamations. Just sayin.
    A) There is no consensus among the "career military men" on this issue. B) They are trained to defend the United States, not wade through international diplomatic affairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    we have a fleet of interceptor destroyers and bases in Alaska AND Hawaii among other places in the Pacific to handle a threat to the Western US or its interest there. The defense in Europe is for... Europe.
    Then why can't Europe build it themselves? These aren't poor countries we're talking about here. Besides, are you really concerned about North Korea building a nuclear missile that can reach London?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Having the ability to use nukes is all that is important. Actually using them, is not.
    How exactly is Iran's ability to use nukes diminished by this shield? If Iran was going to nuke someone, who are the most likely targets? One could make arguments for Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, or even Baghdad. No European capital is anywhere near the top of Iran's list, and Iran is nowhere close to having weapons that can reach them anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Which is another reason we should get this shield up BEFORE Iran has them.
    The problem is that there are too many variables that could change between now and then to justify such a huge investment. Iran's regime is on thin ice as it is...it could completely collapse two months after we finish building this. It might end its antagonism toward London and Paris. It might never pursue weapons that could reach Europe at all. There are just too many unanswered questions to justify such a huge investment, against one particular country and one particular weapon, targeted at one particular group of nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Russia has nothing to worry about anytime in the near future. As said ad nauseum, the sheer volume of the Russian arsenal, ignoring the advanced delivery systems, far surpasses the defensive capabilities of any shield now or in the near future.
    I agree that Russia shouldn't be worried. But they feel that this is just the beginning. They see a missile shield on their western border, US troops on their southern border, a scramble with the US and its allies for territorial claims on their northern border, and a missile shield on their Eastern border. Can you really blame them for being upset?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-22-09 at 03:12 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •