Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 157

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

  1. #131
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?
    Nope, it's pretty much fanatic and irrational.
    Their leaders' speeches, the rigged election that wasn't even planned well and it was obvious that it was rigged, the shooting of protesters in the streets.
    Fanatics and irrational.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  2. #132
    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
    A) There is no consensus among the "career military men" on this issue.
    I don't doubt it at all. There often isn't unanimous consensus, even among those in "the know"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    B) They are trained to defend the United States, not wade through international diplomatic affairs.
    These aren't grunts making the requests and analysis, civvy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then why can't Europe build it themselves? These aren't poor countries we're talking about here.
    I can only speculate since this answer hasn't been expounded upon well by our presidents other than to "defend our allies". I speculate its because the conflicts of Europe have a strong tendency of inevitably involving us whether we like it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Besides, are you really concerned about North Korea building a nuclear missile that can reach London?
    NK missile defense has always been a tertiary goal with this shield as far as I am aware

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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?
    Maybe because its not about missiles hitting "someone". Its about the strategic game change that occurs when such missiles are put into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    Current KNOWN Iranian missile technology can reach most of Eastern Europe. I suppose they are satisfied with that though.

    Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    IOW, you think you know better about something WAY WAY WAY beyond your pay grade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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?
    The US has already openly declared its intents to build a fully functional missile shield. Its integration and implementation into modern warfare is not a question, its simply a matter of time.
    Last edited by scourge99; 09-22-09 at 03:47 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.

  3. #133
    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
    These aren't grunts making the requests and analysis, civvy.
    Even the top military brass is trained to defend the United States, not to make decisions concerning international relations. That is the purview of the State Department.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    I can only speculate since this answer hasn't been expounded upon well by our presidents other than to "defend our allies". I speculate its because the conflicts of Europe have a strong tendency of inevitably involving us whether we like it or not.
    Conflicts in Europe have a much stronger tendency of involving Europe. So let them pay for it if they really want it. Which I suspect they don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Maybe because its not about missiles hitting "someone". Its about the strategic game change that occurs when such missiles are put into play.
    How so? If no European capitals are at the top of Iran's nuclear hit list anyway, what would change once this shield became operational?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Current KNOWN Iranian missile technology can reach most of Eastern Europe. I suppose they are satisfied with that though.

    Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    According to your article, this can reach 1200 miles. That means it could reach Ankara, Turkey at most. Nowhere in Europe.

    Which Eastern European country do you think is on Iran's nuclear hit list?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    IOW, you think you know better about something WAY WAY WAY beyond your pay grade.
    You do realize that that is not an actual rebuttal?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    The US has already openly declared its intents to build a fully functional missile shield. Its integration and implementation into modern warfare is not a question, its simply a matter of time.
    And if you don't understand why Russia might not be too keen on the total elimination of its nuclear deterrent, ask yourself how the United States would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #134
    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
    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 don't see why we can't consider both at the same time, especially if the powers that be consider this future threat to be more dangerous than a present situation.

    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.
    Again, I really don't understand the logistics, but as I understand it, there's a technical reason for placing a station in eastern europe.

    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.
    From what I've read, Russia is far more concerned about the prospect of US troops being stationed in their former sphere of influence. Russia has a long history (through this year) of using their economic and military power to force nations to acquiesce to their demands. This would be harder to do with US troops in those nations.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    I don't know about this. I'm loath to declare something untenable for any country, especially for those who have a demonstrable reason to desire something.

    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.
    From my perspective, i would agree that it doesn't make sense. I don't know enough about this to argue why I think it was a good decision, but I have to assume that there was a reason for our refusal. Because it seems so incredibly unlikely that this could ever be used as a defense against the Russians, I have to assume it was something else.

    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.
    For now.

    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.
    On its face, that sounds totally reasonable to me. I just assume there's a reason why we don't do that.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #135
    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
    Even the top military brass is trained to defend the United States, not to make decisions concerning international relations. That is the purview of the State Department.
    They aren't making decisions. They are informing the president. As commander and chief its entirely his choice. Both him and bush have a surprisingly identical threat conclusion regarding the needs for this system. Coincidence? I think not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Conflicts in Europe have a much stronger tendency of involving Europe. So let them pay for it if they really want it. Which I suspect they don't.
    Given the history of conflicts in Europe, any conflict in Europe will likely involve the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How so? If no European capitals are at the top of Iran's nuclear hit list anyway, what would change once this shield became operational?
    So your claim is that the only practical use of possessing nuclear weapons is there use? You can't fathom ANY other benefit of possessing nuclear arms. Not economical, political, or strategical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    According to your article, this can reach 1200 miles. That means it could reach Ankara, Turkey at most. Nowhere in Europe.
    Only if they launch them from the opposite side of their country.

    Once again, I suppose you think they are satisfied with their current abilities and aren't actively researching and building newer and better long range missiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Which Eastern European country do you think is on Iran's nuclear hit list?
    Why you keep resorting to this narrow minded strawman, I know not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You do realize that that is not an actual rebuttal?
    OK, let me spell it out for you. What experience and/or credentials do you have in regards to ballistic missiles, threat analysis, and other military knowledge required to properly analyze and provide a CREDIBLE opinion on such a matter? Are you familiar with the capabilities and concerns of the military forces in the area? How about the social and political peculiarities of the region? What strategic impact does the introduction of nuclear weapons, especially nuclear mounted medium and long range ballistic missiles have on the area?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And if you don't understand why Russia might not be too keen on the total elimination of its nuclear deterrent, ask yourself how the United States would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.
    Apparently you like repeating yourself as though it sounds better the second time. I'll oblige.

    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. The US has already openly declared its intents to build a fully functional missile shield both for itself and allies. Missile defense integration and implementation into modern warfare is not a question, its simply a matter of time.

    Based on your very limited knowledge and credentials in such a matter, why do you believe they are wrong or lying? Why should anyone take your opinion that is counter to what the experts say seriously?
    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.

  6. #136
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

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

    So anyone have a problem with using the Navy's Aegis system which would cover the same area of the other one but focus on stopping shorter range missiles?

  7. #137
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    So anyone have a problem with using the Navy's Aegis system which would cover the same area of the other one but focus on stopping shorter range missiles?
    The Russians would complain about this as well.

  8. #138
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The Russians would complain about this as well.
    They are freaking paranoid and I'm just glad Obama has embraced Bush's thought line on this issue and stated that he too believes they are just being paranoid.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  9. #139
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    They are freaking paranoid and I'm just glad Obama has embraced Bush's thought line on this issue and stated that he too believes they are just being paranoid.
    If, indeed, this is true, then good for him.

    But, it's plain that the Russians know their audience.

  10. #140
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,205

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If, indeed, this is true, then good for him.

    But, it's plain that the Russians know their audience.
    Obama: 'Bush Was Right About Paranoid Russians' - Pravda.Ru
    US President Barack Obama stated in his recent interview with CBS that Russia’s paranoid views about the missile defense system in Europe had not shown influence on his decision to shelve the plans of the previous US administration to deploy missile defense system elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    "Russia had always been paranoid about this, but George Bush was right. This wasn't a threat to them," Obama said. "And this program will not be a threat to them,” The Associated Press quoted Obama as saying.

    "My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."

    "If the byproduct of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development in Iran, you know, then that's a bonus,” Obama said.
    And that's from a Russian website.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 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
  •