Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

obvious Child · Sep 22, 2009

KillerAngel said:
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.

obvious Child · Sep 22, 2009

Apocalypse said:
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?

scourge99 · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

obvious Child · Sep 22, 2009

RightinNYC said:
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

lol

, 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.

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

scourge99 said:
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.

scourge99 said:
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?

scourge99 said:
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.

scourge99 said:
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.

scourge99 said:
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?

Apocalypse · Sep 22, 2009

obvious Child said:
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.

scourge99 · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
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"

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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. :roll:

Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

scourge99 said:
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.

scourge99 said:
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.

scourge99 said:
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?

scourge99 said:
Current KNOWN Iranian missile technology can reach most of Eastern Europe. I suppose they are satisfied with that though. :roll:

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?

scourge99 said:
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?

scourge99 said:
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.

RightinNYC · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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 lol, 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.

scourge99 · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
According to your article, this can reach 1200 miles. That means it could reach Ankara, Turkey at most. Nowhere in Europe.

:rofl:rofl:rofl 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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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?

Kandahar said:
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?

PogueMoran · Sep 22, 2009

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?

Goobieman · Sep 22, 2009

PogueMoran said:
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.

Apocalypse · Sep 22, 2009

Goobieman said:
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.

Goobieman · Sep 22, 2009

Apocalypse said:
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.

Apocalypse · Sep 22, 2009

Goobieman said:
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.

75Greeno · Sep 22, 2009

why is oboma even qualified

scourge99 · Sep 22, 2009

75Greeno said:
why is oboma even qualified

Because he has qualified advisors. You think presidents just willy-nilly decide policy?

The Prof · Sep 22, 2009

obama gave a grand gift to the grandees of the kremlin gratis

got nothing in return

on arming venezuela, nothing

on cooperation vs iran, nix

on guarantees of georgian independence, nada

the prez has no clue what he's doing, he's child-like, a rookie, a neophyte

putin, epitome of realpolitik, picks his pocket

RightinNYC · Sep 22, 2009

The Prof said:
obama gave a grand gift to the grandees of the kremlin gratis

got nothing in return

What are you basing this on?

I can assure you that whenever Obama (or any president) makes a concession on something, they're doing it to get something in return. The fact that they don't disclose what that thing is doesn't mean we got nothing out of it.

obvious Child · Sep 22, 2009

Apocalypse said:
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.

Was that meant to be sarcasm? I see you, like many before you, cannot answer the question. If they are so fanatical, why do they never risk their own power and lives?

obvious Child · Sep 22, 2009

RightinNYC said:
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.

But to seriously threaten America, they'd need thousands of reliable, accurate and with large payloads. China right now doesn't even have that and China's economy is well beyond North Korea and Iran's combined and then squared. Furthermore, both the North Koreans and Iranians have proven themselves to be quite adept smugglers. Why choose the unreliable, expensive way when you can go the surefire cheap method to achieve the same results?

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.

Incredibly unlikely that the current system will be used against Russia, yes. But again, that's not what the Russians are afraid of. They know right now that our system sucks, which it does. What they are afraid of is what it will become.

For now.

True, but projecting 50 years from now, it's hard to predict someone else we'd be targeting.

On its face, that sounds totally reasonable to me. I just assume there's a reason why we don't do that.

1) Iran isn't the real target

or

2) Getting rights to land was too difficult.

IMO, Iran was never the real target, North Korea as well. It is far easier for both simply to smuggle in weapons and then use them. Remember, governments are lazy.

The Prof · Sep 22, 2009

RightinNYC said:
What are you basing this on?

I can assure you that whenever Obama (or any president) makes a concession on something, they're doing it to get something in return. The fact that they don't disclose what that thing is doesn't mean we got nothing out of it.

hi

i base it on the devastating loser-ness of the headline

he LOOKS awful

giving up everything to PUTIN and getting nothing in return

if he indeed GOT anything, he'd trumpet it

instead of ADVERTISING to the world that he gave up a GEM for NADA

that's HIS version of the transaction

he pulled missile D a day before putin reportedly militarized the border

Russia general says missile plan not shelved | International | Reuters

(thanks, harshaw)

obama pulled missile D, a golden bargaining chip

while putin arms chavez

U.S. concerned over Venezuela-Russia arms deal | International | Reuters

while putin plays expansionist in georgia

while putin continues to "partner" with iran

Russia stands firm on Iran arms sale

putin's one tough sob

i am far less oriented towards the strategies underlying these things, i talk much more about the POLITICS

politically, this unilateral surrender on sdi in the region is hugely hurtful to the admin

until obama comes out with whatever secret payoff he got in return, he is totally open to my accusation

also, it's completely in keeping with his character to give up something for nothing

he has dictated conditions to israel while ok'ing nuclear power for iran

France 24 | Obama says Israel must stop building settlements | France 24

Obama: Iran Has Right to Nuclear Power | NBC Philadelphia

obama has been much tougher on the israelis than he's been on hamas, which is pretty far upside down (both politically and strategically)

he's always giving away gifts gratis, selling for squat american security interests

it appears to be his agenda

the politics of it stinks

he's taking heat from everyone from the ny times to chris matthews

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=missile defenswe&st=cse

i think i'm talking (characteristically) much more about the politics of it than are most the contributors on this very interesting thread who are more interested in the strategic ramifications (which, good for them)

thanks for asking, my friend

cliff

Kandahar · Sep 23, 2009

The Prof said:
hi

i base it on the devastating loser-ness of the headline

he LOOKS awful

giving up everything to PUTIN and getting nothing in return

if he indeed GOT anything, he'd trumpet it

Why on earth would he do that?

The Prof · Sep 23, 2009

you'd have to ask him

RightinNYC · Sep 23, 2009

Kandahar said:
Why on earth would he do that?

It's obviously because nobody in Obama's administration or in the State department has ever heard of diplomacy. If they don't immediately tell us what they got out of it, it means they didn't get anything and the country just got suckered.

Seems plausible.

Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Enemy Combatant

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Enemy Combatant

Girthless

Well-known member

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Active member

Girthless

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Enemy Combatant

Girthless