Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

  1. #21
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That should be obvious.
    We said we'd do something to help protect our allies.

    We then decided we'd not do that something because to do so brings a dishonest complant from someone that used to occupy those allies.

    So, we sold out our friends because the Russians are lying to everyone.

    Now, we are, supposedly, going to put the Aegis system in place -- but that system has the same effect on Russian deterrence (that is, none), and so the Russians, seeing that their lies worked the first time, have no reason to not continue to lie about the arrangement. When they do so, there's no reason the useful idiots will not demand that we cave into those lies as well.
    What exactly did we reneg on? We're still doing missile defense to cover the same area. Neither system would deter russia, the previous system or the new one. So you're complaining that he sold people out by still doing missile defense. Doesn't seem to make sense. So he's damned either way.

  2. #22
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    205

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    I'm still trying to undertsand how Mr. Obama can break a treaty that Mr. Bush signed with the Polish Govn. on this subject. Hmm guess that if your in control of Congress you can do anything like violated terms of Treatys that Congress signs off and only Congress can over-ride.
    The agreement was not actually a "treaty."

  3. #23
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    205

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    The whole argument over this shield is amusing. Iran is far from having a delivery system, the cost of such a shield is huge, and the fact of the matter is that no one even knows how effective the shield would be.
    Far from having a delivery system to do what? You have to draw a distinction between a delivery system to hit the US (which is estimated to come between 2015-2020) or systems to hit Europe, Israel, and our troops in Iraq etc.. If that is the target, they already have delivery systems capable of reaching most of those areas.

    As for how effective the shield would be, that is true, we need more testing, but even 50% effectiveness is better than 0% is it not?

    From the beginning it was nothing more than a stab at Russia and Obama's goal is to improve relations with Russia in hopes they and China will be more active in reigning in Iran.
    If the goal was to gain Russian help in dealing with Iran, why not use the Polish deployment as a bargaining chip instead of giving it away and hoping for the best?

    If such a case were to unfold, then the U.S. saves lots of money in building the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, maintaining bases in both countries, and keeping troops there to staff them as well, and Iran is still controlled. What's the problem here?
    We are not actually going to save any money. We are still going forward with short and mid-range missile defense in Europe, and Aegis systems are much more expensive than the GMD system that was to go in Poland. Additionally, Aegis systems still need forward radar deployments which will cost money, and to effectively cover Europe in the manner we hope, more Aegis ships will need to be built.

    Given that the SM-3 Block IIA is not yet operational, the shield will rely on the SM-3 Block IA which has limited range, has large coverage gaps in Europe, is not fast enough to even conduct an intercept in many areas, and is more expensive.

    The CBO did a study in February on this issue and the cost of an Aegis system was more than double the cost of a GMD system. Frankly, what we need is both systems, because by 2018 when we deploy ground based SM-3 Block IIA's (which will require hardened silos and permanent bases, aka costly) it will be again more expensive than the GMD system, and offer still a limited coverage area for the US mainland. It would require the US to operate with interceptors in Alaska and California which only allows for a shoot-look-shoot scenario that means we get one shot and have no redundant capability for the mainland.

    Overall, we save no money with the new system, and we get no new leverage. Russia will still be upset, as the new plan still calls for ground based interceptors. Basically, we gave away Poland for free.

  4. #24
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by FlanaganReport View Post
    Far from having a delivery system to do what? You have to draw a distinction between a delivery system to hit the US (which is estimated to come between 2015-2020) or systems to hit Europe, Israel, and our troops in Iraq etc.. If that is the target, they already have delivery systems capable of reaching most of those areas.

    As for how effective the shield would be, that is true, we need more testing, but even 50% effectiveness is better than 0% is it not?



    If the goal was to gain Russian help in dealing with Iran, why not use the Polish deployment as a bargaining chip instead of giving it away and hoping for the best?



    We are not actually going to save any money. We are still going forward with short and mid-range missile defense in Europe, and Aegis systems are much more expensive than the GMD system that was to go in Poland. Additionally, Aegis systems still need forward radar deployments which will cost money, and to effectively cover Europe in the manner we hope, more Aegis ships will need to be built.

    Given that the SM-3 Block IIA is not yet operational, the shield will rely on the SM-3 Block IA which has limited range, has large coverage gaps in Europe, is not fast enough to even conduct an intercept in many areas, and is more expensive.

    The CBO did a study in February on this issue and the cost of an Aegis system was more than double the cost of a GMD system. Frankly, what we need is both systems, because by 2018 when we deploy ground based SM-3 Block IIA's (which will require hardened silos and permanent bases, aka costly) it will be again more expensive than the GMD system, and offer still a limited coverage area for the US mainland. It would require the US to operate with interceptors in Alaska and California which only allows for a shoot-look-shoot scenario that means we get one shot and have no redundant capability for the mainland.

    Overall, we save no money with the new system, and we get no new leverage. Russia will still be upset, as the new plan still calls for ground based interceptors. Basically, we gave away Poland for free.
    Good post. Mad props. But I think you are missing a huge point, why are we paying for the protection of Europe? Yes, they are our allies, but the EU has plenty of money to fund their own defense. I do think we must continue to cultivate Poland and other Eastern European states as good allies as well, but the plan Bush put into play was not it at all. Russia has already agreed to more sanctions on Iran if progress is not made in the six-party talks scheduled for next week. Now China is the problem.

  5. #25
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    205

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    Good post. Mad props. But I think you are missing a huge point, why are we paying for the protection of Europe? Yes, they are our allies, but the EU has plenty of money to fund their own defense.
    Well, under the Bush proposal, the GMD system in Poland, and the radar in the Czech Republic, was a long range interceptor that was designed more to cover the United States than Europe. Therefore the shift to short and mid-range defenses is really the shift to European defense in my opinion.

    That said, we have thousands of troops and bases in Europe that would be covered with this shield, so that is a plus. We are a member of NATO (along with much of Europe) so basically we are tied to their defense through treaty as well, as under Article V an attack on one is an attack on all.

    All of that said, I am no expert on the EU, but NATO does spend a decent (kind of) amount of money of defenses as well. Keeping NATO together is going to be important I think as the splits between Russia, China, and the US grow, because we can go to NATO for legitimacy is seeking to act in certain situations that are frozen in the Security Council due to politics.

    I would also argue the trade and diplomatic leverage we get with the EU is considerable due to our presence and defense, which I would argue, far outweigh the cost of defending Europe. Further, our positions in Europe give us leverage in other parts of the world as well, as we can use our bases there as staging areas, or supply hubs, for operations outside of Europe. That cuts down on the cost that might otherwise be inherent in such an operation.

    All in all, I think that if we start backing off from Europe, the transatlantic gap will only widen, and a rising, more independent Europe, will dilute American influence in many sectors of the world.
    I do think we must continue to cultivate Poland and other Eastern European states as good allies as well, but the plan Bush put into play was not it at all. Russia has already agreed to more sanctions on Iran if progress is not made in the six-party talks scheduled for next week. Now China is the problem.
    I have seen that Russia agreed more sanctions "may" be inevitable. I am wary of such a claim until I see the actual wording and implementation of a Security Council Resolution authorizing them. If they do not declare that the Iranian nuclear program is a "threat to international peace and security" then most likely the sanctions will have little effect.

    That said however, I agree that we ought to be reaching out to Eastern and Central Europe.
    Last edited by FlanaganReport; 09-25-09 at 01:11 PM.

  6. #26
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Russia general says missile plan not shelved

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    1: The point is that you deploy the defense -before- they have the capability
    2: The cost of a nuke going off over Paris is far less
    3: Same can be said for every other weapons system ever deoplyed.


    Given the ABM system would have no effect on Russian deterrence -- how can this be?


    So, he sold out our European allies to gain some degree of favor with the Russians.
    This sounds familiar.
    Maybe we should start referring to The Obama as The Neville.
    You think there will be any French there when it goes off?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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