obvious Child

Who said it would never work? Just because it's a financial black hole failure now doesn't mean it won't even work in the future. That or Russia could be doing what we did to them in the past: bleed us financially dry. And then there's the possibility that Russia is using the threat of missile shield as a driver to spend billions on its own military. By feinting anger it can cover its increasing expenditures. Politics and Power Plays as usual.

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

obvious Child

I thought you meant 6,000 to 5,000 warheads. Why should we spend billions on a missile shield to protect us from 6 out of 5,000 warheads when those billions could protect us from all 5,000 warheads under the Nunn-Lugar CTR?

Goobieman

You can state this all you want -- it doesn't make it so.

This is, of course, ridiculous.
According to your argument, the Russians are justified in 'concerns' over the Space Shuttle, with those 'concerns' being sufficient reason to halt the program.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

John1234

Many people seem to be missing the only point that matters here.

It is totally irrelevant what you, I, or our Government thinks these ABM systems are for or could be for.

Russia is not under our control or a part of our Country, therefore for us to sit here and say things like "Russia should" or "Russia shouldn't", is pointless.

The only thing that matters is what Russia thinks about it.
We are in no position to pass judgment on Russia's thoughts.

We need Russia as a rock solid and friendly ally if we are going to make progress with nuclear proliferation in 3rd world countries.
And because we have lived under the nuclear threat for so long, we have become soft to it.

If Russia does not want our missiles on their border then there should be nothing to discuss. The idea that we might go ahead with the plan anyhow... is just absurd.

Btw, i recall a lot from Russia in the past such as, "We will retaliate" and etc.
But this is the first time that I am aware of Russia flat out threatening "war".

This really disturbs me because I view a good relationship with Russia as the keystone to our future survival as a species.
Together, we can stop nuclear proliferation.
But Bush has us moving ass opposite of the direction we need to go if we are going to continue to survive.
And as long as Russia is threatening war and we have no relationship with them, there is not a chance in hell that countries like Iran will discontinue their pursuit of these weapons.

Goobieman

If Japan doesnt want our fleet based in Hawaii or our bombers based in the Phillipines...

Setting your security arrangements based on what countries that arent really your friends want you to do is quite possibly the most absurd thing I've heard this year.

Hatuey

I don't know. But I've read Russia and the U.S. both have more Nuclear Warheads then all other countries combined. To think that if it ever came down to nuclear warfare we'd be able to stop each other with silly sky umbrellas a la Star Wars is ridiculous.

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

rathi

The Patriot system is hardly effective against long range missiles. In Gulf War 1, it couldn't even reliably shoot down Scuds. Updates to the system have made it effective against short range missiles, but the system has no proven effectiveness against a missile capable of reaching of Poland. Its not even known if it could stop current Shahb-3 missiles, with a more limited range.

There is absolutely no benefit to deploying the system right now. Iran doesn't have missiles capable of reaching beyond 1300 miles, and if they did, the patriots have good chance of being ineffective. Furthermore, what reason would Iran have to attack Poland or its neighbors? Its pretty obvious that Israel would be the first target for any Iranian weapons, not random countries Iran has no problem with. Overall, we are deploying a system to defend against weapons Iran doesn't have, in countries that Iran won't attack, with a system that might not work.

The system can't even touch Russian nuclear capability, but it still makes them very nervous. Rationally, Russia should just ignore such a minor detail and move. However, politics and people being what they are, putting weapons close to someone homeland tends to frighten them. If Russia put missile defense systems in Cuba, we'd respond the same way. The Cuban missile crisis started because of stuff like this, and anyone with sanity wants to prevent that from happening again. Risking the nation over something so useless is a bad idea.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Goobieman

Of course they do. This shouldn't really be a surprise.

First, the NMD doesnt have anything to do with SDI, except in broad terms of concept.
Second, there's no reason to think that, if we should choose to do so, we could not build a NMD capable of shooting down 6000 incoming warheads.

Goobieman

Good thing, then, that the Patriot system isnt involved here.

One always tries to stay ahead of the threat, rather than having to react to it. If one is smart, anyway...

In 1911, what reason did Japan have to attack the US?

Yes. The NMD has no effect on the Russian nuclear deterrent.
Thus, the Russian complaints and threats to that effect have no actual basis.

Hardly. A Russian NMD-style defense in Cuba woudl have no effect whatsoever on our nuclear deterrence.

rathi

Then what is it? Poland is asking for patriots, but it appears they want them as part of their air defense, not as ABM systems. The journalism sucks on the technical details on the articles I found. As far as I could find, the only other ABM systems the U.S. have are a Navy based system and this Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. However, the THAD system isn't supposed to deployed till 2009, and is optimized for Scuds, not longer ranged missiles.

Except, when you create a much more immediate threat in the process. Iran might possibly be a threat to Europe in the future, requiring both technology advances and major geo-political changes. Russian can blow the world up today, and they have a record of getting twitchy about stuff near their borders.

Thats relevant how?

Regardless of the lack of logic in Russia's complaints, they are powerful enough to be taken seriously. Russia is wrong to consider this a threat, but thats not important. What is important that we don't allow a dangerous situation to develop. Nuclear weapons kill equally well when used for good or bad reasons.

I agree it would have no effect, but you overestimate the logically capability of humans. People get panicky and nervous, and make a lot of stupid choices. A perceived threat can cause the same reaction as