Eastern Europe Awaits Decision on Missile Shield

[RightinNYC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?pagewanted=print

The Obama administration is expected to announce Thursday that it will shelve plans to deploy its controversial anti-ballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe, a Polish official said, a move that will be welcomed by Russia but deeply regretted by Poland and the Czech Republic, two key American allies.

...

“Until we are told, we have no comment to make. Except one thing: it is clear that the administration has other priorities,” said a Polish diplomat who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

...

George W. Bush had developed a special relationship with Eastern Europe as relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated. The proposal to deploy parts of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic were justified on the grounds that they would protect Europe and the western coast of the United States against any possible missile attacks from Iran, for example.

Thoughts? I'm relatively ambivalent on this one, although Russia's faux outrage is nothing more than posturing here.

 

[Laila]

It is a waste of money and should be dropped.

 

[underdog334]

If Iran were the threat,then I would think south Europe would be a better location.In our last Salt treaty with Russia I believe there was language prohibiting the developement and deployment of an anti missle system. We have breached that agreement and the Russians have reason to complain. Putting it on their border in a former satelite basically rubbed their nose in it. I have felt all along that the Bush decision was to gain bargaining power with Russia over Iran. It will be interesting to see if Russia plays along. Deploying an ABM system on one side leads the world closure to the brink of nucular war in that Russia would feel it had no ability to retaliate to a US first strike increasing the temptation for them to strike first.The whole idea of mutual assured destruction is thus out the window.

 

[Goobieman]

Thoughts? I'm relatively ambivalent on this one, although Russia's faux outrage is nothing more than posturing here.

It appears that the decision has been made:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.

The comment followed similar statements from officials in Poland and the Czech Republic -- where key elements of the system were to be located -- but was the first confirmation from an American official.

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans - CNN.com

Way to leave our allies hanging.

 

[Goobieman]

In our last Salt treaty with Russia I believe there was language prohibiting the developement and deployment of an anti missle system. We have breached that agreement and the Russians have reason to complain.

That was the ABM treaty of 1972.
We withdrew from that treaty according to the terms of that treaty, and so there was no breach.

The Russians have no reason to complain as the planned ABM system - both in Europe and in the US - has no real effect on their deterrent and they are free to respond with their own ABM system.

Putting it on their border in a former satelite basically rubbed their nose in it.

Putting it on their border makes it less effective againt their missiles than if it were further away.

Deploying an ABM system on one side leads the world closure to the brink of nucular war in that Russia would feel it had no ability to retaliate to a US first strike increasing the temptation for them to strike first.The whole idea of mutual assured destruction is thus out the window.

This argument fails miserably in that, as noted before, the ABM system does not affect Russian nuclear deterrence in any significant manner.

 

[Cold Highway]

With our nation having all the financial nightmares its having, why do we continue to spend money we dont have? Why doesnt Europe get off its collective ass and help its former Iron Curtain brethren? Europe is so ****ing two faced its not even funny they enjoy bitching to us about our ridiculous foreign policy but when it comes to defense they're the first ones to come to our door with their hands out. If they are so scared of Putin and Ahmandinijad why dont they lobby the EU 3 (France, Germany, Britian) to put one up.

 

[Richard Nixon]

The Russians have successfully managed to make a DEFENSIVE shield seem OFFENSIVE. Good use of rhetoric but decent use of diplomacy by the US. Might appease the Russians somewhat.

 

[Goobieman]

The Russians have successfully managed to make a DEFENSIVE shield seem OFFENSIVE. Good use of rhetoric but decent use of diplomacy by the US. Might appease the Russians somewhat.

The Russian line was swallowed, hook line and sinker, and hard, by the useful idiots on the left. There's not an ounce of credibility in their argument, and rather than caving in, the Administration should have called them on it.

Instead, The Obama sold out our allies for some possibility of some degree of unspecified help from the Russians regarding Iran.

 

[Truth Detector]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?pagewanted=print

Thoughts? I'm relatively ambivalent on this one, although Russia's faux outrage is nothing more than posturing here.

I think the biggest issue here at stake is our credibility. The message being sent to our allies and enemies is basically this; don't take any treaties US Presidents make with you because the next administration will just ignore them and leave you hanging in the wind.

This is the same thing that occurred post treaty Vietnam when we ignored the North's violation of the agreement and sat on our hands as the North overran an ally we promised to come to the rescue if the Communists did when we KNEW they would do when they had re-built their military.

I actually do not think this is about the Russians but rather Obama desperately in search of funds to divert from defense to the out of control negligent proculus spending binge he has been on.

 

[Richard Nixon]

As of right now the missile shield is pointless as there's nobody in that region with ICBM/missle carrying capabilities engaging in hostilities with the US or her allies. As a future safeguard it may have been affective, yes, but that's a big if. It's all a matter of POTENTIAL conflict at the moment, which is why I think your country can afford this on a military and economic level. On a political level it may be seen as weakness.

 

[Truth Detector]

As of right now the missile shield is pointless as there's nobody in that region with ICBM/missle carrying capabilities engaging in hostilities with the US or her allies. As a future safeguard it may have been affective, yes, but that's a big if. It's all a matter of POTENTIAL conflict at the moment, which is why I think your country can afford this on a military and economic level. On a political level it may be seen as weakness.

Former eastern satellites of the former Soviet Union who have a first hand knowledge of the massive Russian military would disagree with you.

:doh

 

[Goobieman]

As of right now the missile shield is pointless as there's nobody in that region with ICBM/missle carrying capabilities engaging in hostilities with the US or her allies.

Given the damage potential of the weapons in question, prudence demands that you stay ahead of the capabilities of your foe. Waiting to install a defense until -after- he can use it may very well be too late, and may very well incent him to use it while he still can.

On a political level it may be seen as weakness.

This is my point as well.

 

[Richard Nixon]

Former eastern satellites of the former Soviet Union who have a first hand knowledge of the massive Russian military would disagree with you.

:doh

True, but wasn't the missile defence touted as a defence against rogue states like Iran and North Korea? I don't think it was ever implicated as a defence against Russia, although that's probably the idea. I doubt the Russians would ever use those kinds of explosives so close to their borders, anyway; just a foot invasion, I'd imagine.

 

[Truth Detector]

True, but wasn't the missile defence touted as a defence against rogue states like Iran and North Korea? I don't think it was ever implicated as a defence against Russia, although that's probably the idea. I doubt the Russians would ever use those kinds of explosives so close to their borders, anyway; just a foot invasion, I'd imagine.

Yes it was touted as a defense against rogue nations; but I believe, and this is conjecture, that many of the Eastern Block nations saw having this system on their soil as a deterrent against nations like Russia moving in on them as the USA would see this as a belligerent act and placing our safety at jeopardy.