• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

I remember watching Bush on TV saying he would share the missile defense with the Russians. Not even that pleased our leftist friends.
Yes, yes he did.
Conveniently forgotton by most.
 
why was putin so determined to have the shield dismantled?

what about iran's ties to terrorist groups like hezbollah?

why are the czechs, poles, ukrainians and georgians so outraged?

what did obama gain from his grand giveaway?

what about the deterrent element of a DEFENSE in the region?

as opposed to downright defenselessness?

what about the symbolic meaning of our pulling out to the eastern bloc nations?

what about the symbolic timing of the announcement on the 70th anniversary?

the presence of an american missile shield in the region is a STRATEGIC GAME CHANGER

another huge blunder by obtuse obama, another political pratfall, another hurtful headline

the prez is comprehensively perceived as putin's puppy

does he really believe the russian ruler, virtuoso of realpolitik, is gonna play with us pertaining to persia (iran)?

the president's policy to deal with international terrorism can only be described as OSTRICH, head buried, hoping for the best

he simply does not have a CLUE what he's doing
 
Putin doesn't give a **** about the missile shield per se, what he's concerned about is the US troops that would have accompanied it. That's what Poland/CZK have been really angling for throughout this process - security.
 
The European ABM system -is- intended to defend from radical Islam, and is -not- intended to defend from the Russians.
:confused:

Have you seen the weapons that Radical Islam uses? It ain't ICBMs or medium to short range missiles.

Did you forget what happened on the morning of September 11th?

A missile shield is a giant waste of money if you're trying to defend us from Radical Islam. It would be far cheaper and easier for them to simply buy a container, line it with lead and put a nuke it in with a timer to go off in a harbor of a major US city. Explain to me how a missile defense system stops that.
 
I remember watching Bush on TV saying he would share the missile defense with the Russians.

And then rejected Russia's proposal to joint share a key radar station that would have nicely covered the alleged threat: Iran.

Not even that pleased our leftist friends.

Well, maybe you consider words to mean more then actions. But He SAID this! Never mind he did the opposite, he SAID that!:roll:
 
And in your link, there's no definitive confirmation that Israel has nukes, either.

For the record, I think Israel has nukes. But I also think any idiot can see Iran is working on a bomb, and if you're willing to make conclusions about Israel yet stay conveniently agnostic about Iran, then it's not about the truth for you.

In the link the Director General stated he believes they possess nukes. Most US sources estimate Israel has at least 40 nukes. Now there's a difference between many sources stating that israel has nukes and them saying Iran has information but does not know if they can build them. I know you can tell the difference between the two
 
:rofl

That you gave the answer I said you'd give, AFTER telling me that I should not try giessing other people's answers, and AFTER you tried to dodge the question in its entirety?

:rofl

Well not everyone can straight out say something without having evidence like you can goobie
 
As you said -- he'd rather make a partisan point.

There's nothing partisan about what I said. The director general believes that Israel possesses nukes. Different sources say Israel possesses nukes. Not one source says Iran possesses actual nukes
 
He's an idiot with more czars than Russian history or any other president. The Dems have hated this program from the start, because it destroyed their beloved USSR, and can't wait to spend the money on more welfare votes.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous lines ever the previous president had 46 czars in 36 czar roles. Many of the "Czar" positions were created long before Obama's presidency. He hasn't really added that many new positions so its ridiculous to carry on this "more czars" than russia line
 
In the link the Director General stated he believes they possess nukes. Most US sources estimate Israel has at least 40 nukes. Now there's a difference between many sources stating that israel has nukes and them saying Iran has information but does not know if they can build them. I know you can tell the difference between the two

Never said Iran has nukes. Never asked if Iran has nukes. Only questioned your willingness to believe, without confirmation, that Israel has nukes, contrasted with your agnosticism on believing that Iran is working on nukes, when many sources -- including some of the same ones -- say they are.
 
Never said Iran has nukes. Never asked if Iran has nukes. Only questioned your willingness to believe, without confirmation, that Israel has nukes, contrasted with your agnosticism on believing that Iran is working on nukes, when many sources -- including some of the same ones -- say they are.

The sources you've quoted stated they had the information did not say that they were actively working, had the capability or had the delivery systems. There's a difference between possession and not being sure if they are actively building.

I wonder what the IAEA missed the previous years they stated Iran was developing peaceful nuclear power hmm
 
The sources you've quoted stated they had the information did not say that they were actively working, had the capability or had the delivery systems. There's a difference between possession and not being sure if they are actively building.

I wonder what the IAEA missed the previous years they stated Iran was developing peaceful nuclear power hmm

Some more details, including a further explanation of why this is such a big scoop:

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb | World news | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The information in the document that is either new, more detailed or represents a more forthright conclusion than found in published IAEA reports includes:

_ The IAEA's assessment that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

_ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead — a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

_ An assessment that Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

In another key finding, an excerpt notes: "The agency ... assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device (an atomic bomb) based on HEU (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."

ElBaradei said in 2007 there was no "concrete evidence" that Iran was engaged in atomic weapons work — a source of friction with the United States, which has sought a hard-line stance on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Responding to the AP report, the agency did not deny the existence of a confidential record of its knowledge and assessment of Iran's alleged attempts to make nuclear weapons. But an agency statement said the IAEA "has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon program in Iran."

This seems manifestly false or misleading.

It cited ElBaradei as telling the agency's 35-nation governing board last week that "continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless."

The AP saw two versions of the U.N. document — one running 67 pages that was described as being between six months and a year old, and the most recent one with more than 80 pages and growing because of constant updates. Both were tagged "confidential."

A senior international official identified the document as one described by the U.S. and other IAEA member nations as a "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA has called reports of a "secret annex" misinformation.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment, the key to making both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade uranium. It is blocking IAEA attempts to probe allegations based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence that it worked on a nuclear weapons program.

Presented with excerpts from the earlier paper, the senior international official said some of the wording and conclusions were outdated because they had been updated as recently as several weeks ago by IAEA experts probing Iran for signs it was — or is — hiding work on developing nuclear arms.

At the same time, he confirmed the accuracy of the excerpts, including Khamenei's comments, as well as the IAEA assessment that Iran already had the expertise to make a nuclear bomb and was well-positioned to develop ways of equipping missiles with atomic warheads.

The agency said earlier this year that Iran had produced more than 1,000 kilograms — 2,200 pounds — of low-enriched, or fuel-grade, uranium. That is more than enough to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one weapon, should Iran choose to do so, and its enrichment capacities have expanded since then.

The document concludes that while Iran is not yet able to equip its Shahab-3 medium-range missile with nuclear warheads, "it is likely that Iran will overcome problems," noting that "from the evidence presented to the agency, it is possible to suggest that ... Iran has conducted R&D (research and development) into producing a prototype system."

The document also says Iran already could trigger a nuclear blast through "methods of unconventional delivery" such as in a container on a cargo ship or carried on the trailer of a truck.

But in an indication that ElBaradei also is concerned, he departed from the cautious language characterizing his Iran reports last week.

He told a closed meeting of the IAEA board that if the intelligence on Iran's alleged weapons program experiments is genuine, "there is a high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have taken place — but I should underline 'if' three times."

The U.S., Israel, France and other nations critical of Iran's nuclear activities have for months said that ElBaradei was withholding a "secret annex" on Iran in the IAEA's electronic archives that they say goes far beyond the information and conclusions published by ElBaradei in his regular reports on Iran.

Pretty serious stuff.
 
I think RinNYC just ended any real debate on whether missle defense is worthwhile. The rest is debating the details.
 
I think RinNYC just ended any real debate on whether missle defense is worthwhile. The rest is debating the details.

Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

Furthermore, why won't MAD work?
 
Last edited:
Do we have any verifiable proof that Iran has actual nukes? Also do we have proof that their missiles are capable of reaching the eastern seaboard?

Well, by all means lets wait until they do. How much harder do they have to try before we stop pretending that they aren't kidding?

Besides this....how much is Europe in for?
 
Last edited:
The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?
 
Last edited:
It's real questionable if the target was ever Iran.

First of all, Iran's missile is not reliable nor accurate. Not exactly the type of delivery system you'd want to use if you were a state.

Second, the actual amount of damage that a few unreliable missiles could do pales against the conventional firepower that Israel could unleash much less us.

Third, despite the rantings of lunatics that Iran is run by crazy people, the recent election shows that the Mullahs are anything but crazy, but cold, calculating logical rulers. Why MAD doesn't apply has not been answered by anyone here.

Fourth, Iran will not use a missile when it has much cheaper, much more reliable and infinitely harder to stop means of delivery. The fact that we have not gotten nuked by someone shipping a nuke in a lead lined container ship is a damn good reason to believe in God.

Fifth, Russia offered to joint share a key radar station that would have been far superior to anything we had in Eastern Europe and guess who turned them down? Really, the defense is geared against Iran and not Russia, but we don't want to share a defense system with Russia? Huh.

Sixth, we all know that weapons programs get better as time goes on and as Congress pours untold billions into them. While it is in no shape to stop Russia (or even Iran really) at the current moment, it is a logical conclusion based on historical data to think that the system will eventually reach a point where it could potentially stop a Russian first or 2nd strike thereby making nukes actual, usable weapons for a change. Couple this with nuclear reductions and it's a distinct possibility. Same goes for the Chinese. And you'd be an absolute fool to think they don't know this.

If we were actually into protecting America, we'd be installing extremely powerful radiation detectors all over our borders and ports and actually inspecting cargo containers. Why bother spending billions on a long range missile that may not even work when you can spend a few thousand to ship a lead lined container to America?

That and it will reinforce anti-American alliances.
THE STAR WARS FLOP | Foreign Affairs
 
The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?

ask the czechs
 
Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

Furthermore, why won't MAD work?

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.

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.

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.
 
Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

Furthermore, why won't MAD work?
The word fanatics should answer most of your questions.
 
completely copacetic

besides, prague already replied
 
The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?

It's real questionable if the target was ever Iran.

First of all, Iran's missile is not reliable nor accurate. Not exactly the type of delivery system you'd want to use if you were a state.

Second, the actual amount of damage that a few unreliable missiles could do pales against the conventional firepower that Israel could unleash much less us.

Third, despite the rantings of lunatics that Iran is run by crazy people, the recent election shows that the Mullahs are anything but crazy, but cold, calculating logical rulers. Why MAD doesn't apply has not been answered by anyone here.

Fourth, Iran will not use a missile when it has much cheaper, much more reliable and infinitely harder to stop means of delivery. The fact that we have not gotten nuked by someone shipping a nuke in a lead lined container ship is a damn good reason to believe in God.

Fifth, Russia offered to joint share a key radar station that would have been far superior to anything we had in Eastern Europe and guess who turned them down? Really, the defense is geared against Iran and not Russia, but we don't want to share a defense system with Russia? Huh.

Sixth, we all know that weapons programs get better as time goes on and as Congress pours untold billions into them. While it is in no shape to stop Russia (or even Iran really) at the current moment, it is a logical conclusion based on historical data to think that the system will eventually reach a point where it could potentially stop a Russian first or 2nd strike thereby making nukes actual, usable weapons for a change. Couple this with nuclear reductions and it's a distinct possibility. Same goes for the Chinese. And you'd be an absolute fool to think they don't know this.

If we were actually into protecting America, we'd be installing extremely powerful radiation detectors all over our borders and ports and actually inspecting cargo containers. Why bother spending billions on a long range missile that may not even work when you can spend a few thousand to ship a lead lined container to America?

That and it will reinforce anti-American alliances.
THE STAR WARS FLOP | Foreign Affairs

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.

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.

Finally, I've always understood the missile defense system as never being anything remotely threatening to the Russians, nor it being intended as such.

If I'm wrong on any of these, I'm open to correction.
 
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.

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?

RightinNYC said:
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.

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.

RightinNYC said:
Finally, I've always understood the missile defense system as never being anything remotely threatening to the Russians, nor it being intended as such.

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom