Bonehead appeasement by Obama on ballistic missile defense

[gunsandrockets]

Continuing the Obama policy of making nice with American foes and abusing American allies, the Obama administration makes a surprise announcement about scaling back ballistic missile defense, a decision seemingly made without consultation of Poland or of the Czech republic.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... f.asp#more

There are many things to criticize about the surprise move of the Obama administration to cancel the ICBM interceptors scheduled for deployment to Poland and the associated radar facility in the Czech republic. But one thing I find particularly stunning is how this new policy was announced on the anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. I'm sure the symbolism isn't lost on the Poles, considering this move by Obama is considered a gift to Putin.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/faq.html#europe

 

[Archer17]

Military-related issues like this one was one of the major reasons I didn't vote for Obama so I'm not really surprised by this "change." His rationale for scrapping the deployment doesn't really make sense and, based on the problems North Korea has had with it's ballistic missile program, he can use a similiar excuse for scapping the Alaska/California ABMs. Stay tuned...

I strongly suspect kissing up to Russia, who's irrational opposition to the interceptors had no basis in reality to begin with, was the prime motivator here. We'll see how Russia repays this "gift" with regard to their diplomatic and material support of Iran. Don't hold your breath.

 

[MannyPim]

Military-related issues like this one was one of the major reasons I didn't vote for Obama so I'm not really surprised by this "change." His rationale for scrapping the deployment doesn't really make sense and, based on the problems North Korea has had with it's ballistic missile program, he can use a similiar excuse for scapping the Alaska/California ABMs. Stay tuned...

I strongly suspect kissing up to Russia, who's irrational opposition to the interceptors had no basis in reality to begin with, was the prime motivator here. We'll see how Russia repays this "gift" with regard to their diplomatic and material support of Iran. Don't hold your breath.

I have already come across a story that Roger Immelt the CEO of GE is scheduled to hold talks with the Russians on some new business opportunities... this stinks to high heaven like quid pro quo.... Immelt and Obama are pals.... and GE's "News" organizations have been shilling shamelessly for Obama ever since he came on the public stage as a candidate.... at least

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Just throwing in some pertinent information here:

The Czech and Polish Parliaments have yet to approve the missile defense shield and radar plan anyway. Nor were they likely to.

Even the proponents of the MD shield are skeptical that it would work.

Russia, is not our foe. Are we not going to be relying on the Russians to get to LEO for 5 years in the interim between the retirement of the Space Shuttles and the launch of our next generation spacecraft?

The shield was probably intended in the first place as a preemptive bargaining chip to get the Russians to cooperate with us on the Iran nuke issue.

It would benefit Russia and America tremendously to relax our strained relations, especially for the promotion of trade between the two giants.

And last but not least, how would we feel if the Russians were setting up short and mid-range interceptor missile shields in Cuba or Haiti?

 

[Archer17]

Just throwing in some pertinent information here:

The Czech and Polish Parliaments have yet to approve the missile defense shield and radar plan anyway. Nor were they likely to.

I beg to differ. I know there were folks in both countries opposed to the deployment but there were also those that supported it, especially in Poland where many consider an opportunity not to tweak the Russian Bear's nose an opportunity wasted.

Even the proponents of the MD shield are skeptical that it would work.

I don't know how anyone could support something they feel wouldn't work Zen. I know someone involved with missile defense who told me it would work so this skepticism you mention certainly isn't unanimous.

Russia, is not our foe. Are we not going to be relying on the Russians to get to LEO for 5 years in the interim between the retirement of the Space Shuttles and the launch of our next generation spacecraft?

The interceptors weren't envisioned with Russia in mind. Regarding Moscow being our "foe" I think they are. Maybe not in the context of the Cold War but certainly in the realm of global politics. A "friend" doesn't pay an ex-Soviet client state near Afghanistan off to close a US military base, or sell arms and give diplomatic support to Iran, or advocate respect for their own "exclusive sphere of influence" and then turn around and sell arms to Venezuela.

The shield was probably intended in the first place as a preemptive bargaining chip to get the Russians to cooperate with us on the Iran nuke issue.

That could very well be. We'll see shortly but my hunch is the US will be the one that blinks over the Iranian issue making any quid pro quo here moot. I hope I'm wrong and if I am then I'll publicly go on record here as saying this was a pretty shrewd maneuver by this administration.

It would benefit Russia and America tremendously to relax our strained relations, especially for the promotion of trade between the two giants.

Yes it would.

And last but not least, how would we feel if the Russians were setting up short and mid-range interceptor missile shields in Cuba or Haiti?

For your corollary to be reciprocal you'd need a rogue state like Iran in this hemisphere Zen. You'll also have explain why the US would get all hysterical over a couple of ABM batteries like Russia did. Anyone who knows anything about the capabilities of the US or Russia in the realm of ballistic missile throw-weight knows such a deployment in Poland or Cuba wouldn't significantly impact either country's missile deterrent.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Whether 'some' people in the Czech Republic or in Poland supported it or not is not what I said, so you can differ all you want to on the fact that neither of the Parliaments of both countries have approved the idea. That is a fact. Google it yourself.

I'm well aware that the missile defense system in question was OSTENSIBLY meant to protect against Iranian attack. It seems obvious that there is a foreign policy ulterior motive to me, namely to get the Russians to bargain with us on Iran's nuke program.

What I'm not at all clear on is why Iran would attack Eastern Europe anyway, why do we think they would? How would that endear them to the Russians? If they attack anybody, it will probably be Israel. And an attack on Israel would be even more rash and foolish.

Why not put the missile shields in Turkey or Ukraine. They could intercept Iranian missiles just as easily from those two countries. Why Poland and the Czech Republic? Seems it comes back to Russia.

 

[vladdrac]

A Russian Americans perception of The Russian Peoples attitude towards the shelving of the EuroAmerican Missile Defense Program in Poland and Yougoslavia. A number of years ago rumblings came out of Washington via Media Outlets, that The US was prepaired for a war on two fronts. I wonder who would be Americas Enemies in such a "war on two fronts"???. Perhaps it is EuroAmericas hope not to push Russia into the Arms of China. As long as you don't try to break us down into Bannana Republics like The Operators of the former President Bush. The chief Operator, Karl Rove now works for Murdoch whose friends in Britain send us the well known Berzoftchina. We'll sell you anything you need for a fair price. You just can't own and operate us.

 

[jim48]

Military-related issues like this one was one of the major reasons I didn't vote for Obama so I'm not really surprised by this "change." His rationale for scrapping the deployment doesn't really make sense and, based on the problems North Korea has had with it's ballistic missile program, he can use a similiar excuse for scapping the Alaska/California ABMs. Stay tuned...

I strongly suspect kissing up to Russia, who's irrational opposition to the interceptors had no basis in reality to begin with, was the prime motivator here. We'll see how Russia repays this "gift" with regard to their diplomatic and material support of Iran. Don't hold your breath.

I agree. He's an appeaser. I read in the paper today where Obama wants to rely on the Navy's Aegis-equipped ships for missile defense so yeah, he just might scrap the Alaska/California system. I hope we're wrong, Arch! :?

 

[gunsandrockets]

What I'm not at all clear on is why Iran would attack Eastern Europe anyway, why do we think they would? How would that endear them to the Russians? If they attack anybody, it will probably be Israel. And an attack on Israel would be even more rash and foolish.

Why not put the missile shields in Turkey or Ukraine. They could intercept Iranian missiles just as easily from those two countries. Why Poland and the Czech Republic? Seems it comes back to Russia.

If you follow the second link from my leading post in this thread, the information from the Missile Defense Agency already answers most of your doubts.

There are two key catastrophes flowing from Obama's folly:

1)The main point of basing mid-course intercepters in Poland was for protection of the U.S. from an Iranian ICBM attack. Now the chance of intercepting an attack from Iran against the U.S. Eastern seaboard will be slender to none. If anyone reading this lives in New York city, I recommend moving out before 2013.

2)Russia is likely to see this action as a sign that Obama is weak and that Russia has a green light to bully the Ukraine and Georgia, and maybe even bully NATO nations such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland.

 

[Archer17]

Whether 'some' people in the Czech Republic or in Poland supported it or not is not what I said, so you can differ all you want to on the fact that neither of the Parliaments of both countries have approved the idea. That is a fact. Google it yourself.

I know the missile defense proposal wasn't ratified at the time of its scrapping but that's not what I was disputing. I disagree with your contention that it wouldn't have been ratified and if you're privy to some information (that's not just your opinion) firmly establishing that the deal would've been shot down by either of those 2 governments I'd like to see it.

I'm well aware that the missile defense system in question was OSTENSIBLY meant to protect against Iranian attack. It seems obvious that there is a foreign policy ulterior motive to me, namely to get the Russians to bargain with us on Iran's nuke program.

There's a powwow on Oct. 1 between the major powers & Iran so we'll see how that plays out.

What I'm not at all clear on is why Iran would attack Eastern Europe anyway, why do we think they would? How would that endear them to the Russians? If they attack anybody, it will probably be Israel. And an attack on Israel would be even more rash and foolish.

IMO it's not prudent to factor in the rationality-factor of potential adversaries when it comes to defense issues.

Why not put the missile shields in Turkey or Ukraine. They could intercept Iranian missiles just as easily from those two countries. Why Poland and the Czech Republic? Seems it comes back to Russia.

The choice of Poland for the ABMs was addressed in the MDA link gunsandrockets posted.

The 'Polish shield' was meant for future Iranian intermediate-range missiles targeting upper and Western Europe and as a component for an even further down-the-road counter to Iranian ICBMs directed our way which the previous poster's link details, not as an answer to Iran's current Shahab-3 which could only reach southern Europe at best. I'm uncomfortable that this administration, in scrapping the deployment, stated the obvious as though it was some kind of conclusion they came to but left out some things like the secondary role these interceptors would have played and downplayed Iranian missile research. Ditto with the sea-based SN-3 "alternative" which isn't new and was already factored in to handle missiles like the Shahab way before Obama entered office.

 

[Archer17]

A Russian Americans perception of The Russian Peoples attitude towards the shelving of the EuroAmerican Missile Defense Program in Poland and Yougoslavia. A number of years ago rumblings came out of Washington via Media Outlets, that The US was prepaired for a war on two fronts. I wonder who would be Americas Enemies in such a "war on two fronts"???. Perhaps it is EuroAmericas hope not to push Russia into the Arms of China. As long as you don't try to break us down into Bannana Republics like The Operators of the former President Bush. The chief Operator, Karl Rove now works for Murdoch whose friends in Britain send us the well known Berzoftchina. We'll sell you anything you need for a fair price. You just can't own and operate us.

This post made me cross-eyed but I think I understood it. Just food for thought vlad - if I was Russia I'd worry more about that awakening Dragon on my southern border than the USA. Russia's best days are behind her and China is just starting to stretch it's legs.

 

[gunsandrockets]

if I was Russia I'd worry more about that awakening Dragon on your southern border than the USA.

There is a perverse logic to the Russian support of the 'Islamic Republic' of Iran. True enough Iran is under the control of brutal zealots and madmen who will soon have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at almost anyplace in the world. But if Iran damages or destroys itself in it's conflict with the West, it benefits Russia.

Russia's primary income is from the export of oil and natural gas. Putin and his henchmen's political fortunes have risen with the tide of money brought in from Russian energy exports (as well as enriching themselves). But that tide is a world tide. When the world market for oil collapses Russia makes less money, and when the world oil market is shocked by crisis or danger, oil prices spike upward and Russia makes much much more money.

So it is in Russia's economic interest to see Iran in conflict, since Iran is an important oil exporter and Iran stirs up trouble with neighboring oil exporting nations. If Iran stirs up trouble, oil prices go up and Russia makes more money.

 

[dragon04]

Despite all the hyperbolic partisanism and lynch mob mentality, while the hard Right represented by guys like Bill Cristol and Fred Barnes, again, this is one of the few things that the Obama Administration has actually gotten right.

The Bush plan was expensive, inflexible and provocative. There is NO ONE that can tell me that it was necessary to park ABM sites on the Russian frontier in the name of stopping Pakistan or Iran from dumping missiles on Europe.

It's just that kind of short and narrow-sighted foreign policy that will haunt the Bush Administration into history. I believe that in his heart of hearts, then President Bush felt that forward deployment was a good idea. I also believe that it was a message to Russia and that's where the program became a political failure.

The current Administration has NOT "scrapped" Missile Defense as the Rabid Right suggests. A more flexible, cost-effective program that is under deployment will be used that also carries the benefit of being less politically provocative.

For the intelligent, unbiased person, it is apparent that the unwieldy and expensive system designed to intercept ICBM's does not fit into a missile defense scheme that is intended to blunt a potential Iranian thread considering that their proliferation is in the arena of short and medium-range missiles to which ICBM interceptors are relatively useless.

Perhaps the most laughable argument for the abandonment of radar and ICBM Interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic is that this somehow compromises their defensive security. Tanks, planes and troops would overrun Poland and the Czech Republic, not ICBM's.

But Polly wants a cracker, and the parrots and drones will quote the Weekly Standard chapter and verse much like they would recite Bible Passages in Church on Sunday as Pastor leads them in Prayer.

We WILL deploy a missile defense system in phases over the next 10 years. So really, if the drooling Obama Bashers were SMART and not overcome by obsessive compulsive disorder, they would embrace a solution that both provides missile defense AND relieves political tensions in Eastern Europe.

 

[Boots09]

dragon04;

Well said...agree 100%

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Okay, I read through the first link (Blog of the Standard, and highly opinionated), and I scanned through the second link from the MDA.(An agency that has a vested self-interest in promoting missile defense systems.)

So, this system, now or in its later phases, could intercept ICBMs launched from Iran. Great. I have no problem with that, and I understand the concept of redundant defense. Poland and Czech would be our 'first line'. We have a similar MD shield already in place in California and Alaska. (Obviously, those shields could not protect Europe.) If we're so worried about an attack on the Atlantic Seaboard of the US, how come we don't have similar MD shields deployed in say Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Georgia?

The Standard Blog goes on to say that we have "assured the Russians that our missile shield in no way weakens their missile deterrent'. Now, explain to me how a shield that can shoot down ICBMs does not weaken the Russians' missile deterrent? This sounds kind of like SDI 'Star Wars' all over again. What is the point of MAD if we have to spend money and resources on MD?

What if the enemy launches 100s of decoys in addition to say, 10 nuke tipped mid-range or IC ballistic missiles? And to my knowledge, one Polaris nuclear submarine armed with 40 (IIRC) polaris nuclear missiles could annihilate Iran from the Persian Gulf in a matter of minutes.

 

[gunsandrockets]

The Bush plan was expensive, inflexible and provocative. There is NO ONE that can tell me that it was necessary to park ABM sites on the Russian frontier in the name of stopping Pakistan or Iran from dumping missiles on Europe.

Sigh. :roll: Talking points noted. Try again after reading some information contained in this thread, in particular the first post and links. There is more than enough information already posted or linked to refute everything you claimed. If you refuse to pay attention to that information I see no point in repeating it all just for the benefit of a direct reply to you.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Okay, I read through the first link (Blog of the Standard, and highly opinionated), and I scanned through the second link from the MDA.(An agency that has a vested self-interest in promoting missile defense systems.)

So, this system, now or in its later phases, could intercept ICBMs launched from Iran. Great. I have no problem with that, and I understand the concept of redundant defense. Poland and Czech would be our 'first line'. We have a similar MD shield already in place in California and Alaska. (Obviously, those shields could not protect Europe.)

I tip my hat. In the heat of partisan debate not many people are really willing to listen, but you have shown that you are willing. In that spirit your questions deserve respectable answers.

If we're so worried about an attack on the Atlantic Seaboard of the US, how come we don't have similar MD shields deployed in say Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Georgia?

It's was a question of time and money, both of which are limited. The first mid-course interceptors deployed were in Alaska because the threat level was higher from North Korea than from Iran. The next step is to place interceptors in Poland, which could perform double duty to protect most of Europe as well. It remains to be seen whether Obama will build a substitute for the Polish installation, in Maine, New Hampshire or etc. The betting money right now is NO.

(If you want to, much helpful information can be found at the Missile Defense Agency website, but I will try to give you short and on-point answers anyway.)

Now, explain to me how a shield that can shoot down ICBMs does not weaken the Russians' missile deterrent? This sounds kind of like SDI 'Star Wars' all over again. What is the point of MAD if we have to spend money and resources on MD?

Only 10 interceptors were to be based in Poland, obviously those interceptors are no threat to the Russian long range nuclear weapon force which number in the hundreds of ICBMs. The Polish based interceptors aren't even in the right location to interfere with Russian ICBMs fired at America, as Russian ICBMs would take a northward trajectory flying very high over the North polar region on the way to America while Poland is to the West of Russia.

And to my knowledge, one Polaris nuclear submarine armed with 40 (IIRC) polaris nuclear missiles could annihilate Iran from the Persian Gulf in a matter of minutes.

The ability to destroy Iran is not in question, but a policy of deterrence alone requires cooperation from the other side, a doubtful prospect when dealing with the madmen of Iran. Purely defensive measures such as missile defenses give more options (and a better one) than massive retaliation.

What if the enemy launches 100s of decoys in addition to say, 10 nuke tipped mid-range or IC ballistic missiles?

The defenses being deployed by the U.S. are not intended to, or able, to stop a massive attack such as during an all out nuclear war with Russia. The missile defense system is only intended to stop a small scale attack. Primarily we are talking about North Korea and Iran. They have nuclear and ballistic missile programs. North Korea has twice detonated nuclear bombs with limited success. Iran has developed long range missile technology to the point of sending a small satellite into Earth orbit. It is only a matter of time before both nations will have a tiny force of ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

Another factor which no one has publicly mentioned yet that I am aware of, is the danger of a ballistic missile attack with a conventional warhead. This is not an inconsiderable danger, and I can imagine scenarios where North Korea, Iran or even China might fire ICBMs armed with conventional warheads at the U.S. during a future conflict.

It is a war tactic of the weak to use missiles when the enemy has superior air-power, that is history which goes all the way back to WWII and German V-2 rockets. For example during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's, Iran retaliated against Iraqi bombing raids by firing ballistic missiles. And during the first Gulf War in 1990, Iraq fired SCUD missiles against Israel. The U.S. should not be defenseless against such a future possibility.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Who was footing the bill for the ten interceptor stations in Poland and Czech? The US or the EU? If it's the US, then I say let the Europeans fund the ENTIRE cost of putting the shields in Europe. That will free-up our taxpayer money to build some shields in Bangor, Maine, Hackensack, N.J., and Myrtle Beach, S.C.

And what if the Persian Pinheads launched a missile at Warsaw, Berlin, London, New York, or any other target. They have to know that the retaliation would be devastation for their homeland.

I understand the idea of limited war that we are talking about here. (And I'm well aware of Hitler's desperate last-days attempts with the V-2.) The allies kept knocking out Hitler's V-2 launch pads until the Germans ingeniously put the rockets into solid rock mountains on rails, and would then move them to indented launch pads carved from solid rock on the edge of the mountain, but by then the Germans had had enough and surrendered.

Dragon mentioned that it's not like we're completely abandoning MD in the first place, but that we're just taking a different approach and dispensing with the plans for Czech and Poland because the Russians were so offended by the idea. I also saw a similar analysis, both Pro and Con, on the PBS News Hour yesterday, which also implied that we are not abandoning MD altogether as well, as even the guy against removing the MD from Czech and Poland also attested.

 

[vladdrac]

Dragon said it much better than I did. Archer...in this time of nuclear weapons Russia has nothing to fear from Chinas military. Like everybody else Russia has much to fear from Chinas economic power...

 

[Archer17]

This is probably the first time you posted something I disagree with dragon, but I suppose it was inevitable.

Despite all the hyperbolic partisanism and lynch mob mentality, while the hard Right represented by guys like Bill Cristol and Fred Barnes, again, this is one of the few things that the Obama Administration has actually gotten right.

One doesn't have to be a member of the "rabid right" to disagree with Obama's decision. I'm the proof.

The Bush plan was expensive, inflexible and provocative. There is NO ONE that can tell me that it was necessary to park ABM sites on the Russian frontier in the name of stopping Pakistan or Iran from dumping missiles on Europe.

I'm not going to tell you the plan was inexpensive or mobile but we don't have a mobile long-range missile interceptor that could potentially protect Europe (or ourselves) that I'm aware of. As to the necessity of missile-interceptors, with me it comes down to whether a potential adversary has or will have them and is crazy enough to use them. Was it "provocative?" Well the Russians sure acted like it was but if you examine the specifics of the deployment you'd see that a handful or so of ABMs wouldn't be much of a threat to the Russian ballistic missile force. But, let's not stop there. If deploying a small number of defensive missiles in Poland, which is a NATO member BTW, is wrong because Russia doesn't like it, where do we stop back-peddling? I would assume supplying Poland or other eastern European NATO allies with offensive weaponry like tanks and planes would be even more "provocative." Sorry, but the small number of ABMs proposed for Poland being "provocative" doesn't wash with me.

It's just that kind of short and narrow-sighted foreign policy that will haunt the Bush Administration into history. I believe that in his heart of hearts, then President Bush felt that forward deployment was a good idea. I also believe that it was a message to Russia and that's where the program became a political failure.

This deployment wasn't foreign policy, it was defensive military strategy. I don't think it was initially meant as a message to Russia, Moscow changed that by acting hysterical over a few interceptors and our message was "you don't have veto power over what we do in a NATO country." Maybe you have a problem with that kind of message. (shrugs). I don't.

The current Administration has NOT "scrapped" Missile Defense as the Rabid Right suggests. A more flexible, cost-effective program that is under deployment will be used that also carries the benefit of being less politically provocative.

You mean the sea-based SN-3s? They were already part of the defense strategy of this country and have been for quite some time. I'd actually agree with you (outside the "provocative" argument) if it can be demonstrated that the next generation SN-3 could blow longer range missiles launched from the Middle East out of the sky from the Med, Persian Gulf, or elsewhere.

For the intelligent, unbiased person, it is apparent that the unwieldy and expensive system designed to intercept ICBMs does not fit into a missile defense scheme that is intended to blunt a potential Iranian thread considering that their proliferation is in the arena of short and medium-range missiles to which ICBM interceptors are relatively useless.

Sorry, but I'm not buying into your rather narrow criteria for intelligence quotient here dragon and to interject such a thing into this discussion is provocative. Whether one supported the proposed deployment or not gunsandrockets and I have already touched on what the Polish interceptors were really meant for and I've said more than once that Obama's "alternative" was no "alternative" at all, it has been operational doctrine for years. Repeating the spin coming from this administration overlooks the realities of the situation - Iran hasn't stopped working on their missile program and recently launched their own satellite. Now, that in itself doesn't mean they have an ICBM capability now, but if you don't see the writing on the wall here then you're just not looking. Telling me that Iran currently has a lot - "proliferation" was the word you used - of short and medium range missiles doesn't really mean anything in and of itself unless this is supposed to somehow turn back the clock on their future long-range missile "proliferation." Frankly I can't see how the former has anything to do with the latter.

Perhaps the most laughable argument for the abandonment of radar and ICBM Interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic is that this somehow compromises their defensive security. Tanks, planes and troops would overrun Poland and the Czech Republic, not ICBMs.

What's really laughable here is you equating missile defense with a rogue state in mind with a scenario that has that rogue state launching a land invasion of Europe.

But Polly wants a cracker, and the parrots and drones will quote the Weekly Standard chapter and verse much like they would recite Bible Passages in Church on Sunday as Pastor leads them in Prayer

Like rhetoric much? You won't see me making bird noises or relying on links to make my points.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Interesting article linked

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27327.html

 

[gunsandrockets]

Who was footing the bill for the ten interceptor stations in Poland and Czech? The US or the EU? If it's the US, then I say let the Europeans fund the ENTIRE cost of putting the shields in Europe. That will free-up our taxpayer money to build some shields in Bangor, Maine, Hackensack, N.J., and Myrtle Beach, S.C

As I've already stated, there is no plan for new bases in the U.S. for mid-course interceptors. In fact the most recent Obama defense budget cancelled the plan of the previous administration to increase the number of interceptors currently operational in Alaska and California.

And what if the Persian Pinheads launched a missile at Warsaw, Berlin, London, New York, or any other target. They have to know that the retaliation would be devastation for their homeland.

As I've already pointed out, that knowledge can not be counted on to stop them from doing so. Deterrence is a shaky strategy to rely on when dealing with murderous religious fanatics. Heck, deterrence barely worked during the Cold War, and all out nuclear war came close to breaking out on two occasions (maybe even more).

Dragon mentioned that it's not like we're completely abandoning MD in the first place, but that we're just taking a different approach and dispensing with the plans for Czech and Poland because the Russians were so offended by the idea. I also saw a similar analysis, both Pro and Con, on the PBS News Hour yesterday, which also implied that we are not abandoning MD altogether as well, as even the guy against removing the MD from Czech and Poland also attested.

We may not be abandoning missile defense of Europe, but as I've stated before Obama is abandoning defense of America from an Iranian ICBM attack. The "alternatives" that Obama has suggested have no value in protecting the U.S. from an Iranian ICBM attack. In addition to the military implications of Obama plan, as I've already said the plan is a disaster in terms of relations with Russia.

The most disturbing implication of the Obama plan, is it likely means Obama in the longer term plans to completely abandon missile defense of the United States, re-enact the ABM treaty with Russia, and all of that in the reckless pursuit of a hare-brained scheme to ban all fissile material in the world.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I wasn't talking about mid-range missile defense shields an the Atlantic Seaboard, I was talking about ICBM defense shields. Let Europe pay for her own defense, it's way past time that they do so. We've got enough financial problems of our own, and Germany, Britain, and France combined with all the rest of Europe are perfectly able to provide for their own defense.

I'm sick of in effect giving their economies an implicit one-up on America because they don't have to foot the always expensive cost of military expenditure; while we have millions of Americans out of work and our roads and bridges are falling apart as well as other infrastructure that needs attending to, just damn sick of it!

 

[vladdrac]

Yes! And after we have put everything about the US Ship of State in good order, we don't have to invade anybody to keep the economy going. All we have to do is to go GENUINE HIGH TECH. I mean able to mine and colonize The Moon, which is the gateway to exploitation of The Solar System. IF were clever WE can creat working "Permenant Growth". If we agravate enough people on the planet "nuclear terrorism" is certain. The old way of maintaining our economic superiority is very agravating to the neighbors. Be happy with you're ballistic missile subs and solid fuel land based. If we've nuked each other, none of this will happen. The New Deal this time aught to include a Federal Aerospace Transportation Agency. Capitalists get to mine the moon. The People get the transport fee's

 

[MannyPim]

One observation to make here is that Obama and the Democrats droned on and on about how the US had a bad image around the world and that we were seen as arrogant bullies....

With moves like this, it is undeniable that Obama has changed the way the US is seen by the rest of the World. Before it was our ENEMIES that had a bad image of us, now Obama has manged to give the US a bad image among our staunchest allies.... they now see is as untrustworthy, unreliable, and opportunistic.... And whereas before, our enemies thought we were arrogant bullies, they now see us as week, obsequious push overs....