CNN: US Scraps Missile Defense Shield Plans

[Oldskool]

Saw this coming as soon as Obama was elected.

Nice touch announcing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, and no, I don't believe in coincidences.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Saw this coming as soon as Obama was elected.

Nice touch announcing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, and no, I don't believe in coincidences.

So are you saying that Obama is opening the door intentionally for the Russians to invade Poland?

[Oldskool]

So are you saying that Obama is opening the door intentionally for the Russians to invade Poland?

**crazy speak** YES! That is exactly what im saying! **/crazy speak**

In normal human logic, what he did was "throw them a bone" on a day of nationalistic and military pride.

[AsburySkinsFan]

**crazy speak** YES! That is exactly what im saying! **/crazy speak**

In normal human logic, what he did was "throw them a bone" on a day of nationalistic and military pride.

Well you weren't clear with your implied implications, the question I have is are you privy to what the US might have received from Russia? The Shield was a bargaining chip just like the missiles in Eastern Europe were for the Reagan administration.

[Oldskool]

Well you weren't clear with your implied implications, the question I have is are you privy to what the US might have received from Russia? The Shield was a bargaining chip just like the missiles in Eastern Europe were for the Reagan administration.

All I can do is speculate. This would have to do with either arms to Venezuela, compliment with UN resolution against Iran, or something else that the Russians have an involvement with directly or indirectly that is contrary to American interests worldwide.

The timing of the announcement was not coincidental by any means.

[AsburySkinsFan]

All I can do is speculate. This would have to do with either arms to Venezuela, compliment with UN resolution against Iran, or something else that the Russians have an involvement with directly or indirectly that is contrary to American interests worldwide.

The timing of the announcement was not coincidental by any means.

Sure it wouldn't, but here's the thing; if Obama was going to cut the program anyways, then why not give the Russians a day in order to get some greater concessions on much larger issues like Iran?

[Johnny Punani]

The basis for this defense system was the protection of the US not Europe. So, I don't understand what the basis was for the coddling europe comment. Also, I seriously doubt anyone with a brain would hate the US for protecting them from a possible WMD attack.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The basis for this defense system was the protection of the US not Europe. So, I don't understand what the basis was for the coddling europe comment. Also, I seriously doubt anyone with a brain would hate the US for protecting them from a possible WMD attack.

It was said before in this thread that the reason for the "shield" was to get the missiles in their boost phase but the problem is that the "shield" was too far away to accomplish this task, what's more is that the vast majority of Russian nukes are on mobile platforms which means that they can simply be redeployed to other areas and fired in other directions to avoid the "shield". So basically the "shield" was not only ineffective in its proposed task, but also a virtual Maginot Line.

BTW, for those who don't know what the Maginot Line was and why it is the classic example of miscalculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

So what we end up with is giving up a "shield" that is not only ineffective but cost prohibitive as well and something that Obama was already going to cut, to get something from the Russians in return.

[Johnny Punani]

It was said before in this thread that the reason for the "shield" was to get the missiles in their boost phase but the problem is that the "shield" was too far away to accomplish this task, what's more is that the vast majority of Russian nukes are on mobile platforms which means that they can simply be redeployed to other areas and fired in other directions to avoid the "shield". So basically the "shield" was not only ineffective in its proposed task, but also a virtual Maginot Line.

BTW, for those who don't know what the Maginot Line was and why it is the classic example of miscalculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

So what we end up with is giving up a "shield" that is not only ineffective but cost prohibitive as well and something that Obama was already going to cut, to get something from the Russians in return.

You might have a point if you understood the defense system wasn't being developed as a counter to Russia's ICBM capabilities.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You might have a point if you understood the defense system wasn't being developed as a counter to Russia's ICBM capabilities.

My point becomes even more evident when it is understood that the current threat assessment with Iran is NOT intercontinental ballistics but short-ranged missiles which the "shield" is useless against. All of which was addressed in Sec Def Gate's opinion on the "shield". Funny thing about this all is that Obama even said today that if anyone thinks that they are abandoning missile defense then they are mistaken. From their comments I can only imagine that they are developing plans for missile defense that actually handle the Iranian threat, rather than building a missile defense "shield" based on a Cold War mentality and strategy and putting it on Russia's front step as a political tool.

[Oldskool]

Sure it wouldn't, but here's the thing; if Obama was going to cut the program anyways, then why not give the Russians a day in order to get some greater concessions on much larger issues like Iran?

I don't believe it's that simple but I'm sure as hell not going to convince you of that. However, nice of you to agree with me that this was done today for a reason.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't believe it's that simple but I'm sure as hell not going to convince you of that. However, nice of you to agree with me that this was done today for a reason.

Sure it was done for a reason, so what? You play your hand to maximize your position in negotiations if you give up something that doesn't work, and won't work, and is too expensive when you were going to cut it anyways who cares if you announce it on a particular day if you stand to gain so much more in return? Frankly, I'd be disappointed if they didn't take advantage of their position.

[Johnny Punani]

My point becomes even more evident when it is understood that the current threat assessment with Iran is NOT intercontinental ballistics but short-ranged missiles which the "shield" is useless against. All of which was addressed in Sec Def Gate's opinion on the "shield". Funny thing about this all is that Obama even said today that if anyone thinks that they are abandoning missile defense then they are mistaken. From their comments I can only imagine that they are developing plans for missile defense that actually handle the Iranian threat, rather than building a missile defense "shield" based on a Cold War mentality and strategy and putting it on Russia's front step as a political tool.

For the Russians or anyone to think this system posed a threat to Russia's ICBM capabilities is retarded. Furthermore, the system was developed to counter the future ballistic threat from Iran and the current threat from NK. CNN didn't mention part of the system currently located in Alaska that isn't being scraped.

The Russians view any anti ballistic missile system is a violation of the nuclear weapons agreements held by the US & Russia. It doesn't matter if the system is here or anywhere else. To think some new or different system is going to be fine with the Russians is naive to say the least.

What I really don't understand is how you can be against this system while being in favor of another that will do the exact samething. Don't you understand any system developed to counter Iranian missiles could do the exact samething against Russian missiles? So what defense system are we going to develop that will counter Iranian missiles but not russian missiles? Oh I got it! When fired our anti-missiles could roll up on the enemy missiles and ask if they are Iranian or Russian before blowing up.

All this really boils down to is Bush bad...Obama Good.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The Russians view any anti ballistic missile system is a violation of the nuclear weapons agreements held by the US & Russia.

Because it is. It creates an imbalance which is what the whole equal reduction was about.

What I really don't understand is how you can be against this system while being in favor of another that will do the exact same thing.

It won't do the same thing, because the system they are working on now is one that actually addresses the actual threat. Deploying a ballistic missile "shield" to defend against missiles that Iran doesn't have and isn't building is either stupid...or not designed against Iranian ballistic missiles.

[Stadium-Armory]

Nice way to work The Maginot Line in there Asbury.

[deejaydana]

Here's the deal (and its genius by the way). We never intended to give the Cheks or Poles the missle defense shield. It was a shrewd ploy by the Bush administration, and executed by the Obama administration. We put it out there a few years ago, and it became a chip to bargain with. We let the Russians think they won a victory, when in fact we never intended to deploy it anyway. This is how the Russians need to be dealt with. They need to be allowed to think they've gained something. Saved face.

Our percieved conciliatory action will make it easier to gain their support for our actual agenda, which is containing the Iranian nuclear program.

Interesting post here. The strategy the United States will pursue is with Turkey (in the coming decades anyway). It's a moderate nation (granted, from a Middle Eastern perspective) but absolutely essential to check Iran AND the former Soviet Union. It has everything to extend power: sea access, oil access, it's gigantic and a passageway from Europe to Asia. It's potentially THE most important state in the coming decades in this region of the world. Just my opinion. I'd love some feedback on this post....

[Predicto]

For the Russians or anyone to think this system posed a threat to Russia's ICBM capabilities is retarded. Furthermore, the system was developed to counter the future ballistic threat from Iran and the current threat from NK. CNN didn't mention part of the system currently located in Alaska that isn't being scraped.

The Russians view any anti ballistic missile system is a violation of the nuclear weapons agreements held by the US & Russia. It doesn't matter if the system is here or anywhere else. To think some new or different system is going to be fine with the Russians is naive to say the least.

Johnny P. is absolutely correct. This was not designed as a counter to the Russians. they have thousands of missiles. No system could protect against that. And nothing can protect the Poles against a sneak attack by Russia either. You might be able to kick them out, but you coulndt stop them getting there.

This system was, in theory, designed to be a counter to a single missile fired by a rogue state. Problem is, Poland was a stupid place to put it, unless you think the rogue state was likely to be Lithiuania. All it did was piss off the Russians, who get paranoid whenever NATO or the US does anything in their "backyard." Plus it was expensive and didn't really work. So, why not cash it in for better relations with Russia (not that you really can count on the Russians not screwing you over tomorrow...)

If we ever do perfect this technology, it will be sited in other places than Poland.

[Ax]

So, why not cash it in for better relations with Russia (not that you really can count on the Russians not screwing you over tomorrow...)

This is the biggest problem with scrapping the deployment. I'm not sure what the administration thinks it got from Russia. But, I sure hope they got something useful, and, that the Russians follow through on whatever they promised.

But as you said, there's no guarantee of that.

[nonniey]

The Libertarian in me rejoices at the stoppage of the constant coddling of Europe.

Though if you make a promise... keep it or offer something else.

The Laser is the 747 that can hit missiles is the way to go.

Sell it to them.

Well, hope ya'all know that that program was cancelled too. (They are keeping the one aircraft they have though).

[nonniey]

Well what I cringe about is the incompetence of announcing this on the anniversery of the Invasion of Poland by the USSR. These type of fumbles happen to all administrations, but I hope someone has their feet over a fire on this.

[Devastate]

Who cares about this. Those countries should be taking care of themselves. I am sooooo sick and tired of us trying to play world police. This is exactly why other countries hate America. We should have had Ron Paul become president so that we can fix ourselves before trying to help out others.

um this wasn't a missle defense system to protect czech or Poland. I guess it would in theory but where would you rather stop a missle? Off the east coast or closer to where the missles would be launched from?

[AsburySkinsFan]

um this wasn't a missle defense system to protect czech or Poland. I guess it would in theory but where would you rather stop a missle? Off the east coast or closer to where the missles would be launched from?

That's not even the question. The real question is would you rather have a defense against a weapon that doesn't exist and isn't expected to exist, or would you rather have a defense against a weapon that does exist and is expected to be the greatest threat?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nice way to work The Maginot Line in there Asbury.

LoL, classic example of pour planning and spending.

French: "Let's build a defensive wall."

Germans: "Let's go around."

:doh:

[ZoEd]

I think that you are missing the forest through the trees.

We aren't trying to help other countries just for the sake of helping them. This isn't an altruistic endeavor. Whenever we engage in something like this, its because we have a goal in mind that is in OUR best interest. In this case, we care less about helping the Checks and Poles, and more about negotiation, checking, and balancing Russian interestes. And this gives us the opportunity to do it in their back yard.

Let's hope that we did this as a behind the scenes deal with Russia so they'd turn their backs when Israel bombs Iran. Russia already publicly condemend Israel if they ever attacked Iran so it's no secret that Russia is against the move.

Hopefully this is how it went down, we're getting something for pulling the plug on this but I'm afraid with the current POTUS we just pulled an Adam Archuletta type deal. :doh:

[Thiebear]

Apparently we didnt talk to them about this much.

they seem to be taking it rather poorly

edit:

Senators reacted with bipartisan concern Thursday over the Obama administration’s decision to scrap a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, saying Congress and foreign allies were kept in the dark.

poor planning.