Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Obama scraps missile defense shield in Europe; I predicted this
Topic Started: Sep 17 2009, 08:40 AM (1,058 Views)
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Interesting.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
So you builds a shield. What happens next is people build better swords. Then you need to build a better shield. And then they invent freaking great big axes. So then you reinforce your shield (with gold trim), and then...you've guessed it....someone unexpectedly hits you on the back of the head by flying a freaking Jumbo Jet into a building.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Axtremus
 
Nope, don't see any deterrent value either.
Even when working perfectly, it will be "defensive," not "offensive."
Best case, it shoots down missiles.
It cannot deal damage or otherwise punish the entity that launches the offending missiles.
So no deterrent value.


Whether a missile defense, however imperfect, has deterrence value is certainly an interesting topic for debate. You are correct in saying "It cannot deal damage or otherwise punish the entity that launches the offending missiles." The idea is to make the offending entity unsure of the results of his actions and therefore less likely to attack. Throwing away the defense shield leaves us with an offense only capability. We can certainly operate in an all offensive environment, we have done it before. The difference is our adversary for the cold war was the Soviet Union which was a rational organization that shared with us a desire to avoid mega deaths. In order to deter other aggressors we will need to make it crystal clear that nuclear aggression will be met with overwhelming retaliation, probably completely out of proportion to the initial aggression, a response that will leave a large percentage of the aggressor's population dead or dying. Don't say we wouldn't because we would. We would feel bad much later, but that won't help the millions of innocent dead.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JoeB
Sep 17 2009, 02:36 PM
The difference is our adversary for the cold war was the Soviet Union which was a rational organization that shared with us a desire to avoid mega deaths.
Not according to some of the voices at the time. I seem to remember quite a bit of irrational paranoia on both sides.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 02:07 PM
Renauda
Sep 17 2009, 01:37 PM
No Mik, you take your pick. I asked you first.
A good place to look would be who gets upset about it.
I see, so you can't say it. That's alright.

For what it's worth I was hoping that Obama would reverse the previous Admin's reckless support of NATO exansion into Georgia and Ukraine. The latter especially. That's the real future issue facing Moscow and the US.

For Moscow, the missle shield has always been a popularly domestic yet tertiary security issue. Obama knows that as well.

We'll see. I'm cheering for Moscow as it's now come down to *family business* for me.
But you probably knew that already.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Sure. And I am OK with it - if we get something for it. If it truly improves relations that is a good thing, but I'd like to see something a little less nebulous. What a world we could have if we were truly partners.

For D'oh - irrational paranoia? As many times as we came a hairs' breadth from nuclear war? I don't think so. I'd rather be a little paranoid than a little too naively sanguine.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
 
Not according to some of the voices at the time. I seem to remember quite a bit of irrational paranoia on both sides.


Sure, there was a lot of noise but the proof of my assertion is that we didn't get into a nuke throwing contest. We were not dealing with people who believe the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi has returned from occultation to fight one final apocalyptic battle where the Mahdi and his forces will prevail over the forces of evil (i.e. us).
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
What concrete concession did Obama get from Moscow on this cave in. If nothing then we are in for a rough ride.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Unless something is done about Korea and Iran we are going to, someday in the near future, experience an nuke going off in the U.S.

I am pretty comfortable with where I am living. Can all of you say this with confidence?

This is four miles from my house and there is another one just as big a lot closer just not as well developed.

http://www.marengowarehouse.com/

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Sep 17 2009, 04:13 PM
What concrete concession did Obama get from Moscow on this cave in. If nothing then we are in for a rough ride.
Getting something in return? Heck, saving $9B~$14B from a science project purported to defend against imaginary enemies is good enough a reason to scrap the it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 03:40 PM
Sure. And I am OK with it - if we get something for it.
Why should Moscow give the US anything? It was nothing but corporate welfare for US defence contractors since day one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Axtremus
Sep 17 2009, 04:22 PM
JBryan
Sep 17 2009, 04:13 PM
What concrete concession did Obama get from Moscow on this cave in. If nothing then we are in for a rough ride.
Getting something in return? Heck, saving $9B~$14B from a science project purported to defend against imaginary enemies is good enough a reason to scrap the it.
Imaginary?

"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Some people never learn.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Renauda
Sep 17 2009, 04:29 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 03:40 PM
Sure. And I am OK with it - if we get something for it.
Why should Moscow give the US anything? It was nothing but corporate welfare for US defence contractors since day one.
Why should we scrap it for no concession?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 05:09 PM
Renauda
Sep 17 2009, 04:29 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 03:40 PM
Sure. And I am OK with it - if we get something for it.
Why should Moscow give the US anything? It was nothing but corporate welfare for US defence contractors since day one.
Why should we scrap it for no concession?
Gee, why should we not flush $9B~$14B down the drain without concession?

Why should we eat well and keep fit without concession?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I'll buy that, Ax, as long as you apply that logic to other government programs.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 05:09 PM
Renauda
Sep 17 2009, 04:29 PM
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 03:40 PM
Sure. And I am OK with it - if we get something for it.
Why should Moscow give the US anything? It was nothing but corporate welfare for US defence contractors since day one.
Why should we scrap it for no concession?
The US has already received close to 20 years of concessions from Russia. Time for Uncle Sam to ante up one small, but nevertheless meaningful, one for Mother Russia. Hopefully from here on there will be better bilateral cooperation between two equals in all spheres of mutual interest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 17 2009, 05:36 PM
I'll buy that, Ax, as long as you apply that logic to other government programs.
Sure... list a few of your favorite government programs and your expected "concessions" for cutting those programs as examples, and I'll demonstrate applying that logic to those examples. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Axtremus
Sep 17 2009, 01:08 PM
Nope, don't see any deterrent value either.
Even when working perfectly, it will be "defensive," not "offensive."
Best case, it shoots down missiles.
It cannot deal damage or otherwise punish the entity that launches the offending missiles.
So no deterrent value.
After reading that I felt like Superman had scooped me up and dropped me off on Bizarro World....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
Sep 17 2009, 10:12 PM
Axtremus
Sep 17 2009, 01:08 PM
Nope, don't see any deterrent value either.
Even when working perfectly, it will be "defensive," not "offensive."
Best case, it shoots down missiles.
It cannot deal damage or otherwise punish the entity that launches the offending missiles.
So no deterrent value.
After reading that I felt like Superman had scooped me up and dropped me off on Bizarro World....
Don't you get it Larry?

Think of a cop parked in front of a bank.
He has no deterrent value to a bank robber.
All he can do is stop them from robbing the bank once they try it.
He can't attack them or punish them.
So no deterrent value.

See?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Analogy fail.

It's not the prospect of failing to nick something that's the deterent - it's the prospect of getting shot or arrested.
Edited by Moonbat, Sep 18 2009, 03:18 AM.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-missile-defense19-2009sep19,0,2726164.story
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quid Pro Quo?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Renauda
Sep 18 2009, 12:20 PM
At least this makes more sense...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/19/cost-concerns-fueled-missile-pivot/
Quote:
 
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's scrapping of long-range missile interceptors in Europe wasn't just about security and diplomacy, according to people close to the process: It also came down to money.

"A ground-based interceptor is generally about a $70 million-per-missile asset going after a $10-$15 million [Iranian] missile," a senior administration official told arms-control analysts Thursday at a briefing explaining the rationale, according to a recording heard by The Wall Street Journal. "The trade is not a good one economically. It's not a good one from a military strategy position."

On Sept. 10, senior administration officials presented the case for substituting medium-range missile interceptors at a cabinet meeting at the White House. The presentation was the culmination of studies launched in 2006 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, then serving in the same job in the Bush administration, to look at the efficacy of two separate missile-defense tracks. The "upper-tier" track included powerful rockets in Alaska and California as well as the small battery of interceptors in Poland.

The "lower tier" included ship-based Aegis missile defenses; the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system, whose first operational deployment in Israel is set for the coming weeks; and more established Patriot missiles.

Gates has said he began to have a change of heart about his embrace of the European system as intelligence made it clearer Iran was struggling with its ICBM program. Tehran, however, was becoming an innovator in short and medium-range missile technologies, officials believed.

Pentagon officials said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose previous job was heading the military command responsible for missile and space weapons, became increasingly influential in these debates: He argued that focusing on Iranian long-range missiles was leading the Pentagon to build ever-more expensive defensive systems to counter an increasingly elusive threat.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2