Thread: Obama scraps Bush-era Europe missile shield - do you approve?

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Jimmy, I haven't heard the phrase "military industrial complex" in two decades! Thanks for bringing me back to my college days for a moment!

A blast from the past indeed and just to put it into perspective for those who aren't aware of how that phrase came into the public lexicon here is President Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation. The pertinent section being section IV.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Originally Posted by loueedacat

I'm a hawk and republican, but that always struck me as a silly way to both spend tons of money we don't have, inflame tensions with Russia gratuitously and add little security. If we and Russia start lobbing missiles at each other or each others' allies, the party is over and the next president and premier will be ****roaches.

I'm not a hawk nor a republican, and I agree wholeheartedly.
It's not that I don't appreciate our US allies, but the missile shield was never a good idea.

I don't agree with Russia trying to extend its influence. I just just don't think the missile shield was ever more than a pipe dream. After all those years, it is still nowhere near finished or even working, and it has cost gazillions already.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Sorry but we're not the worlds cop and we can't afford to protect everyone in the world from every imaginable fear. We need to choose what we do very carefully.

As I was reading through the responses, I couldn't help but think of the big elephant in the room, which I'm glad TBS raised.

At the height of Dubya's time, it was clear that much of America's unpopularity was a result of the perception that the US were arrogantly acting as the cops of the world. Of course, it's not that simple, as we've all seen the discussions over what would have happened in WW2 if not for the US involvement etc. But today, where short memories may only stretch to Vietnam, Iraq1, Iraq2, Afghanistan, and relations with Iran and N. Korea, I think it's a shrewd move to drop these plans.

I also think it's the right move. Very subjectively of course.

Well yes of course. Still; the rocket shield was more about funneling billions of dollars to defense contractors, rather than protecting Europe.

And apart from the fact that it didn't even work, and wasn't expected to work anytime soon, the scenario is not that realistic anymore.

During the cold war, the major threats were incoming ICBMs. Today, that is not so much the case. Even if Russia wants to strengthen its hold on Eastern Europe, they won't start by lobbing ICBMs, so what good is the shield going to do anyway. The recent events proved that they'll just ride in with force and stomp down hard if provoked (actually the Russians are in the clear on that issue imo).

Our capacify to launch ICBMs is still there. The UK and France have thermonuclear weapons and means of delivery. Belgium will have to resort to catapulting waffles. The russians / chinese still have the means to launch them as well. So nothing changed, except defense contractors get a reduced amount of pork, and the US has stopped posturing.

I haven't been onboard with too much our current Pres. has done, but in this case, the report is he followed the unanimous recommendation of the joint chiefs and SecDef. It seems to me like they would be better positioned to make an informed decision. The idea of moving it from a land based to mobile Navy based system is intriguing. Of course the biggest problem with Reagen missile and Bush missile shield is that they are/were such large projects that they cannot be completed. The Bush plan was no more than 8 years old, but already obsolete. To be viable don't we need something that can actually be operational before it's obsolete? It would be like ordering a top of the line computer from Dell, and taking delivery 10 years later to find that it doesn't work with any of the current software...

Just a thought.... the missile shield program was dubbed 'star wars' by the skeptical press during the Reagan administration IIRC. Even if it could be programed to be accurate decoys could accompany the armed missiles and render it ineffective.

So it is not a workable program in the real world. I wonder if the USA's insistence on going ahead with it was a psychological gambit ? If you'll pardon the analogy, Saddam didn't have WMD but wanted his hostile neighbors to think that he did to the extent that in the face of the military buildup and threatened destruction by the W administration he wouldn't come clean and admit he had nothing.

So now rather than a land based 'missile shield' we are going with this sea going thing. Still pursuing an unworkable technology, but why ? Is it just a big scarecrow we are setting up just as Saddam tried to do with his non existent WMD ?

I don't know wether or not it is a good decision, I don't have enough facts on the issue. Given Obamas track record of decisions both here and abroad, especially with regards to to anything military, I suspect he is wrong on this issue as well.

Given politician's track records throughout history there's a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999% its wrong lol.

Missile defense is a good idea in theory, but the implementation under Bush was absurd. The sea-based alternative is much better for countering the single-missile threat from smaller nations or groups. At least it's mobile, thus capable of being close to possible launch sites where it would be most effective.

Against a Russian full launch, even if the system is 99.9% effective, we're still in deep doo-doo. So there's no point.

Frankly, all of the money spent on this pipe-dream system would have been far better spent on non-proliferation. The biggest future threats aren't from states that have ICBMs -- they are from small groups of people who can build big weapons. Our best defense is to have rigorous anti-proliferation efforts and extreme human intelligence efforts.

Originally Posted by bromion

Frankly, all of the money spent on this pipe-dream system would have been far better spent on non-proliferation. The biggest future threats aren't from states that have ICBMs -- they are from small groups of people who can build big weapons. Our best defense is to have rigorous anti-proliferation efforts and extreme human intelligence efforts.

Actually, small nations are less of a threat than big ones even. Though everyone is afraid Pakistan's razors will cut our faces, they won't actually launch nukes at India because they realise that if both countries have 50 nukes, India could do more damage in terms of Percentage of Land/People obliterated. And not even that. COUNTRIES in general won't launch nukes because they are physical, absolute, fixed locations- and therefore subject to retaliation.

THE THREAT- as in the only real threat, comes from terrorists/rogue groups/extremists getting nuclear missiles. And I'm not justifying Bush's policy it was complete crap, but if you think about it, groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas aren't countries, so if there boss hiding in Country A, launches a missile from Country B, using Country C as an adopted nationality, how do we fight back?