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

Originally Posted by khaos

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?

That is true. However, ICBMs are not stored 'launch ready', they have to be prepped. Once prepped, they then have to be either launched or unprepped in a short time window. Launching and arming an ICBM is far from trivial, and outside of terrorist capabilities.

The missile shield was only (supposed to be) good against ICBMs. Short range rockets cannot be intercepted because they hit before the missile shield has the time to send an interceptor. Ergo, it was a waste. Only the big players have ICBM, They will never launch at each other first. Iran or NK will also not launch first, because they know they will end up a hole in the ground.

Then there are the terrorists. They do not have ICBM capabilities. Their wet dream is a nuke in a container, shipped into an international port, or major big city.

Not saying missile shields are a bad idea, but only movable ones that can be deployed at will, near targets, or near the countries that would launch launch short (or long) range missiles

Originally Posted by sparq

This is a sad day for me and many people from Central and Eastern Europe who believed that US could be a strong ally who would secure stability and neutrality in the region. I'd better work on my Russian again now.

I was under the impression that remaining neutral meant "not taking sides", and that hosting a missile base was considered "taking sides". Which you have to agree, puts a big dent on your neutral status...

A shield of any sort, is not for defense - they are for protection against retaliation. You use it to protect yourself while trying to strike the opponent. That is what the missile shield was for, to attack and then intercept retaliation, in order to attack again.

I'm glad we are openly admiting that the shield was intended for Russia, because if anyone bought Bush's story about Iran... I've got some marsh... front water property for ya...

The right wing party currently in power in Russia, is the only alternative to the nationalist communists. Those would be a lot worse, I'm certain.

Originally Posted by davik

I was under the impression that remaining neutral meant "not taking sides", and that hosting a missile base was considered "taking sides". Which you have to agree, puts a big dent on your neutral status...

That is a fair comment but the playground is not even. There is no "not taking sides" in the region historically; neutrality and national independce was always a balancing act there. Russians already play they games, sponsor pro-russian politicians, activists, purchase key corporations, etc. US was IMO the only counter balance to that. Western Europe is not interested.

A commentary in the NY Post
Obama feeds allies to bear

The move to kill this program was a White House attempt to toss a bone to the extreme left, which has always hated missile defense. (Why defend ourselves, when we're the enemy?) For that, Obama betrayed the trust of allies who'd done all they could to please us.

The Poles spent enormous political capital to convince their citizens to risk this deployment. They've backed us consistently in NATO and the UN. They sent combat troops to support us in Iraq.

The Czechs also fought our political battles for us, supporting our foreign wars and siding with us in international forums -- angering West European powers.

Now add Poland and the Czech Republic to the list of allies, such as Israel and Honduras, that we've thrown to the wolves. Obama's foreign policy embodies a line from "Animal House": "You [screwed] up -- you trusted us!"

But the worst thing is how this decision's read in Moscow. Putin, Russia's new czar, sees this as a triumph of his will over Obama's weak, retreating US. And he's right.

And a recent picture from a Polish newspaper.

As far as i did understand from the media, mr Obama didn't say he would bring down the missile shield project. Instead he said that the U.S will replace the old and ineffective program with the new and more effective. Propably that means manouverable missile units - be that either land based or Aegis.

Living near the eastern bear we've already seen their media. Actually they got really upset about this decision. What looked as a victory to mr Putin showed out to be something totally different.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Living near the eastern bear we've already seen their media. Actually they got really upset about this decision. What looked as a victory to mr Putin showed out to be something totally different.

Thank you for your response. Who exactly is upset and about what? Do you have any references?

Originally Posted by sparq

Thank you for your response. Who exactly is upset and about what? Do you have any references?

Not any details, but just a common sense:

The purpose of the missile shiel program is to hunt down missiles coming from Iran, but of course everyone knows it could be used against missiles coming from other directions also. So Russia thinks it as a thread even if would not be meant against them.

Now replacing the older program with the new makes those missile platforms more difficult to locate and defend as they are manouverable.

Now Russians seem to think that Baltic Sea is an open door to throw an arrow into their belly. There is already very heavy Naval forces on the area from all the bordering states as well as from few other EU states also. Bringing Aegis into Baltic Sea means much more new U.S vessels on that area.

Although there is no sign of crisis to be seen today it might change some day. Hope not.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Not any details, but just a common sense:

The purpose of the missile shiel program is to hunt down missiles coming from Iran, but of course everyone knows it could be used against missiles coming from other directions also.

That's common sense, but if you actually make an effort and research it, you soon find out Iranians don't have the capacity to reach Europe (that's Greece/Romania distance - Poland would be even further).

And also, Putin does not see Obama's proposal as any kind of victory, (except a PR one) because it's a poisoned apple. Russia has made many diplomatic agreements with Iran, that can't be revoked, they will turn down NATO's offer politely and not interfere in internal Iranian policy, and definitely not side with any international effort condemning the Iranian nuclear program.

It works out well because in the end it vilifies Russia, and they can claim they tried everything before taking action on Iran.

Just one more war, this time for natural GAS - see who's on the top 2 of the worlds proven reserves.

Iran wants a nuclear program for the production of electricity, and then sell the natural gas to all the countries that didn't develop a nuclear program. It's more profitable this way - why burn money for electricity? Just sell the natural gas and produce electricity in any other way.
We live in a time of dwindling energy reserves, those that can see it coming and plan for it, will come out on top.