Any thoughts? I would've thought that a pretty decent policy change like this would be talked about. I'm not a big fan of Russia selling air-defense missiles to Libya and Iran and then spouting that they're going to retaliate if we put defensive missiles in Poland. 10 of them. When the Russians have over 1000 warheads that they can fire if they choose to. They spoke loudly, and it seems we caved. Good message sent to people who actually are allies and friends: that we'll turn our backs on them in the face of aggressive rhetoric in order to perhaps increase relations with a country that's been getting more aggressive militarily over the last half-decade, including invading another sovereign one. I also don't agree that, because someone writes a paper that says the threat is greater from intermediate-range missiles from Iran, we scrap the plans to protect ourselves from the long-term ones. News flash...an intermediate-range missile launched from Iran can't hit North America. But that's what we're staging missiles in Turkey and on ships for. An ICBM can, and we're scrapping the plans for that defense. If Russia's so concerned about our "expansion" in the future of a defensive missile shield, why aren't we concerned about the possible "expansion" of rocket technology in Iran to long-range ones (or their ability to buy from their military suppliers the Russians) ? I'm not a big fan of this at all. Someone tell me I'm a racist who hates intellectuals now. Some background on this from Seattle Times (2007) and NPR (2008) As the Times article shows, Shuster in the NPR article seems to be a bit off when saying it's a response to the Russian aggression in Georgia.
Are you talking about America or Russia here? I think it's an expensive experiment. These kinds of systems are unproven on a large scale. The technical challenges of missile defense are significantly underestimated. It seems highly political as well. There is really no urgent near-term threat.
As a first-strike weapon for Iran, missiles are kind of dumb. We'll see them coming, and although we won't knock them down we'll immediately launch our own and obliterate the entire region. What incentive would Iran have to launch missiles if left unprovoked? Seems to me it's far more likely that Iran sticks nukes on boats and then just ships them into a number of Isaeli or American harbors. What's the missile defense system to protect us from that? If they make 50 of them, by the time we figure out they are going off most of us will be dead and the rest won't know who actually pulled it off, so it'll be difficult to retaliate. Actual missiles only make sense if you are using them for defensive purposes. In other words, somebody (the US?) invades Iran. Iran's leadership knows they are likely to die. So they mash the "fire nuke!" button and off the missiles go in a final "Fuck you" to the infidels. It's pretty clear to me that's Iran's incentive in gaining these missiles. Pretty much the same reason North Korea has them. Self defense. As long as they have them, we won't invade. If you accept that reasoning, then what's the purpose of a US missile defense shield in the middle east? Invading Iran.
Well, when he's passed out on the table, of course they are going to pull him off. European bars tend not to have a lot of extra space. He can sleep it off in the street. barfo
This is standard stuff. A republican president makes a missile defense system a high priority. The next democratic president decides it's a waste of money and shuts it down. Bill Clinton did the exact same thing to the Regan/HW Bush missile defense system. I wasn't alive when Carter or Kennedy came into power, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if something similar happened back then.
Well as I see it, we have two choices: A) We can ramp up the rhetoric and be the strongman in the region and tell Russia to piss off while we build up an unlimited set of missiles and divide Europe into "regions". Oh, no, wait..that's already been done. B) We can tell Russia "Sure, we'll pull back the missiles" and then just move them onto ships and subs, like we did a few times with nuclear treaties. In which case I'd think we'd be able to hit a few. Realistically speaking, there were three problems going forward with the "defensive shield"... 1) Russia is most definitely using Iran as a bargaining chip. They are going to support Iran, covertly or explicitly until the last day they can. On the one hand they say "nuclear proliferation is bad!" on the other hand they can make a few billion and posture against the US by supporting them. If this is a pre-condition to getting them to detach from Iran I'm all for it. Russia is Cold War crazy but Iran is jihad crazy. At least I know what to expect with Cold War crazy. 2) The shield wasn't even in place, it was barely on the architectural drawing board. It was just sitting there like a threat more than anything. If it had been put in place and then we were pulling back that would be one thing. But I give our military leaders credit enough to think they've got another plan in place that is superior. 3) If the intent is to stop Iran, we or Israel can just blow up their missiles on the ground if we really felt like throwing the dice. They aren't going to make 50 missiles at once, it's more than likely they make 1 or 2 and then they have to test them! We're going to know at that point they have them. If the intent is to stop Russia, well, your shield may stop a few hundreds missiles but when they are firing thousands, does it matter? This doesn't stop us from creating a homeland based defensive shield or from eventually fulfilling all of Reagan's wet dreams with a satellite based system.
