Requiem for an Eastern European Missile Shield . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . story here.

I pray the President knows what he's doing. I don't think he does, but I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this instance.

[seraphim2757]

. . . story here.

I pray the President knows what he's doing. I don't think he does, but I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this instance.

I think the President knows what he's doing,I think he has his own agenda and it isn't preservation of the USA. I pray that believer's are protected from what his evil brings about.

[Guest Godless]

I think this is a very wise decision. The Cold War is over. It's been over for ten years. We don't need a huge blockade of defense systems in Eastern Europe anymore.

[NeuroTypical]

Here is some very good reading on the topic. Basically, the cold war era is over, Russia is ending the post-cold war era as quickly as it can, and a new reality is still forming. There may or may not be a need for a missile-shield in the new reality.

I personally hope that Pres. Obama got something good in exchange for this decision. Hopefully about Iran.

LM

[MrsAri]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[john doe]

"You don't learn anything the second time you're kicked by a mule." -- anonymous

[Traveler]

. . . story here.

I pray the President knows what he's doing. I don't think he does, but I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this instance.

I am not a fan of Obama. Most on this forum should realize that. However, having spend some of my profession working on defense projects – The missile defense scheme is a costly idea that is not even worth the propaganda.

The Traveler

[MrsAri]

It's just not smart being unprepared militarily.

[Moksha]

Isn't it better to build an unnecessary and expensive missle system than to help spend the money on providing health care to our own people?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, if

a) the system is indeed unnecessary;

b) the savings represent a significant contribution towards health care; and

c) the "health care" provided under any serious plan currently under consideration would be an improvement over the status quo.

Personally, I'm agnostic on a), unconvinced on b), and most exceedingly doubtful of c).

[NeuroTypical]

Expensive missile shields are never unnecessary. You're incorrectly assuming their main purpose is to shoot down enemy missiles. It ain't.

LM

[talisyn]

Don't be silly, people. It's not dead, it's merely dormant until the next Rep. administration

Then it will come back...like Freddy...or Jason...

[Guest Godless]

It's just not smart being unprepared militarily.

It's also not smart to base military decisions and policy on global situations that no longer exist. It is for that reason that missile defense systems in Eastern Europe are a bad idea and lifting the embargo on Cuba is a good one (fingers crossed).

[MrsAri]

It's also not smart to base military decisions and policy on global situations that no longer exist. It is for that reason that missile defense systems in Eastern Europe are a bad idea and lifting the embargo on Cuba is a good one (fingers crossed).

Communism isn't dead!

[Hemidakota]

. . . story here.

I pray the President knows what he's doing. I don't think he does, but I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this instance.

Total waste of money...at least someone final put the axe to this issue and it was not the president who imitated this.

Let the Europeans pay for its own defense and take care of its own backyard.

[Hemidakota]

"NATO Proposes Link With Russia's Missile Defense"

ARTICLE LINK: NATO Proposes Link With Russia's Missile Defense - Political News - FOXNews.com

[Guest]

I am not a fan of Obama. Most on this forum should realize that. However, having spend some of my profession working on defense projects – The missile defense scheme is a costly idea that is not even worth the propaganda.

The Traveler

Hi Traveler, I'm not very well-versed on missile defense systems and it's effectiveness/use in protecting the sovereignty of the United States and its allies. Can you expand more on this? Or maybe direct me to some reliable information on the matter?

My position on the war on terrorism has been to provide a good defense without the need to upset the sovereignty of other nations. I can take Afghanistan as a direct retaliation for 9/11 but not Iraq. To me, instead of the United States forcing Iran/Iraq/N Korea/etc to disarm, I would rather spend the money to put a giant defense net around their target capabilities. Of course, the UN making that resolution to force UN members to disarm is fine. But, I believe it is not for one country (even if it was the United States) to decide who gets to avail of nuclear capability.

[Traveler]

Don't be silly, people. It's not dead, it's merely dormant until the next Rep. administration

Then it will come back...like Freddy...or Jason...

I thought I would report something to this interesting post. I was an engineer working on the B1 bomber project at Boeing. I would point out something very important. The B1 was not a stelf aircraft. It was, however, equipped with newly developed advanced electronic counter measures. During the testing a B1 flew through the most advanced and sophisticated surveillance in the world completely undetected. The results were near panic among our allies (not to mention our cold war enemies) and among politicians in our own country. This is because a weapon had been produced that could deliver a nuclear device (within 3 feet) to any target in the world – anytime in any conditions, undetected. It was a weapon that no one in the world; not even we could stop, if ever deployed.

One week later the B1 project was canceled by then President Carter. Years later President Ragan reinstalled the B1 project with some changes. The revised B1’s would not have the advanced electronic counter measures installed. In fact no aircraft, including the stelf aircraft will posses such capability. The stelf technology, though difficult to detect, is not have the electronic invisibility of the original B1.

Why do I bring this up? Because the missile shield is a very expensive project that can be defeated with very inexpensive countermeasures. In essence it is nothing more than a very expensive propaganda tool. In fact it is more likely to be more of a liability than an asset if deployed and relied on.

How do we stop Iran from developing a nuclear program? We install our nuclear missiles in Israel and NATO and make sure everyone knows they are pointed and programmed for Iran and any country (especially Russia) that breaks the embargos. Likewise with North Korea, install nuclear missiles in South Korea and Japan pointed at North Korea and China.

How to stop Islamic terrorism? Target Mecca. Why? If we are at war then we should have in place a plan to win. Is such thinking unreasonable? How did we end WWII? Before any allied forces entered Germany two German cities were firebombed. One was Dresden, over 100,000 civilians (women and children included) were killed in Dresden and it is important to note that Dresden had no military significance. We all know about what happened in Japan. Now think. Not only was the war ended but Germany and Japan are both now our allies.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

How to stop Islamic terrorism? Target Mecca. Why? If we are at war then we should have in place a plan to win. Is such thinking unreasonable? How did we end WWII? Before any allied forces entered Germany two German cities were firebombed. One was Dresden, over 100,000 civilians (women and children included) were killed in Dresden and it is important to note that Dresden had no military significance. We all know about what happened in Japan. Now think. Not only was the war ended but Germany and Japan are both now our allies.

The Traveler

I wonder about this. The power of Dresden and Hiroshima wasn't that we were destroying what our enemies considered "holy ground"; it was a signal that "we can do this anywhere within your borders and there isn't a darned thing you could do about it; and you could be next". I'm not convinced that signal could be sent as clearly to a non-state actor; nor am I convinced that the global Muslim community would--or could--forgive the deliberate obliteration of their most sacred sites.

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler, I'm not very well-versed on missile defense systems and it's effectiveness/use in protecting the sovereignty of the United States and its allies. Can you expand more on this? Or maybe direct me to some reliable information on the matter?

My position on the war on terrorism has been to provide a good defense without the need to upset the sovereignty of other nations. I can take Afghanistan as a direct retaliation for 9/11 but not Iraq. To me, instead of the United States forcing Iran/Iraq/N Korea/etc to disarm, I would rather spend the money to put a giant defense net around their target capabilities. Of course, the UN making that resolution to force UN members to disarm is fine. But, I believe it is not for one country (even if it was the United States) to decide who gets to avail of nuclear capability.

Never in the history of mankind has disarming prevented a war or won a war. If you know of a single example in history – please let me know.

The problem with missile defense is that once a missile is fired there is what is called a footprint in which the missile can be destroyed. Think of a football player trying to score. The best way to stop a fast player is to keep them from gaining momentum. If the football player “breaks loose” then it is important to have an angle to run him down. But there are two things that can happen. One is if there is a blocker with the runner then the angle is not what is important you have to take out the blocker first. The other is that the proper angle has to be established initially or the runner will be missed. Putting one player near your goal line to prevent the opposing team form scoring in football does not work very well.

The best missile defense and the only one proven to work is to keep the missile from being fired in the first place.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I wonder about this. The power of Dresden and Hiroshima wasn't that we were destroying what our enemies considered "holy ground"; it was a signal that "we can do this anywhere within your borders and there isn't a darned thing you could do about it; and you could be next". I'm not convinced that signal could be sent as clearly to a non-state actor; nor am I convinced that the global Muslim community would--or could--forgive the deliberate obliteration of their most sacred sites.

Part of core Muslim belief is that nothing can happen without G-d's approval and sanction. This teaching is giving advantage to Islamic terrorist. By employing propaganda that support of terrorism within the Muslim community was the reason G-d allow Mecca to be destroyed would be impossible for anyone to argue from an Islamic point of view. Even the threat would send shock waves through Islamic countries that would change forever what is taught in any mosque.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Communism isn't dead!

True, but the landscape of communist totalitarianism has shifted drastically since the collapse of the USSR. China and N Korea are now our primary threats, and I fail to see how stockpiling weapons will do anything to keep those threats in check. We tried that method when we were dealing with Russia, and it brought us to a nuclear standoff that lasted over 30 years. Do you really want to repeat that?

[MrsAri]

True, but the landscape of communist totalitarianism has shifted drastically since the collapse of the USSR. China and N Korea are now our primary threats, and I fail to see how stockpiling weapons will do anything to keep those threats in check. We tried that method when we were dealing with Russia, and it brought us to a nuclear standoff that lasted over 30 years. Do you really want to repeat that?

The time to prepare is now!

[Guest Godless]

The time to prepare is now!

Agreed. However, as I stated before, the missile defense shield that was proposed for Eastern Europe serves no purpose in today's global structure. We need to be worried about East Asia, not the old Soviet bloc. Russia is a mess and many of the former Soviet nations are now members of NATO. Where's the threat in Eastern Europe? Yes, we need to be prepared for attacks from hostile nations, and that means addressing the threats of today, not the threats of 10 years ago that no longer exist.

[MrsAri]

Agreed. However, as I stated before, the missile defense shield that was proposed for Eastern Europe serves no purpose in today's global structure. We need to be worried about East Asia, not the old Soviet bloc. Russia is a mess and many of the former Soviet nations are now members of NATO. Where's the threat in Eastern Europe? Yes, we need to be prepared for attacks from hostile nations, and that means addressing the threats of today, not the threats of 10 years ago that no longer exist.

Sorry, I don't believe that. ^

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Missile Defense Shield

Edited September 18, 2009 by GrandmaAri