Russia threatens to attack Poland... (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

Can you explain this?

 

[Mr.Kitty]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

I wasn't criticizing the missile defense system, just Higgins' heavy-handedness.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

 

[T Bell]

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

higgins is kinda ###### up on scotch -- BUT YET THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

Higgins is cracking my ### up!

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

I wasn't criticizing the missile defense system, just Higgins' heavy-handedness.

I was talking about Drunken Cowboy's post that got Higgy baby going. He seems to talking about the SDI program that was the progenitor of the current missile defense programs, but satellites haven't been in the picture since the early 90s I believe.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

higgins is kinda ###### up on scotch -- BUT YET THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

 

[Mr.Kitty]

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

higgins is kinda ###### up on scotch -- BUT YET THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

Oh. Well, carry on, then.

 

[timschochet]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

 

[T Bell]

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

higgins is kinda ###### up on scotch -- BUT YET THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

Oh. Well, carry on, then.

I'm handing The Button to higgins right now, just to see what happens.

 

[Fennis]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Israel has Patriot Missiles deployed.

 

[T Bell]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

I'd rather not simply give our missile technology to countries that might use it or develop it into ways we might regret, or study it in order to defeat it somehow, knowwhatImean?

 

[Fennis]

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

higgins is kinda ###### up on scotch -- BUT YET THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL THERE!!!!

Oh. Well, carry on, then.

I'm handing The Button to higgins right now, just to see what happens.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/28739/the-simpso...shes-the-button

 

[Chadstroma]

It has always bothered me that Bush felt like he could "look into" Putin's eyes and see a "good man". I think McCain said it the best way possible. You look into Putin's eyes and you should see "K.G.B".

Bush is an idiot and McCain can saber rattle with the best of 'em.

Sometimes what you think is saber rattling is actually taking a couple of practice swings with your big stick. Sometimes a nation that is thinking of doing things we do not want to happen needs that reminder. Something that I have to really wonder if Obama is willing to do.

 

[Chadstroma]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

Can you explain this?

My short list would be:1. It's a multi-Billion dollar program, and, if you buy the Bush administration justification for it, is to protect against missile capacity in the Middle East that doesn't currently exist.

2. It's not technically designed to deal with a large launch, or first strike type attack. Which is one of things we have tried to use to convince Russia that it isn't intended to further marginalize their nuclear arsenal.

3. The development has happened along with many other activities to significantly increase our nuclear capacity over the last decade. Combine that with the fact that some military analysts believe that the missile defense system has it's most practical application as complement to an offensive, first strike strategy, and I think it sends the wrong message.

 

[Fennis]

It has always bothered me that Bush felt like he could "look into" Putin's eyes and see a "good man". I think McCain said it the best way possible. You look into Putin's eyes and you should see "K.G.B".

Bush is an idiot and McCain can saber rattle with the best of 'em.

Sometimes what you think is saber rattling is actually taking a couple of practice swings with your big stick. Sometimes a nation that is thinking of doing things we do not want to happen needs that reminder. Something that I have to really wonder if Obama is willing to do.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

 

[timschochet]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

I wasn't criticizing the missile defense system, just Higgins' heavy-handedness.

I was talking about Drunken Cowboy's post that got Higgy baby going. He seems to talking about the SDI program that was the progenitor of the current missile defense programs, but satellites haven't been in the picture since the early 90s I believe.

The systems that aren't in orbit have no chance to ever work. The time before a missile is in orbit is too short.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

They wouldn't be foolish enough to throw their money away on something so stupid.

 

[Mister CIA]

Let's invite Russia to join NATO.

:rodneyking:

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

Because other countries can shoot down our satellites.

Okay -- I've heard everything I need to know that you have nooooooo idea what you're talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about...period. 'Drunken Cowboy' has just about as much a clue as a bag full of hair. I will ask you to answer any one of the questions I asked above, as well as asking ....exactly how will these countries shoot down one of our satellites, and how would our satellite constellations of hundreds fail to rebound?

Let's hear it, 'Drunken Cowboy' -- I'd love to put you to bed once and for all. Can you answer any of my original questions? Or, are you a passing jack### that has no idea what they're talking about?

'Drunken Cowboy' -- what say you? Are you sticking around to talk....or may we not see you for a while :knockonwood:

Higgins, you're kind of a ####.

He had a rough day at work apparently. Generally speaking though, it's a good idea to be up to speed on the last couple of decades of development of a system you are criticizing. There are plenty of real reasons why the Missile Defense is a marginal idea; then again, maybe all this cold war talk just had DC reminiscing back to the Star Wars days.

I wasn't criticizing the missile defense system, just Higgins' heavy-handedness.

I was talking about Drunken Cowboy's post that got Higgy baby going. He seems to talking about the SDI program that was the progenitor of the current missile defense programs, but satellites haven't been in the picture since the early 90s I believe.

I would also like to point out that a system that was not space based would still depend on satellites to even hope to be effective.As to how to shoot them down, China demonstrated they could shoot down a satellite two years ago.

As to why they will never be effective: sure the technology will get better, but so will the missile technology. A defense system would always be playing catchup.

 

[timschochet]

Well now I'm REALLY confused.

1. Higgins seems to believe that our missile defense system will be 100% effective against ICBMs, and will protect us in the future against all nuclear threats.

2. Arsenal of Doom believes that it will only protect us against smaller threats (10 ICBMs or less), but this is still worthwhile as it is against eventual threats like Iran. (though if this is true, it raises a whole bunch of baffling questions to me, including why Russia would feel threatened, how difficult would it be for a country like Iran to develop ICBMs, and plenty more.)

3. Drunken Cowboy believes the whole thing will never work and is a waste of money.

Which is it? And how can we intelligently discuss what to do about Russia and Poland unless we have the answer to this question?

 

[Chadstroma]

It has always bothered me that Bush felt like he could "look into" Putin's eyes and see a "good man". I think McCain said it the best way possible. You look into Putin's eyes and you should see "K.G.B".

Bush is an idiot and McCain can saber rattle with the best of 'em.

Sometimes what you think is saber rattling is actually taking a couple of practice swings with your big stick. Sometimes a nation that is thinking of doing things we do not want to happen needs that reminder. Something that I have to really wonder if Obama is willing to do.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

That was what I was aluding to.

 

[Chadstroma]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

You do not give a country like Russia who has been historically and currently is in the range of out right enemy to antagonistic advanced technoloy and hope they like you in return. End of story.

 

[T Bell]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

You do not give a country like Russia who has been historically and currently is in the range of out right enemy to antagonistic advanced technoloy and hope they like you in return. End of story.

The assumption that this (or any other) technology is 100% defensive in nature (and therefore totally "safe" to give to a country that is at best a rival, and at worst an enemy) is specious.

 

[Spiderman]

At this point, Russia is moving in a direction of political isolation from the West, so anything is possible. Attacking Poland would be a very big mistake. Poland is a NATO member and defending Warsaw from Russia was one of the founding principles of Poland. Not defending them would mean the ultimate failure of NATO as a whole. I think its more likely that Russia would think twice about such a move. This is likely Russian posturing. Its one thing to attack a tiny little non-NATO nation like Georgia, and another entirely to attack a NATO core component like Poland. I see Poland responding to such a threat with increased NATO military presence on their soil, knowing that Russia has basically declared itself a major threat to their well being.

Rhetoric is escalating here, which is what Putin wants. The more he isolates Russia from the West, the more likely his people are to accept his shifting the nation back to the way it once was. Putin is ex-KGB and thinks like an ex-KGB. He has a master strategy and he is using these events to bolster support at home for his plans to bulk up the Russian military to the point it once was. He may also be posturing to take control of the Caspian Sea oil reserves and that would put the Ukraine under a bigger threat than Poland.

What a very weak Europe wishes to do to confront Putin via NATO, the G8, and the EU are going to very interesting questions in the coming months. And how this affects the US election is another. With Putin's decision to attack, he must know that this boosts John McCain in the eyes of an unstable sub-Superpower to the American people..

 

[DrJ]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

You do not give a country like Russia who has been historically and currently is in the range of out right enemy to antagonistic advanced technoloy and hope they like you in return. End of story.

So you mean allowing the Chinese to launch sattelites for us was a really, really bad idea?

 

[timschochet]

At this point, Russia is moving in a direction of political isolation from the West, so anything is possible. Attacking Poland would be a very big mistake. Poland is a NATO member and defending Warsaw from Russia was one of the founding principles of Poland. Not defending them would mean the ultimate failure of NATO as a whole. I think its more likely that Russia would think twice about such a move. This is likely Russian posturing. Its one thing to attack a tiny little non-NATO nation like Georgia, and another entirely to attack a NATO core component like Poland. I see Poland responding to such a threat with increased NATO military presence on their soil, knowing that Russia has basically declared itself a major threat to their well being.

Rhetoric is escalating here, which is what Putin wants. The more he isolates Russia from the West, the more likely his people are to accept his shifting the nation back to the way it once was. Putin is ex-KGB and thinks like an ex-KGB. He has a master strategy and he is using these events to bolster support at home for his plans to bulk up the Russian military to the point it once was. He may also be posturing to take control of the Caspian Sea oil reserves and that would put the Ukraine under a bigger threat than Poland.

What a very weak Europe wishes to do to confront Putin via NATO, the G8, and the EU are going to very interesting questions in the coming months. And how this affects the US election is another. With Putin's decision to attack, he must know that this boosts John McCain in the eyes of an unstable sub-Superpower to the American people..

All you have to do is look at a map to see that Russia doesn't really threaten Poland so long as the Ukraine is independent. For Russia to attack Poland, the Ukraine would have to be secured first.

 

[higgins]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

 

[T Bell]

Higgins, you seem to know a lot about this, so I would like to ask you, and this is a genuine question, without cynicism:Will our missile defense shield really protect us from all ICBMs? Is it enough at the current time where this is no longer a threat, or in the future where this will no longer be a threat? And can we extend it to other countries to protect them as well? It seems to me that if 8 ICBMs are heading towards you, and 7 are destroyed en route, that's still not good enough, right? But can we get them all?The other question is: if Russia or China has nuclear submarines, then even the missile shield can't protect us, because the subs could simply fire nukes at our coastline in the event of a war. Is this simplistic? These questions have always been my own concerns about missle defense, SDI, etc. But maybe these things have been solved. Do you have any idea?

The system in question is a 10 missile system, so that would be the maximum number it could intercept; the idea is to protect Europe from a launch coming from Iran (or the Middle East more generally).

If that's the case, why would Russia be threatened by this? And why don't we offer it to Russia, too? And to Middle East countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia?

You want to give Russia our missile defense technology? I am officially ignoring anything you have to say about this topic from this point on as this statement is, to put it mildly, ignorant.

I AM ignorant on the subject of missile defense. I admit it. But let's look at this logically. Per what Arsenal is saying, this defense system is designed for defense against newer countries with less ICBMs to use against us. Against Russia and China, it's not going to work anyhow, because they can fire too many ICBMs, have nuclear submarines, etc. This is my understanding, anyhow.It is also my understanding that if we're going to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we need to be allied eventually with Russia for this purpose. Isn't that so? Therefore offering them this technology could be a future trade off for their support with regard to Iran and other rogue states. That's the extent of my logic, anyhow, based on my limited knowledge. I admit I'm trying to think out of the box, here.

You do not give a country like Russia who has been historically and currently is in the range of out right enemy to antagonistic advanced technoloy and hope they like you in return. End of story.

So you mean allowing the Chinese to launch sattelites for us was a really, really bad idea?

Not quite as bad as out and out giving them our missile technology (at least insofar as they ahven't already stolen it from Los Alamos, etc.) but I've never been hot on the idea.

 

[timschochet]

thanks for the info Higgins. It seems to me from what you write that if it seems feasible that we can use this technology to give us a 100% defense in the future, it's worth spending the money, whatever it costs. If on the other hand, as DC asserts we'll never be able to actually use it because it's just not sure enough, then maybe it's something we should cut in favor of spending on other areas. Right now I lean towards spending the money, and then reassess in a few years, I guess.

But this doesn't answer the strategy that we seem to have of giving/selling this technology, currently incomplete, to nations that surround Russia. I still have trouble understanding the wisdom of these actions. Perhaps it is something being pushed on the government by the aerospace industry? I certainly would like to know more about the thought process behind this.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The NMD is a complete waste of time and resources.Casts bait in water and hopes for drunken rant.

 

[higgins]

thanks for the info Higgins. It seems to me from what you write that if it seems feasible that we can use this technology to give us a 100% defense in the future, it's worth spending the money, whatever it costs. If on the other hand, as DC asserts we'll never be able to actually use it because it's just not sure enough, then maybe it's something we should cut in favor of spending on other areas. Right now I lean towards spending the money, and then reassess in a few years, I guess.

But this doesn't answer the strategy that we seem to have of giving/selling this technology, currently incomplete, to nations that surround Russia. I still have trouble understanding the wisdom of these actions. Perhaps it is something being pushed on the government by the aerospace industry? I certainly would like to know more about the thought process behind this.

We're not giving anyone this technology as you put it. If I plant a laser gun in your yard (along with a team of scientists and soldiers), you may be better protected, but you don't actually possess the knowledge to design or produce this laser gun. Nor will Czech have the ability to design or produce the necessary NMD radar system we're planting there.

 

[Chadstroma]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

This is about Russia trying to keep it's satelite countries as a physical barrier to any potential foe, real or imagined. They see a missile system of this statue as a precedent that they do not want to allow. They do not like losing power over countries that they have held either complete control or significant pressure for the entirety of the modern era.

They want the ability to bully and invade and control as puppet states if not re-incorporate them, places like Georgia, Ukraine, and Poland.

As the lone standing Super Power, we can not allow that. We must check them and hold them back. That does not mean war but that does mean being serious about how we interact with them.

 

[higgins]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The NMD is a complete waste of time and resources.Casts bait in water and hopes for drunken rant.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The NMD is a complete waste of time and resources.Casts bait in water and hopes for drunken rant.

Big fan for a long time Higgins.

 

[T Bell]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The NMD is a complete waste of time and resources.Casts bait in water and hopes for drunken rant.

Big fan for a long time Higgins.

 

[T Bell]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

 

[cstu]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

 

[T Bell]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

It's your complete lack of understanding (at least as presented here) between offensive and defensive missiles that gave rise to my parody. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

It's your complete lack of understanding (at least as presented here) between offensive and defensive missiles that gave rise to my parody. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You are oversimplifying how the weapons would be interpreted based on their tactical, rather than strategic implications. I'm not trying to make a judgment between the two view points. I think it's clear that there is a difference between putting up the defense shield and if we moved a bunch of short and intermediate range nukes into Poland, and Russia would certainly respond even more loudly to the latter. That doesn't mean, however, that Russia is completely unfounded if they view the system as part of a potential offensive or first strike strategy. Here is a section from a Foreign Affairs article I posted a link to earlier from two US Arms experts:

Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.

What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.

During the Cold War, Washington relied on its nuclear arsenal not only to deter nuclear strikes by its enemies but also to deter the Warsaw Pact from exploiting its conventional military superiority to attack Western Europe. It was primarily this latter mission that made Washington rule out promises of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Now that such a mission is obsolete and the United States is beginning to regain nuclear primacy, however, Washington's continued refusal to eschew a first strike and the country's development of a limited missile-defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing, look. The most logical conclusions to make are that a nuclear-war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States' military doctrine and that nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States.

I think cstu's point that we would never accept a "defensive" missile system being sponsored by Russia in Cuba (or Canada and Mexico for that matter) is entirely accurate. There are, of course, compelling reasons why the two aren't equivalent, but the reasons probably aren't as clear to the Russians as they are to us.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

Assuming the apology is directed at me, accepted and don't worry about it. Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I still think you are too optimistic about it working. Hitting a bullet with another bullet is a good analogy.

You are right that technologies from this program will have other uses, but I have read a fair bit about the funding mechanism within this program and it is unbelievably wasteful. Normally to get research money you have to have a good idea and write a proposal. In this program they just throw money at somebody and say come up with an idea. As a scientist, I can tell you this is not a good plan. The competition for fundng forces you to come up with better ideas. This money would be way better spent by paying on the debt (or in the current situation just not continuing to rack it up)

My biggest concern though would be a working system. It makes the idea of a first strike imaginable.

 

[Chadstroma]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

Are we ignoring reality? I love to do that. It is always fun to play make belief like that. I mean, the reality being that Cuba would want no part of any missiles, offensive or defensive, on it's territory that would take the Kennedy area pledge of not invading off the table. Not to mention that it would be very hard for Russia to make a case that the rogue state of Haiti with it's illegal nuclear program presented a real risk to Cuba and it's neighbors.

Even a bluff has to have some form of logic and understanding of the reality of events to be effective.

 

[cstu]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

Are we ignoring reality? I love to do that. It is always fun to play make belief like that. I mean, the reality being that Cuba would want no part of any missiles, offensive or defensive, on it's territory that would take the Kennedy area pledge of not invading off the table. Not to mention that it would be very hard for Russia to make a case that the rogue state of Haiti with it's illegal nuclear program presented a real risk to Cuba and it's neighbors.

Even a bluff has to have some form of logic and understanding of the reality of events to be effective.

It's just example and you're missing the entire point. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that Russia isn't going to be happy with *any* type of missiles placed on their border and that there will be repercussions. My point is that we have little to gain and much to lose by actually putting the missiles in Poland. The only way I understand this move is if the grand strategy is to use the missiles as a bargaining chip with Russia.

 

[T Bell]

I got a li'l drunksy wunksky after work last night -- apologies for flying off the handle.

A few things ....coming from an outsider:

(1) There are different layers of NMD. (a) The guarding against smaller areas using PAC-3s has been successful. There was a HUGE improvement between the two gulf wars in performance of the PAC-3 -- it is still iteratively being improved upon, but I would guess it's a success. (b) The one being fielded in Poland (guarding larger area) is the same one that has undergone much testing in the pacific/Kwajalein. This has not been a stellar success, but "hitting a bullet in space with another bullet" is not done overnight -- it will have to be gradually improved upon to become a reliable guarantor.

(2) With regards to 1b: some of the criticism is because every aspect of the system is being done for the first time, so when a coolant system does not perform perfectly the first time, some people will criticize it...when in actuality, as long as you know why it failed and can fix it....it's a "success" in my eyes. Same with other aspects of this iterative testing. You can educate yourselves on this topic by watching this 2002 Frontline,...or reading transcripts of experts' interviews.

(3) DCowboy was correct in that there is a limited window in time (in the atmosphere) that we are able to intercept, which is why "this layer" is crucial to enhance NMD's performance. However, other countries minimal improvements are not as relevant since we are spending more $, relatively speaking -- which leads to points (4) and (5).

(4) This is costing a lot, and I can't really argue with someone if they would rather see this $ being spent on other forms of defense, education or building a fence between us and Mexico -- it is expensive indeed.

(5) Technological gains made on this specific NMD platform/application go a long way towards other related platform/applications, such as space-based interceptors or whatever other applications they're working on which we don't (and shouldn't) know about.

(6) What Russia is really worried about (as they should be), is the precedent that this Poland/Czech installation is now setting. I'm sure there are many venues for relevant discussion, but I find this site to succinctly point out all the relevant angles. This is really about the future, and we're leaps and bounds beyond anyone else out there. I have no qualms with someone if they'd choose to pursue a path of space assurance rather than space "weaponization" at some point...but, I'd rather us get as far out in front as we can for as long as we can before that happens. Russia has already misspent whatever strategic gains they may have made in this Georgia episode by our immediately agreeing with Poland/Czech on this installation...as long as the BTC pipeline is still in our hands.

(7) While I have already conceded that the $ spent on this system is indeed a lot, we should never totally pull the plug on it since we may never know when these iterative capabilities may become necessary (insert intelligence capabilities or lack thereof joke here). I'm not trying to be a fearmonger here, but if we suddenly find out in 2010 that Russian space/missile capability is far ahead of what we thought it was, and things don't happen to be going well between our two nations, you can't immediately "start where you stopped from" in a short time. The experts/technocrats/assets necessary fo this type of research have to be moving forward continually, though the pace (and thus $) can be argued about.

DCowboy and others are indeed correct when they say that the 1b umbrella isn't 100% effective...as of now. But this is merely a step in a direction, one that can provide us invaluable information as to how we're going forward technologically in the future.

But, but, but . . . missiles are baaaaaaad!/cstu

Nice try to spin my words. I never said missiles were bad but I think it's foolish to expect Russia to be fine with missiles being placed so close to their borders. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the missile system, but rather the judgement of trying to aggravate an already tense situation with Russia. If I'm Putin and the U.S. refuses to back down then I make public my plans to put defensive missiles in Cuba. Vladimir KGB to the U.S.: "Fine. It's a ####### joke anyway. After all, I am building them with your money. "

Are we ignoring reality? I love to do that. It is always fun to play make belief like that. I mean, the reality being that Cuba would want no part of any missiles, offensive or defensive, on it's territory that would take the Kennedy area pledge of not invading off the table. Not to mention that it would be very hard for Russia to make a case that the rogue state of Haiti with it's illegal nuclear program presented a real risk to Cuba and it's neighbors.

Even a bluff has to have some form of logic and understanding of the reality of events to be effective.

It's just example and you're missing the entire point. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that Russia isn't going to be happy with *any* type of missiles placed on their border and that there will be repercussions. My point is that we have little to gain and much to lose by actually putting the missiles in Poland. The only way I understand this move is if the grand strategy is to use the missiles as a bargaining chip with Russia.

What Russia is not happy with is Poland having a major power backing it against regional Russian hegemony. Their threats are no longer threatening like they were. That's what's at issue, the rest is just details or misinformation.

 

[Fennis]

I see from the US, Condoleezza Rice is going to Poland to sign the deal. I wonder how many Polish officials it takes to sign a missile defense deal?

 

[Moe Green]

I wonder how many Polish officials it takes to sign a missile defense deal?

I've heard this one before.

 

[Chadstroma]

I see from the US, Condoleezza Rice is going to Poland to sign the deal. I wonder how many Polish officials it takes to sign a missile defense deal?

Funny thing is that no one cares about this...... but how many would be all up in arms if someone said something like 'I wonder how many African American officials it takes to ___________'

 

[timschochet]

Just heard on the radio that the Russian foreign minister has stated that Russia's response to the US-Polish missile agreement will go "beyond diplomacy".

What exactly does this mean???

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Just heard on the radio that the Russian foreign minister has stated that Russia's response to the US-Polish missile agreement will go "beyond diplomacy".

What exactly does this mean???

Duck & Cover