Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, what's the difference between having ten imaginary missiles inside Poland and many more real missiles parked in the Balitic Sea just off the coast of Poland?

[Winehole23]

Also, spursncowboys, you seem to have ignored Sec'y Gates contention that new missile defense systems are in the works.

Your claim that Obama "has dropped" missile defense in Europe appears to be factually challenged.

[Winehole23]

In the interest of even handedness: the switch in policy obviously has something to do with Russia. But it obviously has more to do with geopolitical situations in central and south Asia, than with ceding Europe to the Russians.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it also kept Russia from deploying missiles in Kaliningrad that could pretty much only be used on Poland and the Baltic states.

[spursncowboys]

From an article I just posted in this forum:
About Sec. Gates talking about a new missile defense sys:-"terminate a number of missile defense programs earlier this year and justify a $1.6 billion cut to the overall program in fiscal year 2010 compared to fiscal year 2009. - Now, he is using the opposite argument to justify the termination of plans to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland."

"the sea-based and Standard missile programs can be matured during the time period cited by the fact sheet.[5] But such maturation can be realized only if there is a sustained commitment to the program over the entire developmental period.
Nowhere in the description of the program is such a commitment made, and long-term funding levels are not revealed. There is no guarantee that arms control considerations will not be allowed to interfere with this program, just as they led to the termination of the system intended for the Czech Republic and Poland."

[ChumpDumper]

So the Heritage Foundation is saying "boo!" about things it doesn't know.

Sounds about right.

See how your third thread was superfluous?

[mogrovejo]

Iran doesn't have ICBM's. Even it did, using them on Europe would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant. Even Ehud Barak and Bibi are saying now that the Iranian threat isn't existential. Israel deters it ahead of the fact and the US would quickly adjust if Iran made a leap in its nuke capabilities.

The op-ed pretends that the US shift in strategy was aimed only at getting Russian cooperation on Iran, but ignores the possibility that that the shift is a move to a better, and cheaper, missile strategy. The system Bush wanted to put in place was geared to ICBMS the Iranians don't have and would have been useless against a swarm of smaller projectiles according to Sec'y Gates. This shift addresses that weakness.

You do make some risky assumptions there. One of the points of the article is that it'd make sense to create a defensive system that covers plausible future threats by Iran. And in any case, this strategical shift will be read as a move to placate Moscow - even by the Kremlin.

BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about why it still ought to be the US's responsibility to assure and pay for the defense of Europe. Why can't Europe carry its own weight?

I don't think the US should be paying for Europe's defence (I don't even agree with the concept of an "European defence"). However, one has to consider the American military presence in Europe is not exclusively a mean to defend their European allies but also a frontline in America's national defensive system. We don't live in the 19th century any more. But I do believe that aspect is immaterial for this question.

The biggest problem with this decision is the kind of signals it sends. Using Bernard Lewis words, America can be seen in the future as a "weak enemy and a treacherous friend". America had a diplomatic and military commitment and one ought to be very careful. Just a few months ago, while delivering a speech in Prague, Obama himself publicly praised the Poles and the Czechs for their courage for agreeing to host the interceptors and the radar. And now suddenly he takes this decision without even previously consultating his allies? That's not the proper way for a statesman to behave. Even if he has good reasons to believe that a strategical change was needed, the method used was amateurish, to say the least.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, say Poland gets it's ten missiles.

Russia then moves a a few dozen Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad.

Now what?

Is Poland now more safe or less safe?

[Winehole23]

I don't think the US should be paying for Europe's defence (I don't even agree with the concept of an "European defence"). However, one has to consider the American military presence in Europe is not exclusively a mean to defend their European allies but also a frontline in America's national defensive system.

You're talking about ICBM's, right?

How does the decision to use Trident missiles we have now (and a new missile defense system somewhere down the road) instead of systems we haven't even deployed yet, materially harm US mainland defense?

And now suddenly he takes this decision without even previously consultating his allies? That's not the proper way for a statesman to behave. Even if he has good reasons to believe that a strategical change was needed, the method used was amateurish, to say the least.

I was unaware of this. If this is true, I absolutely agree.

And in any case, this strategical shift will be read as a move to placate Moscow - even by the Kremlin.

So what? If the same strategic objectives can be acheived more cheaply and more quickly thereby, what's the big deal?

If we get more cooperation from Russia in Central Asia (a big if, I will admit), that's only icing on the cake.

[Winehole23]

One of the points of the article is that it'd make sense to create a defensive system that covers plausible future threats by Iran.

Sure, but Gates addressed this too, and seriously I doubt DOD plans/projects fail to take it into account.

[mogrovejo]

You're talking about ICBM's, right?

How does the decision to use Trident missiles we have now (and a new missile defense system somewhere down the road) instead of systems we haven't even deployed yet, materially harm US mainland defense?

Not necessarily. I don't think the "Third Site" was ever projected as necessary to defend US mainland. But what about the American troops stationed in Europe, for example?

I was unaware of this. If this is true, I absolutely agree.

He tried to call the Polish prime-minister Wednesday night to announce the decision. There are some unwritten rules when it comes to diplomatic and military cooperation.

So what? If the same strategic objectives can be acheived more cheaply and more quickly thereby, what's the big deal? If we get more cooperation from Russia in Central Asia (a big if, I will admit), that's only icing on the cake.

It remains to be seen is the same strategic objectives can be achieved more cheaply and more quickly. So far, only the WH sustains that POV, in a direct contradiction to some of their previous and very recent stances. For example, according to an European analyst talking right now on the television, this was just a way Obama found to divert attetions from his domestic problems. And it's about the signals it sends. As the recent years proved well enough, perceptions are very important in the diplomatic game. One of the fundamentals axis of the Reagan Administration policy was that it was essential to make clear to those who could cons ute a threat to the American interests that resources would be wasted in missilles and defensive systems and that there were the means and the will to contain them. Nicolau Maquiavel 101. That's a very important lession that shouldn't be forgotten.

[Winehole23]

The biggest problem with this decision is the kind of signals it sends. Using Bernard Lewis words, America can be seen in the future as a "weak enemy and a treacherous friend". America had a diplomatic and military commitment and one ought to be very careful.

Perhaps. I don't really see the treachery here. Can you flesh it out for me?

[mogrovejo]

Perhaps. I don't really see the treachery here. Can you flesh it out for me?

I can't flat out call it treachery, stricto sensu, either, that's why I used the "can be seen" expression. I mean, Obama could announce tomorrow that the US will leave NATO: would that cons ute a betrayal? Not really. But this is just semantycs. There was a military commiment made to some allies; it was abruptly and suddenly cancelled completely disregarding those same allies and invocking some new circunstances that apparently nobody except the Administration was aware of. If I were an American Congressman, I'd have a lot of questions to make to the Administration on this decision. It may be the right one, but the entire process is dubious.

[Winehole23]

I see what you mean. European views get little play here, and still less do Americans take account of process. It's nice to get a "continental" perspective, and I can certainly see how this abrupt volte-face might raise some eyebrows.

[spursncowboys]

A February 2009 New York Times report quotes unamed U.S. officials claiming Obama offered to halt deployment of a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow aided Washington in curbing Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18792/
Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

A February 2009 New York Times report quotes unamed U.S. officials claiming Obama offered to halt deployment of a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow aided Washington in curbing Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18792/
Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

that's how politics work moron. I know you probably think kennedy didn't negotiate with the russians during the cuban missile crisis. how did that work out?

[Shastafarian]

Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hated Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.

[spursncowboys]

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hates Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies. I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hated Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.

he didn't think that all the way through but don't worry he'll come back with a caveat.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies. I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

what other ways?

[Shastafarian]

I'll keep this to one thread, no matter how many you think necessary.

The Iranian regime has an active nuclear energy program, and although U.S. intelligence reports say Iran is not developing an atomic weapon, a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded Thursday that Tehran has the ability to make a bomb. That news, reported by the Associated Press, also said Iran is on its way to developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead.

Obama is trying to negotiate with Iran. But if those talks fail, his administration will seek to impose "crippling sanctions," in the words of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Russia, whose president, Dmitry Medvedev, will meet Obama at the United Nations next week, is key to any such effort. So far, it has resisted further sanctions on Iran, which it supplies with weapons and other technology.

So basically we're trading a missile defense system that really has no use (if the Russians want to invade, they'll invade) for help stopping Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

[Shastafarian]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies.

Such as?

I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

Then you're dumber than I thought.

[MannyIsGod]

[spursncowboys]

I'll keep this to one thread, no matter how many you think necessary.



So basically we're trading a missile defense system that really has no use (if the Russians want to invade, they'll invade) for help stopping Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

What exactly do you think Obama is going to do to Iran? Buy them off like Bill did to N. Korea? That worked out for us.

[Shastafarian]

What exactly do you think Obama is going to do to Iran? Buy them off like Bill did to N. Korea? That worked out for us.

Wait so you think there's nothing to do to stop Iran, but you also get your panties in a bunch when we stop funding on a useless missile system to defend against Russia? Logic, yer deficient.