PDA

View Full Version : Obama to deploy Bush's ABM system in Poland


mhgaffney
11-10-2008, 05:39 PM
Apparently Obama has told the Polish government that he intends to go ahead with Bush's plan to install an ABM system on Russia's border.

We will have to wait for confirmation. But if this news is true -- it is far far worse than the Emanuel pick.

In fact, this is the worst possible news. I can't think of anything worse. Hopefully it is not true. But Mike Whitney is usually pretty reliable.

If it is true -- it means that Obama's foreign policy will be a continuation of Bush's.

The ABM deployment will have to be stopped. End of story.
MHG

Obama vs. Medvedev
Nuclear smackdown in New Europe

By Mike Whitney

November 09, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- "US president-elect Barack Obama has told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he will go ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in eastern Europe despite threats from Russia, Warsaw said on Saturday" AFP Warsaw

Dmitry Medvedev is a quiet and reflective man who enjoys reading novels, lifting weights and listening to rock and roll music. He has a large collection of vintage vinyl records. His favorite rock bands are Deep Purple, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. His parents were university professors who raised him in a crowded 500 sq ft apartment in Leningrad. He excelled at school and went on to become a lawyer before entering politics. He married his high school sweetheart, Svetlana Linnik, and is a close friend of former president Vladimir Putin.

Medvedev was elected President of Russia on March 2, 2008 in a landslide victory. He won over 70 percent of the vote. As Putin's hand-picked successor, the election was never really in doubt, although critics in the United States have challenged the fairness of the balloting. No one, however, questions Medvedev's public approval ratings, which are nearly as high as Putin's (who usually polls in the 80 percent range) Both leaders are extremely popular among working Russians.

Medvedev is a strong proponent of democracy and is deeply committed to an independent judiciary, private property and free markets. He is an honest and reasonable man who is also fiercely nationalistic.

This biographical information may help readers to form an opinion about a man who the western media has decided to destroy. Medvedev is not Putin's "puppet", a warmonger, or the "new Hitler". In fact, he is precisely the type of leader that the United States should be working with to deal with the critical issues of global poverty, energy depletion, climate change and the ongoing financial crisis. But that is unlikely to happen because Russia has frustrated Washington's ambitions in the Caucasus and is blocking Big Oil's access to vital reserves in the Caspian Basin. That's why Medvedev has been added to Washington's "enemies list".

Medvedev finds himself in the same position as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--the axis of diesel-- both of who are regularly savaged by the media because they sit on massive oil reserves which are beyond the grasp of the transnational corporations. That's why most of what is written about Medvedev is nonsense. The same corporations that own the politicians own the media as well. Naturally, they want to demonize their rivals. In truth, most Americans would have a lot more in common with Medvedev than they would with Bush, Cheney or any of their "silver spoon" elitist cronies.

US relations with Russia have steadily deteriorated under George Bush. Bush ignored his father's promises not to push NATO into former Soviet territory and now is planning to deploy a nuclear missile system in Eastern Europe. Missile Defense poses a clear danger to Russia's national security. It integrates the United States entire nuclear capability--including space-based operations--with systems that are inside Russia's traditional sphere of influence. Putin summed it up like this in a press conference at the G-8 meetings:

"For the first time in history, there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ... Of course, we have to respond to that."

The Bush administration is trying to achieve what nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". By placing weapons systems and radar on Russia's borders the US will have a critical advantage that will disrupt the delicate balance of power. Medvedev cannot allow this to happen. His first responsibility is to ensure the security of the Russian people who are clearly at greater risk by the proposed system. The planned deployment must be stopped. This is not a negotiable point.

Russian/US relations reached a new low following the recent war in Georgia. The aggression was initiated by Georgia President Saakashvili who ordered the invasion of South Ossetia after dropping thousands of cluster bombs on civilian areas and leveling the capital of Tskhinvali. The media has blamed Russia for the conflict, but a new report by Human Rights Watch confirms that Georgia was the real perpetrator. The report, which was presented at the Convention on Conventional Weapons, "adds to a growing body of evidence of Georgian atrocities in the fighting....The group said Tuesday that Georgia...used cluster munitions extensively in the war, which began when Georgia launched a major artillery strike against South Ossetia, a breakaway Georgian enclave, prompting Russia to invade large swaths of Georgian territory." (New York Times)

Another report in the New York Times stated: "The accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on August 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.... The then senior OSCE representative in Georgia, Ryan Grist, said:

“It was clear to me that the attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation...The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”
Mr. Grist has served as a military officer or diplomat in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Yugoslavia.(New York Times)

An unknown number of Russian civilians were killed in the aggression, which has fundamentally changed the political dynamic between Moscow and Washington. Just below the surface of diplomatic civility, a war is underway, which is why Russia is strengthening alliances in Central Asia and Latin America, opening naval bases in the Mediterranean, establishing energy corridors to Europe, and developing new weapons systems. Russia is not Iraq. It will be prepared if hostilities break out.

The war in South Ossetia was a turning point in US/Russo relations, as Medvedev points out:

"Events in the Caucasus dispelled whatever illusions people had remaining from the post-Soviet period. Those illusions were about the world being just and about the current security system being optimal." (Russia Today)

Medvedev also sees the war in South Ossetia as symptomatic of a larger and more deeply-rooted problem.

Medvedev: “A barbaric aggression against South Ossetia and the global financial crisis – two very different problems which nevertheless have common traits and a common origin...A local reckless enterprise provoked a rise of tensions far behind the region’s borders, in the whole of Europe, in the whole world. It called into question the efficiency of international security institutions and practically destabilized the basics of the world order. The lessons of mistakes and crises of 2008 proved to all the responsible nations that it is the time to act, and it is necessary to radically reform the political and economic system."

Medvedev is right. The present architecture for global security needs to be thoroughly revamped as does the global financial system. Unilateralism, preemption and the Bush Doctrine have only made the world a more dangerous place. So, too, Wall Street's disproportionate influence on financial markets has precipitated the worst crisis in the last 80 years. There needs to be a new order based on mutual cooperation and international law which establishes greater parity between the countries (and their currencies) and a renewed commitment to fundamental principles of national sovereignty and self determination. Superpower politics, wherein one nation arbitrarily imposes its will on all the others, has proved to be a failure. Unipolar rule must end for the sake of global security.

Medvedev: “I emphasize; we do not have a problem with the American people, we are not anti-American. We want to be partners with the new U.S. administration, and have good relations with the United States. Together with all countries interested we will create a really democratic model of relations. But the world cannot be ruled from one capital. Those who do not want to understand that will be only creating problems for themselves and for others."

RUSSIAN MISSILES IN EUROPE?

In his first State of the Nation speech on Thursday Medvedev addressed everything from South Ossetia, to terrorism, to Missile Defense, to a plan for global security. He said that he would deploy Iskander missiles in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad if the US administration went ahead with its plans for a missile shield in Europe.

Obama's foreign policy advisers have taken Medvedev's warning as a "test" of the new president's mettle and persuaded him to publicly announce his commitment to Bush's Missile Defense system.

According to AFP: "US president-elect Barack Obama has told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he will go ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in eastern Europe despite threats from Russia, Warsaw said on Saturday. The US wants to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland plus a radar facility in the neighboring Czech Republic by 2011-2013 to complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland and Britain."

Obama is walking into a trap. He should see that the proposed deployment is needlessly provocative and will only lead to further escalation. He's already facing two unfinished wars and a deepening recession; he doesn't need a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Marching in lockstep with the fanatical neocon agenda is not the "change" the American people were hoping for.

In his State of the Nation speech, Medvedev announced plans to make Russia a global financial center by the end of 2008.

Medvedev: "A package of bills forming the basis for the creation of one of the world's leading financial centers in Russia needs to be passed before the end of this year. This center should serve as the nucleus for an independent and competitive Russian financial system. Practical steps are needed to strengthen the ruble's role as an international settlement currency and to finally achieve the transition to settlements in rubles for gas and oil, over which we have, regrettably, taken a long time." (Russia Today)

Medvedev and Putin blame the United States for the current firestorm in the financial markets. Wall Street's sale of fraudulent subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other structured investments have pushed the global banking system to the brink of a meltdown. It all could have been avoided with sufficient oversight and regulation. Even so, Medvedev still remains committed to free markets and democracy.

Medvedev: "I want everyone to know: our goals are unchanged. Sharp fluctuations in the political and economic situation, turbulence of the world economy and even forced military and political tensions will not become the ground to dismount democratic institutions, nationalizing industries and the financial system.....Political freedom of citizens and their private property are untouchable....Any infringement of civil rights and freedoms, or any action that worsens the material position of citizens, is immoral and illegal."

While Russia's young president is looking for ways to strengthen a progressive agenda and emerge from the darkness of Soviet-era repression, the United States is still in the clutches of hawkish neocons, recalcitrant cold warriors and self-serving banking elites. Obama has a unique opportunity to reconcile past differences and collaborate on a shared vision of the future with his Kremlin counterpart, or he can put a knife to Moscow's throat and force Medvedev to repond. Which will it be?

From the Associated Press, Saturday Nov 8: "A Kremlin statement says Medvedev and Obama spoke by telephone on Saturday. Both parties 'expressed the determination to create constructive and positive interaction for the good of global stability and development.'"

International security is in everyone's best interest. Bush's Missile Defense System must be stopped.

mhgaffney
11-10-2008, 05:44 PM
BTW -- just the other day the New York Times finally reported the truth about the war in S Ossetia last August. The Times acknowledged that the Russians did NOT start the war. No, it was started by the US ally -- the Georgian president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Yet, Obama and all other US politicians have blamed Russia -- saying all sorts of thngs that were just not true.

So why couldn't the NY Times tell the truth back in August? This tells us that the US media is almost totally controlled.

Factor this in with the report I just posted and you will see the seriousness of our predicament.

MHG

cutthemdown
11-10-2008, 06:08 PM
Sorry I already posted this no one cared.

mhgaffney
11-11-2008, 01:43 PM
They better care. If true -- this is the worst news since the US invaded Iraq.

ak1971
11-11-2008, 02:24 PM
are these mini - nukes or maxi - nukes?

BroncoBuff
11-11-2008, 02:50 PM
Sorry I already posted this no one cared.
I care ... it's a bad bad idea.

Hotrod
11-11-2008, 02:53 PM
I highly doubt Barry is going to follow thru with this.

BroncoBuff
11-11-2008, 03:06 PM
I highly doubt Barry is going to follow thru with this.
You mean barryr, right? Yes ... he is a pain in the neck.

ak1971
11-11-2008, 03:09 PM
You mean barryr, right? Yes ... he is a pain in the neck.

no..Barry, The 'O', The Messaah, The President of the United States.

BroncoBuff
11-11-2008, 03:17 PM
The massah? That's not funny....

ak1971
11-11-2008, 03:19 PM
The massah? That's not funny....

yeah..all those years of private school I still cant spell. That is kind of ironic I spelled that given Biden's comments pre election

Spider
11-11-2008, 03:22 PM
yeah..all those years of private school I still cant spell. That is kind of ironic I spelled that given Biden's comments pre election

hey now . no pulling a spider here .... Iam the one true bad spellar here ..find your own excuses ;D

Rohirrim
11-11-2008, 03:24 PM
I guarantee you, Obama hasn't told anybody any such thing. This is all the chicken littles looking for any crumb to get hysterical over. As Obama has had to remind the press a number of times, he's not the president until Jan. 20th. I realize we live in a 24/7 news cycle now, but can we back off on the hysteria? I realize Gaff couldn't take a breath without some hysteria catalyst pulsing through his fevered brain. It does not mean everybody else has to fall for it.

Man. This is going to be an interesting couple of months.

Hotrod
11-11-2008, 03:28 PM
I guarantee you, Obama hasn't told anybody any such thing. This is all the chicken littles looking for any crumb to get hysterical over. As Obama has had to remind the press a number of times, he's not the president until Jan. 20th. I realize we live in a 24/7 news cycle now, but can we back off on the hysteria? I realize Gaff couldn't take a breath without some hysteria catalyst pulsing through his fevered brain. It does not mean everybody else has to fall for it.

Man. This is going to be an interesting couple of months.

So are you telling me you dont think Barry is an inside terrorist whos only real plan for change is to destroy the country???

Rohirrim
11-11-2008, 03:51 PM
So are you telling me you dont think Barry is an inside terrorist whos only real plan for change is to destroy the country???

Okay, I'll come clean. I found the truth on the internet.

Obama is actually the Unabomber. :P

W*GS
11-11-2008, 05:48 PM
Keep digging, gaffney. You'll find those Christ-killers behind it all...

Miss I.
11-11-2008, 05:50 PM
Okay, I know I am about to get slammed for this, but why does he keep calling him Barry?

cutthemdown
11-11-2008, 06:07 PM
Okay, I know I am about to get slammed for this, but why does he keep calling him Barry?

because in HS he went as Barry.

kappys
11-11-2008, 07:41 PM
BTW -- just the other day the New York Times finally reported the truth about the war in S Ossetia last August. The Times acknowledged that the Russians did NOT start the war. No, it was started by the US ally -- the Georgian president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Yet, Obama and all other US politicians have blamed Russia -- saying all sorts of thngs that were just not true.

So why couldn't the NY Times tell the truth back in August? This tells us that the US media is almost totally controlled.

Factor this in with the report I just posted and you will see the seriousness of our predicament.

MHG

Well Georgia is an ally that's why it wasn't reported the right way.

Still claiming that Russia is full of peace and democracy loving rulers while they tighten their fist on their own populace and ruthlessly crushed Chechnya is a little short-sighted. I really don't blame them for invading S. Ossetia. If a town full of Americans lived across the border in Mexico and sufferred the same fate I probably would have supported military intervention too.

As for the missile shield if Obama really plans to push through with this it is going to lead to a complete breakdown of the ragged remains of any non-proliferation treaty. Eventually an accident or a missile that falls into the wrong hands is going to devastate a city.

I wouldn't call it the greatest calamity though. My hopes for Obama are small. If he can contain the war in Iraq, get the troops out in 3 years(I expect nothing until he needs to get reelected), and not create a larger regional conflict within Iran and Pakistan I will be satisfied. The whole middle east going up in flames is my worst fear.

cutthemdown
11-11-2008, 11:41 PM
Well Georgia is an ally that's why it wasn't reported the right way.

Still claiming that Russia is full of peace and democracy loving rulers while they tighten their fist on their own populace and ruthlessly crushed Chechnya is a little short-sighted. I really don't blame them for invading S. Ossetia. If a town full of Americans lived across the border in Mexico and sufferred the same fate I probably would have supported military intervention too.

As for the missile shield if Obama really plans to push through with this it is going to lead to a complete breakdown of the ragged remains of any non-proliferation treaty. Eventually an accident or a missile that falls into the wrong hands is going to devastate a city.

I wouldn't call it the greatest calamity though. My hopes for Obama are small. If he can contain the war in Iraq, get the troops out in 3 years(I expect nothing until he needs to get reelected), and not create a larger regional conflict within Iran and Pakistan I will be satisfied. The whole middle east going up in flames is my worst fear.


I find it interesting you think pursuing missile defense will lead to some sort of accident where a nuke gets launched.

Also Obama promised getting the troops out in like what 16 months? LOL now you say 3 yrs!!!!! Wow ok whatever. Truth is saying 16 months was idiotic. The good news is he's smart enough to say well turns out that there is too much equipment and too many troops to get out that fast. Good thing you aren't holding him to the 16 months or whatever it was he originally said.

SoCalBronco
11-11-2008, 11:44 PM
No more ABM systems, either here or helping develop them for other countries. This just antagonizes the Russians, thereby egging them on to further develop their weapons systems, which will then force us to do the same so that we can ensure nuclear sufficiency/parity....it essentially fuels an arms race, needlessly. It makes the world less safe, while bankrupting us further.

I am concerned about Russian aggression and the Medvedev/Putin regime in general, but hopefully the administration will attempt to smooth relations. The first thing that should be done is Obama should have a summit meeting with them and propose to reinstate the ABM Treaty that Bush opted out of early in his administration, which was a very poor decision. Neither country can afford another arms race. Instead of wasting billions upon billions trying to obtain first strike capability, which will never happen, because they'll spend whatever it takes to match us (or even exceed us, they certainly have a stronger revenue stream right now than we do), we should both agree to again put the clamps down on ABM systems. The theory of MAD is just as true today as it was in 1972. That alone ensures nuclear peace between the superpowers, so there's no need for ABM systems. The only exception would be from a terrorist attack, but its highly unlikely that terrorists would strike with nuclear weapons in such a traditional way (that is, launching them from another country). It's more likely that they would just smuggle something in the US and set it off, which renders an ABM system worthless.

cutthemdown
11-11-2008, 11:51 PM
No more ABM systems, either here or helping develop them for other countries. This just antagonizes the Russians, thereby egging them on to further develop their weapons systems, which will then force us to do the same so that we can ensure nuclear sufficiency/parity....it essentially fuels an arms race, needlessly.

I am concerned about Russian aggression and the Medvedev/Putin regime in general, but hopefully the administration will attempt to smooth relations. The first thing that should be done is Obama should have a summit meeting with them and propose to reinstate the ABM Treaty that Bush opted out of early in his administration, which was a very poor decision. Neither country can afford another arms race. Instead of wasting billions upon billions trying to obtain first strike capability, which will never happen, because they'll spend whatever it takes to match us (or even exceed us, they certainly have a stronger revenue stream right now than we do), we should both agree to again put the clamps down on ABM systems. The theory of MAD is just as true today as it was in 1972. That alone ensures nuclear peace between the superpowers, so there's no need for ABM systems. The only exception would be from a terrorist attack, but its highly unlikely that terrorists would strike with nuclear weapons in such a traditional way (that is, launching them from another country). It's more likely that they would just smuggle something in the US and set it off, which renders an ABM system worthless.

Ok pretty well thought out reasoning. One point I would like to make though is how much information we lack. We don't have the intelligence reports the Presidents get. If Obama agrees with Bush on it maybe they know something we don't.

Also Russias revenue stream is over. Once oil dipped back down that was big trouble for their economy.

Also smuggling nukes isn't easy, either is setting them off. Let's face it there is one country in that region they are worried about. It's Iran and we all know that is the real reason. They are developing nuclear fuel, they are developing missiles, it deosn't take a scholar or a genius to figure out that is the threat.

cutthemdown
11-12-2008, 01:20 AM
Also what makes any of you think the Russians aren't also working on ABM systems? Or China for that matter. If the technology is possible I don't see how we can't make sure we develop it.

I also totally understand everyones argument about not wanting an arms race with Russia. Talk about tough decisions. I mean let's say we deploy and it led to a big arms race or it scared Russia into attacking Poland or something crazy like that. Or we don't develop the technology, then one day Russia deploys some ABM system they were developing and now were screwed.

Or worst case we don't do it and someday Iran lobs a nuke at Israel. I know sounds crazy but the leaders of Iran would maybe do it to end it all rather then give in to the moderates that are there people. I mean the hard line muslims always say it's not this life that matters but the afterlife.

I will agree though that if the technology doesn't work really well it would be stupid to deploy it.

elsid13
11-12-2008, 02:13 PM
just to add fuel to the fire ----


Print (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_missile_test/print;_ylt=ApH.Tf5aKyCfcKSqawEfDvIUewgF)
Back to story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_missile_test;_ylt=Atw2of6yFO97YJcoMAkwqjAU ewgF)
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nt/ma/ma_nws_2.gif (http://news.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AoIVB6uh9SGI2rkXoZVMeTkUewgF)
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png Iran tests precision missile able to reach Europe

<CITE class=vcard>By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer </CITE><ABBR class=recenttimedate title=2008-11-12T11:28:07-0800>2 hrs 45 mins ago</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said it successfully test-fired a new generation of long range surface-to-surface missile on Wednesday — one that could easily strike as far away as southeastern Europe with greater precision than earlier models.
The Sajjil is a solid fuel high-speed missile with a range of about 1,200 miles, Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar said on state television. At that range, it could easily strike Iran's arch-foe Israel and go as far as southeastern Europe.
Solid-fuel missiles are more accurate than the liquid fuel missiles of similar range currently possessed by Iran. The country has had a solid-fuel missile with a shorter range — the Fateh, able to fly 120 miles — for several years.
The Islamic Republic News Agency said the test was conducted Wednesday, and television showed the missile being fired from a desert launching pad.
Najjar said the missile was a defensive weapon and not a response to threats against Iran. He didn't name any country, but Israel has recently threatened to take military action against Iran to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Najjar said the missile was part of a "defensive, deterrent strategy ... specifically with defensive objectives."
The defense minister, quoted by Iran state television, said the two-stage missile with two solid-fuel engines has "an extraordinary high capability" but gave no further details. He did not say whether it was capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Israel's Foreign Ministry refused comment about the missile test.
In Washington, the State Department said the missile tests were not good for the stability of the region and were another sign that U.S. plans to construct a missile shield in Europe are critical to international security. Department spokesman Robert Wood said Washington hoped Russia, which has criticized the proposed shield, would recognize the threat posed by Iran and realize the system is not aimed at Russia.
"I think it's pretty obvious when Iran launches one of these ballistic missiles, that this is something of concern to the international community, and I'm including Russia in the international community here," he said.
The name "Sajjil" means "baked clay," a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam's holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay.
Iran has intensified its domestic missile development in recent years, raising concerns of the U.S. and its allies at a time when they accuse the country of seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it wants to build a bomb, saying its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.
In a speech coinciding with the missile launch, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that his government would act against any threats.
"The Iranian nation defends its dignity. Should any power stand against the Iranian nation, the Iranian people will crush it under its foot and will strike it on the mouth," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.
Ahmadinejad added that it doesn't matter who comes to power in America because the important question will be how a future U.S. administration will behave.
The Sajjil's range puts it at around the same range as Iran's other farthest-flying missiles — a version of the Shahab-3 unveiled in 2005 and the Ghadr, which was shown off at a September 2007 military parade. The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and its latest versions use a combination of liquid and solid fuel.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane. Najjar said the Sajjil was built by the Defense Ministry's aerospace department.
____

kappys
11-12-2008, 06:33 PM
I find it interesting you think pursuing missile defense will lead to some sort of accident where a nuke gets launched.

Also Obama promised getting the troops out in like what 16 months? LOL now you say 3 yrs!!!!! Wow ok whatever. Truth is saying 16 months was idiotic. The good news is he's smart enough to say well turns out that there is too much equipment and too many troops to get out that fast. Good thing you aren't holding him to the 16 months or whatever it was he originally said.

That's exactly where ABM is leading. To a renewed arms race. Russia isn't building nukes because their economy is great, they are building them out of fear of the US buildup which they know they can't compete with. China has also worked towards developing missiles to destory space based satellites in a hope to have a viable resistance to US militarization of space.

We have reached a pretty pass in history. Nuclear technology is simply not that complex anymore. A well equipped college lab can make a bomb. We can not continue the current approach to nuclear warfare/containment or it might be the death of us all. As for Iran nobody wants them to have nukes - but if they weren't actively trying to get them I would think the leadership insane. we have proven that we will invade anyone we want to and a nuclear arsenal is the only deterrant.

I never really expected him to get the troops out in 16 months. I supported Obama but only because there are no candidates anywhere near my views and he was a better choice than Mccain. Don't lump me into the LABF style democratic supporters. there are plenty of problems with that party, although IMO the fault lines run much deeper than either party in American politics.

At any rate Obama is shrewd and I expect him to follow the Nixon peace with honor plan, probably to be inaugurated with a large bombing campaign of Afghanistan to prove that he is interested - thereby ensuring the further hatred of their people. But like Nixon he knows he has to be out before serious campaigning for the next election begins so it doesn't look like a campaign ploy.

mhgaffney
11-12-2008, 09:42 PM
Don't be fooled by the Iranian missile launch. Iran has nothing to do with the deployment of an ABM in Poland -- despite Bush's lies to the contrary. Bush's lies are transparent to the whole world.

The ABM shield is aimed at Russia.

Kappys is right. The Russians could develop an ABM system -- but wny would they? The Russians are under no illusions that they can take out the US in a nuclear first strike.

This is the only purpose for an ABM system -- these systems have never been shown to work very well -- if at all. But they might be able to do one thing: stop a few straggler ICBMs launched by Russia -- in retaliation --- a weak counter strike after a US first strike.

By 2006 the US was very close to a first strike capability. However, Putin ordered the construction of one or more brand new Russian subs loaded with SLBMs -- which can sit off the US east coast -- and give Russia a credible counter strike force. So one nation's parry is matched by a sally from the other side.

It never ends. We should be converting these weapons into ploughshares to feed and clothe the children of Africa and Asia. Give them access to clean water, cell phones and computers and they will transform Asia and Africa.

My old professor at Colorado State University, Dr Maurice Albertson, who helped found the Peace Corps during the JFK years -- has crunched the numbers and says we could lift the 3rd world out of poverty for a mere $100 billion. That's peanuts when you consider the benefits.

Instead we prefer to flush trillions down the toilet in failed wars. We have learned nothing from history.

If we do not change this the future will belong to the cockroaches.

MHG

cutthemdown
11-12-2008, 10:42 PM
Missile defense in Poland does nothing to thwart a Russian strike on America so Gaff's assumptions don't fly straight. The whole notion the plan would be to have first strike capability is pretty far fetched. It makes since to put missile defense in Poland, Turkey, or Ukraine. Do this and if system works Iran can't threaten Europe with nuclear missiles.

Its much more likely being done because America predicts a future conflict with Iran.

Russia IMO is more worried about it's plans to retake the Soviet Block.

ScottXray
11-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Well Georgia is an ally that's why it wasn't reported the right way.

Still claiming that Russia is full of peace and democracy loving rulers while they tighten their fist on their own populace and ruthlessly crushed Chechnya is a little short-sighted. I really don't blame them for invading S. Ossetia. If a town full of Americans lived across the border in Mexico and sufferred the same fate I probably would have supported military intervention too.

As for the missile shield if Obama really plans to push through with this it is going to lead to a complete breakdown of the ragged remains of any non-proliferation treaty. Eventually an accident or a missile that falls into the wrong hands is going to devastate a city.

I wouldn't call it the greatest calamity though. My hopes for Obama are small. If he can contain the war in Iraq, get the troops out in 3 years(I expect nothing until he needs to get reelected), and not create a larger regional conflict within Iran and Pakistan I will be satisfied. The whole middle east going up in flames is my worst fear.

Placing the missiles is far away from reality....think bargaining chips...Obama is leaving the option open...for now. I doubt he goes through with it, but he won't give chips up without receiving something in counter from Putin. Its called politics.

elsid13
11-13-2008, 02:01 AM
If the US was attempting first strike capabilities against Russia the ABM system would be deployed in Greenland, and Canada not Poland. ICBM from Russia would travel over the North Pole to US and likewise US land based ICBM would travel the same way in opposite direction. An ABM system in Poland doesn't protect either Europe or the US from threats in Russia since the travel time ballistic missile launched from Russia to Germany is less then 10 minutes.

The Lone Bolt
11-13-2008, 01:25 PM
If the US was attempting first strike capabilities against Russia the ABM system would be deployed in Greenland, and Canada not Poland. ICBM from Russia would travel over the North Pole to US and likewise US land based ICBM would travel the same way in opposite direction. An ABM system in Poland doesn't protect either Europe or the US from threats in Russia since the travel time ballistic missile launched from Russia to Germany is less then 10 minutes.

Please don't try to confuse Gaffney with the facts. Thank you.