Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran'

#27
#27
emainvol said:
Yes. It reeks of appeasement.
Click to expand...

So now we finally agree on something!!! :)










022609img7.gif
 
#28
#28
joevol320 said:
this is a prime example of the ignorance of hussein. he's going to agree to drop missle defense if russia helps with iran nukes. but, iran and russia have been working together for the past couple of years. do you hussein supporters really think russia will do anything to change iran's mind? hussein will make all the concessions and he'll end up looking like an idiot (again).

libs should be tried for treason.
Click to expand...
Let Bush go first
 
#29
#29
I 100% disagree with Obama on this one. He has no clue what he is doing.

On another note, why does Russia view this as a direct threat to them? The system is defensive in nature and not directed toward them.
 
#30
#30
rjd970 said:
I 100% disagree with Obama on this one. He has no clue what he is doing.

On another note, why does Russia view this as a direct threat to them? The system is defensive in nature and not directed toward them.
Click to expand...

Because it has been argued that the US has "been less than accurate" about the system's ability to catch Russian missiles. While it isn't "pointed" at them, they certainly believe that it could be used against them. Thus, they see it as an encroaching act.
 
#32
#32
TennTradition said:
Because it has been argued that the US has "been less than accurate" about the system's ability to catch Russian missiles. While it isn't "pointed" at them, they certainly believe that it could be used against them. Thus, they see it as an encroaching act.
Click to expand...

who argues this?
 
#33
#33
TennTradition said:
Because it has been argued that the US has "been less than accurate" about the system's ability to catch Russian missiles. While it isn't "pointed" at them, they certainly believe that it could be used against them. Thus, they see it as an encroaching act.
Click to expand...

But it is defensive in nature. As long as they don't launch at us we won't destroy a single piece of Russian hardware. And the system can't be used in an offensive manner in any way.

Alot of this has got to be just chest thumping by the Russians. They have to know that this system can't be used to launch missiles at them. They just don't like the fact that we have a system that could potentially render the mutually assured destruction strategy they depend on mute.

EDIT: I see what your saying, I guess my point is the Russian stated policy doesn't make sense with reality.
 
#34
#34
rjd970 said:
But it is defensive in nature. As long as they don't launch at us we won't destroy a single piece of Russian hardware. And the system can't be used in an offensive manner in any way.

Alot of this has got to be just chest thumping by the Russians. They have to know that this system can't be used to launch missiles at them. They just don't like the fact that we have a system that could potentially render the mutually assured destruction strategy they depend on mute.

EDIT: I see what your saying, I guess my point is the Russian stated policy doesn't make sense with reality.
Click to expand...

Would you, if you drank that much Vodka?
 
#35
#35
rjd970 said:
But it is defensive in nature. As long as they don't launch at us we won't destroy a single piece of Russian hardware. And the system can't be used in an offensive manner in any way.

Alot of this has got to be just chest thumping by the Russians. They have to know that this system can't be used to launch missiles at them. They just don't like the fact that we have a system that could potentially render the mutually assured destruction strategy they depend on mute.

EDIT: I see what your saying, I guess my point is the Russian stated policy doesn't make sense with reality.
Click to expand...
the system is not offensive in nature, but to the extent that it precludes MAD, then it makes nukes a viable alternative for us in the tactical and strategic sphere. This essentially makes our nukes offensive weapons. Lets us go back to the Eisenhower diplomacy of "step over that line, we nuke you til you glow, otherwise we're good."
 
#36
#36
joevol320 said:
who argues this?
Click to expand...

This article gets into a lot of other aspects (such as the more important issue of numbers), but it also addresses the issue of the ability to intercept Russian missiles as currently designed.

European Missile Defense: The Technological Basis of Russian Concerns

When it comes to the technical analysis, the Russians seemed to come to the same conclusion as Ted Postol. I will say that while one can argue about Postol's (political) approach, his technical analysis tends to be quite sound.
 
#37
#37
rjd970 said:
But it is defensive in nature. As long as they don't launch at us we won't destroy a single piece of Russian hardware. And the system can't be used in an offensive manner in any way.

Alot of this has got to be just chest thumping by the Russians. They have to know that this system can't be used to launch missiles at them. They just don't like the fact that we have a system that could potentially render the mutually assured destruction strategy they depend on mute.

EDIT: I see what your saying, I guess my point is the Russian stated policy doesn't make sense with reality.
Click to expand...

If we employ an effective missile defense system, then we remove the current nuclear deterrent. Our nuclear weapons would now be more than just a deterrent, they would be offensive as a matter of policy if we have the capability to eliminate foreign nuclear threats (by air).

However, the Russians may also be confused as to why we are doing this....because it seems the system doesn't currently work very well...so why risk this tension to install it? It's making them a bit nervous I would think.
 
#38
#38
Nice move. Bet Obama really won over leaders of some European countries with this move.
 
#39
#39
allvol123 said:
Nice move. Bet Obama really won over leaders of some European countries with this move.
Click to expand...

That's actually an interesting point...I'm not sure. It seemed at one time that a lot of the EU were pretty upset about this when the issue of the Russians saying we were lying about the systems capability was in the press. At the moment, I guess they are more worried about their natural gas than they are Iranian nukes. However, maybe that has been smoothed over...
 
#40
#40
Just seems to me some of them stuck their neck out a little by offering up their land for missile sites. Obviously they would gain protection by the missiles in return for sticking their neck out. Now Obama comes out and basically pulls the rug out from underneath them or at least shows he is more than willing to do so.
 
#41
#41
allvol123 said:
Just seems to me some of them stuck their neck out a little by offering up their land for missile sites. Obviously they would gain protection by the missiles in return for sticking their neck out. Now Obama comes out and basically pulls the rug out from underneath them or at least shows he is more than willing to do so.
Click to expand...

I would like to get more information on what Poland and the Czech Republic were told about the systems capability. I know that a lot of the EU were upset at the prospects that the US might have been less than truthful about the system's capability to target Russian missiles. However, I'm not sure about Poland and the Czech Republic...I could see how they wouldn't give a rat's behind about what Russia thinks about anything after their past experiences...but they too rely on Russian gas.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top