Here is the most recent (9/17/09) statement from the White House on the future path of missile defense.
AIUI, it's not that the plan is to give up on ground-based interceptors per se--but rather that development will focus on the SM-3--which is a sea-based missile--and the current ground-based interceptors will essentially languish. Ground-based versions of the SM-3 are planned (I don't believe any are now operational).
--Philistine
It's just as you say. Sec'y Gates had an OpEd in the NY Times in which he said how they were replacing an expensive, unwieldy system that was expected to be of little value for the threats we face, with a seaborne system that will be more flexible, cost less, and be delivering protection sooner.
But count on partisan loons to try to portray this as endangering our country.
I'm still chuckling over ("Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!") Oops, wrong part of the Axis.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
"Painting the decision "not" to put missile interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic over Russia's objections as a "surrender" by the United States ... is a profound failure to appreciate Russian history and how that history shapes the Russian view of the world.
There is a reason that Russia is -- for lack of a better word -- paranoid about anything even remotely militaristic on around their border, aka having more people get killed in the last world war than every other country put together. To ignore this political reality while shaping foreign policy and solving international problems is, IMO, foolhardy.
Look, there is no reason to needlessly antagonize Russia while we figure out how to deal with the Iranian issue ... by putting defensive weapon systems that may or may not work in Eastern Europe right under Russia's nose, we were just making the issue more difficult and complicated to solve for us, not to mention making life difficult for the Czechs and the Poles -- if you follow the news, you may recall that threats that were made against both countries.
I have to agree ( though doubtless from different motives ). Why were we both spending a lot of money AND poking the Russian bear by installing a missile to defend Europe from putative Iranian missiles? How about defending the US, and letting the Europeans defend Europe?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
I have to agree ( though doubtless from different motives ). Why were we both spending a lot of money AND poking the Russian bear by installing a missile to defend Europe from putative Iranian missiles? How about defending the US, and letting the Europeans defend Europe?
Because despite most Americans believing that the Cold War is over, Russia has never taken its eyes off the ball. Putin and his KGB comrades are still running the country and preparing to deal us and the freedom we stand for a final blow.
Same thing with the Iranians. Although we can't afford to engage either right now, we should at least have some level of preparedness.
__________________
no taxation without representation!
According to a recent harvard study nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because of inadequate access to health care. According to at least anecdotal evidence, no American has ever been even injured by a long-range Iranian ICBM.
Therefore I propose that the US privatize missile defence, so that insurance companies can sell anti-Iranian-long-range-missile insurance, and put the government in charge of providing health insurance. Big win for insurance companies, since they would be able to collect premiums and because the threat against which they are insuring doesn't exist, there's a good chance they'll never have to pay out any claims. It would also be a big win for the tax payer, since government subsidy of missile defence systems designed to stop non-existent Iranian long-range ballistic missiles is very costly and has yet to successfully defend anybody against Iranian long-range ballistic missiles (which don't exist).
I also oppose a personal and employer mandate for anti-Iranian-long-range-missile insurance.
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Because despite most Americans believing that the Cold War is over, Russia has never taken its eyes off the ball. Putin and his KGB comrades are still running the country and preparing to deal us and the freedom we stand for a final blow.
Same thing with the Iranians. Although we can't afford to engage either right now, we should at least have some level of preparedness.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that to a point Chase is correct. Russia and Iran are still aggressive, but that's as far as it goes.
Chase, please explain what a missile defense shield that is radically expensive, far from effective, and a very provocative move to restart the Cold War, will actually do to stem Russian or Iranian aggression?
As I see it, launching missles is not part of any plan by the Russians or Iranians. Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for 60 years. What has changed? And how would a missile defense system on Russia's border help us?
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that to a point Chase is correct. Russia and Iran are still aggressive, but that's as far as it goes.
Chase, please explain what a missile defense shield that is radically expensive, far from effective, and a very provocative move to restart the Cold War, will actually do to stem Russian or Iranian aggression?
As I see it, launching missles is not part of any plan by the Russians or Iranians. Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for 60 years. What has changed? And how would a missile defense system on Russia's border help us?
There you have it. They are still aggressive. It is only a matter of time before we engage them in combat. We are at the top right now, and they all want to knock us down.
Nothing has really changed, except for them lulling some weak-minded Americans into thinking we are going to be friends with them. Those weak-minded Americans will let their desire for peace cloud reality and they will gradually disarm. When we are least suspecting (and least able) to defend ourselves, they will have an easy time destroying us.
__________________
no taxation without representation!
Lol. Someone needs to reread their WWII textbook. If they couldn't defend themselves against Germany, how could they defend themselves against Russia?
Ok, going down the historical route... You do know that Germany (which is a part of Europe, as you may have heard) almost defeated Russia... So extrapolating from that, a united Europe should be more than able to repel a Russian attack.
Never mind that you're completely ignoring the fact that the diplomatic and military situation in Europe has changed somewhat in the past 50 years...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase
There you have it. They are still aggressive. It is only a matter of time before we engage them in combat. We are at the top right now, and they all want to knock us down.
Nothing has really changed, except for them lulling some weak-minded Americans into thinking we are going to be friends with them. Those weak-minded Americans will let their desire for peace cloud reality and they will gradually disarm. When we are least suspecting (and least able) to defend ourselves, they will have an easy time destroying us.
Wow, way to only acknoledge the small part of the post that agrees with you, while completely IGNORING the rest... Great strategy to make yourself look like you're actually winning an argument.
Linear Mode
