Hopefully this continues and is constructed in Poland in accordance with the original plans. It is troubling that Russia suddenly is at least feigning shock at the idea of a "missile base" on her border, knowing full well it is for interceptors, while at the same time building and testing a brand new "smart" ICBM supposedly designed to defeat such a system. If Russia's intent were honest, in my humble opinion they would take the offer of oversight or some other verification the missiles are not offensive (as their information machine seems to have many in Poland and Eastern Europe believing) but defensive. They have made no such move, and claim that such a base would specifically defend against Russia. Russia's protests are akin to one being angry with one's neighbor for considering the loan of body armor, while one is blatantly brandishing and firing his own shiny new weapon with armor piercing bullets. Where is the problem-the man wanting a vest, or the one with the new gun?
Hey, jporkchop, to play the devil's advocate for a sec here, what would you think of Russia putting anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Cuba?? I don't blame them for freaking out.
"The U.S. military is exploring other options for expanding the coverage of its missile defense system if negotiations on locating a third ground-based interceptor site in Poland are not continued under President-elect Barack Obama.
"We are in discussions with the MDA [Missile Defense Agency] on alternatives if the discussions in Europe do not continue," says Air Force Gen. Victor Renuart Jr., head of both the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Northern Command."
Is it just me, or did the highlighted part come across as implying that the Pentagon would act contrary to orders and policy of President-elect Obama if he doesn't keep pushing the "missile defense" site in Poland upon taking office?
It amazes me that anyone particpating in this discussion can be so naive as to think that the Pentagon will not live up to it's first mandate to protect and prepare for the next "Pearl Harbor!" Unlike the original Pearl Harbor, the next one (a surprise attack on the USA by a major world power) will not afford us a second chance to repel it and gear up for a protracted conventional war. When it comes, and come it will, either WE or our ATTACKING ADVERSARY will be completely destroyed.
Although I do agree that we need to have the land based capabilities, I think we need to remember we already have a NAVY that has the capability to be Global, Be anywhere at anytime. Unfortunately a smart decision like that would rearrange some of the toy's in a particular sandbox to another's sandbox, but it's not about who's in control, but about OUR SAFETY AND OUR TAX DOLLARS. I think it would cut down on spending, make it more mobile so we can continue to deal with current threats and be where we are needed when threatened.
Im still trying to figure out after 4 years how in the hell a interceptor base in Poland will protect the USA or Europe from Korea and Iran. It still is more plausible and realistic that they are meant to provoke Russia more than anything else. Putting a missile that can be quickly converted to an offensive weapon with a simple program change within sight of Russia is nothing more than daring Russia to come blow them up. Another thing I found hilarious from the article.
quote:
Meanwhile, Renuart says the operational commands are pushing for a policy decision on homeland cruise missile defense.
Homeland cruise missile defense??? WTF??? Does Renuart think Wal-Mart is going to start selling them to rogue nations along with the aircraft or Naval vessels to carry them? I mean get real dumbazz. who has cruise missiles that realistically can reach the USA? Is he worried England or France might attack? Certainly not Russia as it is only concerned with defense and not what country they will invade next.
Originally posted by FlankerFlyer: Homeland cruise missile defense??? WTF??? Does Renuart think Wal-Mart is going to start selling them to rogue nations along with the aircraft or Naval vessels to carry them? I mean get real dumbazz. who has cruise missiles that realistically can reach the USA? Is he worried England or France might attack? Certainly not Russia as it is only concerned with defense and not what country they will invade next.
where have you been for the past 20 years or so. I recall all the brilliant prognostications of our complete security for many decades into the future, away back in the 80s, when the fools and knaves mocked the idea of missile DEFENSE instead of a bias to aggression. The many who saw sense in missile defense, whether for the nation or for a theater of operations, remain essentially correct. The loose, rogue nations have advanced significantly in missile and nuclear developments during the past 20 years. The idiots will see risk in so-called climate change, which is pratically a guess, 50-50, as to whether it will impact us and to what degree; but they will stick their heads in the sand when the distinct risks of intercontinental missiles are upon us. The enemies of America love the leftists. Small wonder they donate so much to leftist polytishuns.
SpaceHauk? A major world power is going to attack us? Using nukes? Are you aware that we can track missiles almost as soon as they are launched, giving us plenty of time to both determine point of origin (hopefully!) and launch a reprisal before the missiles hit us? There are so many redundancies and the facilities are so hardened that this mission could continue to some extent even during a nuclear strike.
I assume you mean Russia. In which case, destruction is mutually assured. We really need to back off of them for the simple reason that between us both we still have 5,000 nuclear missiles aimed at each other's major cities. You do the math. Aside from rural pockets of people able to survive with no electricity or water treatment, both our nations would be destroyed.
Are you speaking of other nuclear powers? We'd destroy them almost instantly. They'd take out maybe four or five of our cities, assuming that all of their missiles worked, and hit what they were aiming for. And assuming that we didn't notice in time to send fighter jets for a suicide interception mission. (Would only mitigate the effect of a nuclear bomb, but better than nothing.)
