Cold War Heroes Beg Obama Not to Scrap Missile Defense

World • Views: 3,141

Cold War heroes Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, along with 20 other European leaders and intellectuals, have written an open letter to Barack Obama pleading with him not to cave in to Russia and give up on missile defense.

[T]he thorniest issue may well be America’s planned missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different views in the region, including among our publics which are divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has nevertheless also become — at least in some countries — a symbol of America’s credibility and commitment to the region. How it is handled could have a significant impact on their future transatlantic orientation. The small number of missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia’s strategic capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide the future of the program as allies and based on the strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region.

Jump to bottom

261 comments
1 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:37:28pm

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

2 Yashmak  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:37:35pm

It was my impression the primary purpose of the missile defense was against single or few missiles fired from rogue states like Iran…not against a mass launch by a power like Russia.

As such, the point made in the open letter is apt.

3 Russkilitlover  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:38:06pm

They are our allies. He’ll discount them.

4 Bob Dillon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:40:22pm

They seem to be a bit late to the party:

[Link: closingvelocity.typepad.com…]

July 17, 2009
Stimulus Reality: 1,000 Defense Workers Fired By Obama Today
As President Obama attempts to spin his way out of over-promising the immediate effects of his signature piece of legislation, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)…

… a thousand defense workers get their pink slips today:

5 Lee Coller  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:40:29pm

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

They are in favor of missile defense, just not America doing it.

6 Rexatosis  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:40:43pm

This is the Neville Chamberlain style of defending the West that worked so well that even Neville Chamberlain realized he was wrong and joined Churchill’s War Cabinet until his death.

Does anyone read/study History any more?

7 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:41:49pm

One of the beauties of the system, IMHO, is the doubt it places in the mind of any potential attacker, whether it works infallibly or not. Would an antagonist risk firing at us if he thought we would swat it down and remain unharmed but at the same time be really, really pissed off?

8 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:42:00pm

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

In my opinion, to the Left, Missile Defense means that American will have no deterrent from lettin’ loose with the nukes. If we can shoot down whatever the Russians or Chinese might launch at us, then we’re free to act with impunity. I have nothing to base this opinion on, mind you, just my gut feeling.

9 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:42:21pm

Without the US, who will they turn to ?

The French ? Britain ? Germany ?
There’s a reason Eastern Europe distrusts Western Europe…..

Good luck, guys.

10 kansas  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:42:21pm
Cold War heroes Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, along with 20 other European leaders and intellectuals, have written an open letter to Barack Obama pleading with him not to cave in to Russia and give up on missile defense.

Which means that missile defense is important, therefore Obama must destroy it. Have to weaken the US, don’t you know? Apologize for everything, trash the economy, weaken defense. Anything else?

11 MJ  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:42:43pm

The Obama Administration continues it’s war against allies of America:

1. Israel
2. Czech Republic
3. Poland
4. UK
5. India
6. Honduras
etc.

Meanwhile, The Obama Administration finds a great deal of kind words for

1. Iran.
2. Syria
3. Venezuela
4. Nicaragua
etc.

12 capitalist piglet  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:43:00pm

I wish them luck. Obama seems determined to fulfill some sort of vision, and it’s becoming harder and harder to deny that weakness and vulnerability are big parts of it.

13 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:43:14pm

re: #8 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

In my opinion, to the Left, Missile Defense means that American will have no deterrent from lettin’ loose with the nukes. If we can shoot down whatever the Russians or Chinese might launch at us, then we’re free to act with impunity. I have nothing to base this opinion on, mind you, just my gut feeling.

Well that theory does fly if you make the assumption that the left thinks that we are that evil……..
And many I think, do.

14 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:43:33pm

re: #8 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

I think I remember an argument like that back during the “Star Wars” days. CND and all their allied groups were really up in arms about anything to do with nuclear war. Including stuff to protect us.

15 xRos  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:43:59pm

While I liked Obama’s offer to barter the missle defense in exchange for help with Iranian nukes now that Russia has balked I think we should be lining their entire border with these things.

Maybe even add a little offensive capability?

16 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:44:11pm

re: #14 BlueCanuck

I think I remember an argument like that back during the “Star Wars” days. CND and all their allied groups were really up in arms about anything to do with nuclear war. Including stuff to protect us.

Original Trilogy or prequels?
/

17 unrealizedviewpoint  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:44:12pm

I watched the 2nd half of the made for TV movie Meteor last night. Wouldn’t Missile defense work to take down errant meteors as well?
/ half

18 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:44:44pm

re: #6 Rexatosis

This is the Neville Chamberlain style of defending the West that worked so well that even Neville Chamberlain realized he was wrong and joined Churchill’s War Cabinet until his death.

Does anyone read/study History any more?

They read Howard Zinn’s version of history.

19 MikeAlv77  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:44:45pm

re: #17 unrealizedviewpoint

I watched the 2nd half of the made for TV movie Meteor last night. Wouldn’t Missile defense work to take down errant meteors as well?
/ half

Not stop something coming in at that speed….

20 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:45:22pm

Europeans have led very comfortable existences because of of America pouring money into the defense of their ungrateful continent. I say let them defend themselves for once and see what it’s like without US military support.

21 BlueCanuck  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:45:28pm

re: #17 unrealizedviewpoint

Actually no. Too much inertia and velocity. Think it’s been discussed before. Bad science and Hollywood make great companions.

22 code red 21  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:45:41pm

I got news for them BO doesn’t give a damn about their opinions so they might as well just shut up. He has an agenda, total government takeover of the private sector, in other words, he’s got bigger fish to fry. Now just go away all you pesky foreign leaders.

23 MikeAlv77  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:45:44pm

re: #18 Kosh’s Shadow

They read Howard Zinn’s version of history.

A really good history book is The Patriots History of the US. Great book if you want to learn what they didn’t teach you in school. LONG - 800+ pages… first time I read a whole history book cause I wanted to… well written

24 Bob Dillon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:46:13pm

re: #17 unrealizedviewpoint

I watched the 2nd half of the made for TV movie Meteor last night. Wouldn’t Missile defense work to take down errant meteors as well?
/ half

No - they would break up and still hit us in multiple locations.

25 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:46:25pm

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

The defense is not offense. It’s to put down your arms and offer up your chin. Didn’t you know that?

/

26 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:46:38pm

re: #18 Kosh’s Shadow

They read Howard Zinn’s version of history.

Howard Zinn wouldn’t know real history if it swam up and bit him in the ass.

27 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:46:49pm

re: #6 Rexatosis

This is the Neville Chamberlain style of defending the West that worked so well that even Neville Chamberlain realized he was wrong and joined Churchill’s War Cabinet until his death.

Does anyone read/study History any more?

To give some measure of fairness to Chamberlain, he spent the time between Munich and August 1939 building up the British military, which was sorely lacking in 1937-38. He especially pushed the development of radar and the integrated air defense system, aircraft production (esp. Hurricane and Spitfire), and the development of the shadow industries (i.e., dispersal of critical industries to make them less vulnerable to air attack).

28 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:47:31pm
29 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:47:36pm

re: #25 Desert Dog

The BEST defense is not offense. It’s to put down your arms and offer up your chin. Didn’t you know that?

/

PIMF!! oops

30 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:47:42pm

re: #2 Yashmak

It was my impression the primary purpose of the missile defense was against single or few missiles fired from rogue states like Iran…not against a mass launch by a power like Russia.

As such, the point made in the open letter is apt.

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

Cold War Legacy Thinking by the left.

During the Cold War, deterrence was based on MAD.

A fully deployed missile shield system who have changed the equations of nuclear strike, and counter strike. MAD predisposed first strike and then counterstrike with the resulting annihilation of both sides. Missile defense made US survival of a first strike by the Soviets *quote* “survivable” *unquote* and gave the US free reign in counterstrike, it was gave the US the possiblity of first strike and making the Soviet counterstrike *quote* “survivable” *unquote*.

Remember the left was big into “Nuclear Freeze” unilateral US freezing of deployment and new weapons. The poor USSR was being bullied by the US, and the US should make the first moves, missile defense was more proof of this.

They don’t see missile defense as defensive, missile defense is a shield which the US can hide beyond while being even more aggressive in the world.

31 EE  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:02pm

Obama is a leveler, and a radical ideologue. Is America wealthy? Then it must be made poorer. Is America powerful? Then it must be made weaker. Whatever strength America has must be taken away, according to Obama the leveler. That is his perceived mission.

32 Jimmah  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:04pm

Aggressive nationalism is on the rise in Russia, - this would be a very bad move.

33 jill e  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:11pm

“A nation with a goofy foreign policy needs a very serious policy of defense.”
—P.J. O’Rourke


Now more than ever, we need all the defense we can hang onto.

34 Kragar  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:13pm

Sorry, but you’re allies. Obama won’t do anything unless you actually try to defend yourselves, then he’ll ask you not to. Anything more would be meddling.

35 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:14pm

BTW, I could feel brian cells want to bolt in the last thread over the ham and birth certificate issues. WTF are people on?

36 MJ  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:19pm

re: #20 SpaceJesus

Europeans have led very comfortable existences because of of America pouring money into the defense of their ungrateful continent. I say let them defend themselves for once and see what it’s like without US military support.

Yeah, the Eastern Europeans have lead a wonderful existence. Why don’t you tell that to the Hungarians in 56 or the Czechs in 68 and to the Poles?
They are asking not to be abandoned again. which is precisely what Obama has in mind for them.

37 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:48:25pm

re: #26 Honorary Yooper

Howard Zinn wouldn’t know real history if it swam up and bit him in the ass.

Yes he would, but he would chose to ignore it.

38 Ojoe  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:49:06pm

As if peace through strength is not the way it really works.

Obama moron, there could not be a bigger moron.

39 Kragar  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:50:10pm

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

Missile Defense means never having to say “I surrender.”

No wonder they hate it.

40 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:51:30pm

re: #28 MikeySDCA

We tried that in the 1930s and it got us WWII. The lesson of the twentieth century is that the Europeans cannot be trusted to keep the peace.

We have the EU today, Europe is more unified and has nuclear weapons as deterrent.

I’d rather see us spend our money building up our economy to face rising competition in Asia than waste it defending ungrateful people with cutting-edge and expensive weapons technology.

41 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:52:10pm

re: #31 EE

Obama is a leveler, and a radical ideologue. Is America wealthy? Then it must be made poorer. Is America powerful? Then it must be made weaker. Whatever strength America has must be taken away, according to Obama the leveler. That is his perceived mission.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

42 jill e  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:52:49pm

re: #40 SpaceJesus

We have the EU today, Europe is more unified and has nuclear weapons as deterrent.

I’d rather see us spend our money building up our economy to face rising competition in Asia than waste it defending ungrateful people with cutting-edge and expensive weapons technology.

Europe is more mealy mouthed and wimpy than ever.

43 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:54:16pm

re: #40 SpaceJesus

We have the EU today, Europe is more unified and has nuclear weapons as deterrent.

I’d rather see us spend our money building up our economy to face rising competition in Asia than waste it defending ungrateful people with cutting-edge and expensive weapons technology.

Twice wars that did not affect us in Europe, affected us.
I’d rather prevent a war with strength, the have to fight another because of weakness.

44 opnion  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:54:34pm

A Missle Defense system is difficult to criticise, it is defensive.
Certainly, it can’t be the cost, Obama is busily spending us into oblivian now. It all has to do with his nutty ideology.

45 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:54:53pm

re: #36 MJ

Yeah, the Eastern Europeans have lead a wonderful existence. Why don’t you tell that to the Hungarians in 56 or the Czechs in 68 and to the Poles?
They are asking not to be abandoned again. which is precisely what Obama has in mind for them.


Maybe you should talk to the Czechs who weren’t alive during 68, and you’d see that the upcomming generation doesn’t care, and in fact doesn’t really like the U.S. in any capacity.

Don’t see it so much as abandoning them, so much as just letting them provide for their own defense for once. If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

46 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:55:05pm

re: #30 jcm

Cold War Legacy Thinking by the left.

During the Cold War, deterrence was based on MAD.

A fully deployed missile shield system who have changed the equations of nuclear strike, and counter strike. MAD predisposed first strike and then counterstrike with the resulting annihilation of both sides. Missile defense made US survival of a first strike by the Soviets *quote* “survivable” *unquote* and gave the US free reign in counterstrike, it was gave the US the possiblity of first strike and making the Soviet counterstrike *quote* “survivable” *unquote*.

Remember the left was big into “Nuclear Freeze” unilateral US freezing of deployment and new weapons. The poor USSR was being bullied by the US, and the US should make the first moves, missile defense was more proof of this.

They don’t see missile defense as defensive, missile defense is a shield which the US can hide beyond while being even more aggressive in the world.

During that time in the 80’s when the “NO Nukes” nonsense start up after Reagan announced the deployment of medium range missiles in Europe everyone seems to forget that was a RESPONSE to the Soviets doing it years earlier. Somehow, the USSR pointing missiles at Frankfort, Paris and London from Warsaw Pact nations and Ukraine was ok, but doing the same from Europe pointing back at the USSR was somehow not.

The missile shield we are proposing must scare the crap out of the Russians. Why, I do not know. It would not be up to protect Europe from Russian missiles (although it could). It is more likely to send a message to Iran and any other would be nuclear nuisance who wanted to fire one off.

47 MikeAlv77  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:55:29pm

re: #43 jcm

Twice wars that did not affect us in Europe, affected us.
I’d rather prevent a war with strength, the have to fight another because of weakness.

Its not a nice thing to say but… its better to fight the battle on the enemy’s ground than on your own…. Take the fight to them…

48 zombie  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:56:27pm

Another important aspect to consider is that most of the expense and research has already been done. Implementing a missile defense system at this stage would be relatively cheap and very cost-effective. But if you scrap it, you’re throwing away countless billions of dollars of preparation and decades of research.

Here’s an analogy:

You want to buy an expensive necklace for $3,000. But you don’t have enough cash on hand. So you put it on “layaway,” paying in advance small sums until you’ve built up enough credit to purchase it with just one more payment.

But then someone advises you — “$3,000? That’s too much for a necklace. Don’t buy it.” But you’ve already made $2,900 in non-refundable pre-payments, and if you call it off now, you’ll just lose the $2,900. But if you keep going, for just $100 more, you can get a necklace worth $3,000. In a situation like that — just pay the final $100!

49 jcbunga  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:56:44pm

I realize the prez doesn’t have to check in with the people on every decision he makes, but honestly, who is asking for the system to be scrapped? I mean besides the russkies…

50 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:56:49pm

Obama will not listen.
His agenda and definition of evil are far different from Walesa’s and Havel’s.
He drank the Kool-Aid as a child … and still believes it.

51 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:56:59pm

re: #42 jill e

Europe is more mealy mouthed and wimpy than ever.

indeed. and that’s why this would be a wonderful lesson for them. let them build their own military and defense systems for a change to see what its like to be responsible for themselves. of course, they’re still our allies and we would defend them still in case of war, even though they might not really deserve it in my opinion…

52 Lee Coller  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:57:18pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

What’s so funny about that?

53 Ben Hur  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:57:57pm

The Cold War is soooo 20th Century.

54 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:57:58pm

re: #48 zombie

I don’t know if it would be so much of a waste if we can still use the system for protecting ourselves.

55 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:14pm

re: #51 SpaceJesus

indeed. and that’s why this would be a wonderful lesson for them. let them build their own military and defense systems for a change to see what its like to be responsible for themselves. of course, they’re still our allies and we would defend them still in case of war, even though they might not really deserve it in my opinion…

Ron Paul agrees with you.

56 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:29pm

re: #47 MikeAlv77

Its not a nice thing to say but… its better to fight the battle on the enemy’s ground than on your own…. Take the fight to them…

It’s always a pay me now, or pay me later question. Which we don’t learn.

We can pay the price now and show strength, and keep thugs in their boxes. Or wait till it’s too late.

57 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:31pm

Between this idiocy of the administration’s and the idiocy shown in the last thread, my head hurts.

58 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:37pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

Maybe you should talk to the Czechs who weren’t alive during 68, and you’d see that the upcomming generation doesn’t care, and in fact doesn’t really like the U.S. in any capacity.

Don’t see it so much as abandoning them, so much as just letting them provide for their own defense for once. If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

They don’t need to invade. They can just hold the gas and oil monopoly over their heads and make them all bark like a dogs. This missile shield defangs Vald and his gang of their military threat. I am thinking this Russians are acting like peacocks in this matter and are mad that Europe will have larger plumage. It is more a matter of national pride and ego than anything else. If the Russians did launch a missile attack towards Europe, MAD is still in place and they know that.

59 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:45pm

re: #8 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

In my opinion, to the Left, Missile Defense means that American will have no deterrent from lettin’ loose with the nukes. If we can shoot down whatever the Russians or Chinese might launch at us, then we’re free to act with impunity. I have nothing to base this opinion on, mind you, just my gut feeling.

It may have more to do with the possible strategy used to overcome a missile defense. Build more missiles to saturate the defense. They are trying to keep the number of missiles down by preventing an incentive to make more.

60 RunningBare  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:58:46pm

re: #12 capitalist piglet

I wish them luck. Obama seems determined to fulfill some sort of vision, and it’s becoming harder and harder to deny that weakness and vulnerability are big parts of it.

Agreed. Sometimes I SERIOUSLY believe that the agenda the Left has for America is simple - by weakening America militarily, economically, and socially, then other countries will stop being jealous of us and/or stop hating us.

Not that it will work, mind you, but they’ll feel oh-so better about themselves for trying.

61 KenJen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:01pm

re: #52 Lee Coller

What’s so funny about that?

He forgot about Georgia I guess.

62 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:06pm

I’m for research and development into missile defense, though I think the system itself isn’t particularly effective.

a) it’s better than nothing.

and

b) The R&D will help push other technologies forward that can help keep America’s technological advantage.

Now there are legitimate arguments about vulnerability to EMPs and that terrorists are more likely to sail a NBC device into a harbor than send it up via missile. Those are issues that have to be dealt with separately and with other technologies.

But if missile defense stops N Korea and the Iranian Junta in their collective tracks, then that’s a victory no matter how you look at it.

In other words, Obama, WTF? Is your over priced health care more important than a decent missile defense?

63 wrenchwench  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:09pm

Because it has Vaclav Havel’s name on it, I read the whole thing. You should too, SpaceJesus. They address some of your points.

64 Eowyn2  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:14pm

Poland and Czech Republic actually WANT the US to have anti-missile missiles? What’s wrong with those people. The Great Bear would never hurt them. The Great Bear is just a teddy bear.

/

65 Wendya  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:14pm

re: #4 Bobibutu


… a thousand defense workers get their pink slips today:

The up side is they can now get free ham at food banks.

66 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:15pm

The only benefit is that Europe might have to actually contribute something to defense spending. Our European allies have been taking advantage of our military power for too long all while spitting in our face.

67 tradewind  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:33pm

re: #44 opnion

Only the moonbat left turn defensive strategies into offending our enemies.

68 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 12:59:33pm

re: #52 Lee Coller

What’s so funny about that?

allow me to clarify. I think it’s highly improbable that Russia is going to steam into Prague or Warsaw anytime soon, especially because Russia knows the entire West would respond.

69 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:00:05pm

re: #49 jcbunga

I realize the prez doesn’t have to check in with the people on every decision he makes, but honestly, who is asking for the system to be scrapped? I mean besides the russkies…

See my #50.
(Metaphorically) Obama hears voices in his head, all those he hung out with

70 tradewind  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:00:17pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

Their ignorance is no excuse for our inaction.

71 MikeAlv77  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:00:30pm

re: #58 Desert Dog

They don’t need to invade. They can just hold the gas and oil monopoly over their heads and make them all bark like a dogs. This missile shield defangs Vald and his gang of their military threat. I am thinking this Russians are acting like peacocks in this matter and are mad that Europe will have larger plumage. It is more a matter of national pride and ego than anything else. If the Russians did launch a missile attack towards Europe, MAD is still in place and they know that.

Sometimes I wonder if the Russians are doing this because they can. Militarily they don’t need to threaten Europe because they know Europe is the old childless woman who has no sons to protect her. Like you said, just keep the oil and gas as a weapon and its more effective…

72 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:01:06pm

re: #49 jcbunga

I realize the prez doesn’t have to check in with the people on every decision he makes, but honestly, who is asking for the system to be scrapped? I mean besides the russkies…

73 zombie  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:01:39pm

By the way, this is also the doing of our friend John Holdren. After his frenzied obsession with compulsory population control in the ’70s, he moved on to his next obsession: dismantling the US nuclear arsenal. He stopped writing about population for the most part (though never disavowing what he wrote) and instead spent most of the next 20 years advocating against Star Wars and saying all nukes should be dismantled.

Now, in recent years, he’s found a new obsession: Global Warming.

But this retro attitude of being reflexively anti-nuke is part of his legacy.

74 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:01:58pm

re: #68 SpaceJesus

allow me to clarify. I think it’s highly improbable that Russia is going to steam into Prague or Warsaw anytime soon, especially because Russia knows the entire West would respond.

You may be surprised. It would be to Russia’s strategic advantage to get another sea port, like Georgia. If there was no one to stop them, do you think they’d use self restraint?

75 turn  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:01:58pm

re: #48 zombie

Just one tiny aspect of the missile defense technology, a variable solid rocket motor, has been in development for over 10 years. (turns seen it and believe a geek, this thing is way cool) To even think of basically scrapping all that research and technology when you finally have a working system is ludicrous.

76 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:02:14pm

re: #58 Desert Dog

They don’t need to invade. They can just hold the gas and oil monopoly over their heads and make them all bark like a dogs. This missile shield defangs Vald and his gang of their military threat. I am thinking this Russians are acting like peacocks in this matter and are mad that Europe will have larger plumage. It is more a matter of national pride and ego than anything else. If the Russians did launch a missile attack towards Europe, MAD is still in place and they know that.

So how will this missile shield prevent the Russians from cutting off the gas? In my opinion, if the shield really pisses off the Russians, it will probably just make Putin cut the gas off sooner rather than later. This shield just sounds like a bad idea for everbody.

77 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:02:32pm

A diaper-clad troll here hasn’t the foggiest notion of history.
That pap he’s ejaculating is straight out of the 1930s isolationist movement.

78 Lee Coller  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:02:33pm

We shouldn’t forget that the purpose of the missile defense system in Europe was to defend against Iran.

79 Charpete67  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:03:06pm

re: #68 SpaceJesus

allow me to clarify. I think it’s highly improbable that Russia is going to steam into Prague or Warsaw anytime soon, especially because Russia knows the entire West would respond.

do they?

80 Steve Rogers  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:03:40pm

They shouldn’t have put it in letter form. Obama will never read it that way. They should have put it on his Teleprompter.

81 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:03:53pm

Screw toleration .. it’s down-ding time!

82 Desert Dog  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:04:14pm

re: #66 Baier

The only benefit is that Europe might have to actually contribute something to defense spending. Our European allies have been taking advantage of our military power for too long all while spitting in our face.

Well, they will not will they? Social spending trumps defense everytime. They have their priorities. And, they still think the USA has their back. The question is, do we?

83 J.S.  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:04:56pm

I keep reading that the bulk of the Czech and Polish populatons are very much opposed to a US missile defense shield…so, why (really? why?) should the US invest gazillions dollars building it so as to defend eastern Europeans against some errant missiles from Iran? Meanwhile, the Czechs and Poles would have to put up with an irate Russia threatening the Czechs and Poles (if the shield goes up)…(I don’t see a clear American interest here…)

84 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:04:57pm

re: #74 Baier

You may be surprised. It would be to Russia’s strategic advantage to get another sea port, like Georgia. If there was no one to stop them, do you think they’d use self restraint?


I think you’ve been playing too much Risk or something.

Russia attacking another sovereign nation, especially one in NATO, would be devastating for them.

85 Eowyn2  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:04:58pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

Maybe you should talk to the Czechs who weren’t alive during 68, and you’d see that the upcomming generation doesn’t care, and in fact doesn’t really like the U.S. in any capacity.

Don’t see it so much as abandoning them, so much as just letting them provide for their own defense for once. If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

By your logic, if a 15 yr old is wandering around at the mall and a 30 yr old starts smacking him/her around, you sit back and let the 15yr old get beat up so they can test their own wings. Then, when the 15yr old is bloody and beaten, you step in and grab the 30 yr old and admonish him/her to behave themselves like an adult - while they go through the wallet, food and everything else they have stolen from the kid.

86 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:05:29pm

re: #80 Steve Rogers

They shouldn’t have put it in letter form. Obama will never read it that way. They should have put it on his Teleprompter.

But, the teleprompter committed suicide!

87 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:05:33pm

re: #64 Eowyn2

Poland and Czech Republic actually WANT the US to have anti-missile missiles? What’s wrong with those people. The Great Bear would never hurt them. The Great Bear is just a teddy bear.

/

How could this bear hurt anyone?

88 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:05:53pm

re: #79 Charpete67

do they?

pretty sure I don’t have to have Kremlin access to realize that the Russians would never be insane enough to attack a NATO nation.

89 Pianobuff  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:07:06pm

Ummm… isn’t our good friend Holdren the technocrat-in-chief opposed to missile defense systems?

90 Pianobuff  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:07:25pm

re: #73 zombie

By the way, this is also the doing of our friend John Holdren. After his frenzied obsession with compulsory population control in the ’70s, he moved on to his next obsession: dismantling the US nuclear arsenal. He stopped writing about population for the most part (though never disavowing what he wrote) and instead spent most of the next 20 years advocating against Star Wars and saying all nukes should be dismantled.

Now, in recent years, he’s found a new obsession: Global Warming.

But this retro attitude of being reflexively anti-nuke is part of his legacy.

Crap…beat me to it.

91 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:07:26pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

Maybe you should talk to the Czechs who weren’t alive during 68, and you’d see that the upcomming generation doesn’t care, and in fact doesn’t really like the U.S. in any capacity.

Don’t see it so much as abandoning them, so much as just letting them provide for their own defense for once. If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

There’s an old saying……

Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It

92 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:07:57pm

re: #85 Eowyn2

By your logic, if a 15 yr old is wandering around at the mall and a 30 yr old starts smacking him/her around, you sit back and let the 15yr old get beat up so they can test their own wings. Then, when the 15yr old is bloody and beaten, you step in and grab the 30 yr old and admonish him/her to behave themselves like an adult - while they go through the wallet, food and everything else they have stolen from the kid.

uh no. we defend our allies.

93 jill e  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:08:23pm
94 Wendya  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:08:39pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

I think you’ve been playing too much Risk or something.

Russia attacking another sovereign nation, especially one in NATO, would be devastating for them.

Where were you last year?

95 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:09:08pm

There is a bear in the woods…..

And not just a bear anymore…..

96 KenJen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:09:44pm

re: #94 Wendya

Where were you last year?

He was in a galaxy far, far away.

97 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:29pm
I think you’ve been playing too much Risk or something.

Russia attacking another sovereign nation, especially one in NATO, would be devastating for them.

Now yes, but power is shifting away from the west. Do you think we would stop Russia if it took Finland? Do you think that Obama has the stomach for that kind of conflict? Gordon Brown? Just imagine that scenario or one like it under this president.

98 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:37pm

re: #88 SpaceJesus

pretty sure I don’t have to have Kremlin access to realize that the Russians would never be insane enough to attack a NATO nation.

Eerily similar to Neville Chamberlain’s views on Hitler IMO. Sure it doesn’t seem likely but I think that the growing aggression from Russia, as evidenced by action against Georgia in the recent past, should give pause. And I think that aggression will thrive in an environment of percieved American weakness. A weakness we are mightily striving to project.

99 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:39pm

re: #94 Wendya

Where were you last year?

watching as Russia waved its dick around in Georgia’s (not a NATO member) face?

100 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:50pm

“Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic Partnership Council -all in the name of defending a sphere of influence on its borders.

Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant - and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises.”
[Link: wyborcza.pl…]

101 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:54pm

re: #84 SpaceJesus

I think you’ve been playing too much Risk or something.

Russia attacking another sovereign nation, especially one in NATO, would be devastating for them.

Aggressors are deterred…. until they think they can succeed.

Deterrence means strength. Display weakness and ……..

102 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:10:57pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

uh no. we defend our allies.

But we’re not going to defend our allies.
We’re going to let them fend for themselves.
(That’s what you recommended up-thread.)

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
GAZE

103 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:11:03pm

re: #76 SpaceJesus

So how will this missile shield prevent the Russians from cutting off the gas? In my opinion, if the shield really pisses off the Russians, it will probably just make Putin cut the gas off sooner rather than later. This shield just sounds like a bad idea for everbody.

You’re not thinking this through, but that somehow doesn’t surprise me. Back up a little, and think about the history of Soviet-US relations. Oh, and think about 1980, in particular.

104 MJ  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:11:10pm

re: #45 SpaceJesus

Maybe you should talk to the Czechs who weren’t alive during 68, and you’d see that the upcomming generation doesn’t care, and in fact doesn’t really like the U.S. in any capacity.

Don’t see it so much as abandoning them, so much as just letting them provide for their own defense for once. If Russia (lol) were to invade, of course we would back them up still…and that’s all the deterrent that is needed in my opinion.

You’re full of crap.

105 Lee Coller  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:11:22pm

re: #99 SpaceJesus

watching as Russia waved its dick around in Georgia’s (not a NATO member) face?

But still a sovereign nation.

106 Charpete67  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:12:23pm

re: #88 SpaceJesus

pretty sure I don’t have to have Kremlin access to realize that the Russians would never be insane enough to attack a NATO nation.

no…you just have to watch the evening news…look, you’re probably right, but I’m just not convinced Obama would respond in the way we’re used to. He may do it because of politics, but in his heart, he probably thinks he can negotiate them out. We forget how impotent we were under Carter…I don’t think we have seen the depths of Obama’s weakness.

107 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:12:27pm

re: #87 CyanSnowHawk

How could this bear hurt anyone?

It’s a mountain kitteh!

108 Joshua Cohen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:12:45pm

-4 min until landing of the Eagle on the moon!
(and +40 years)

[Link: wechoosethemoon.org…]

109 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:12:48pm

re: #99 SpaceJesus

watching as Russia waved its dick around in Georgia’s (not a NATO member) face?

Wasn’t waving the dick, it was a rape.

Any moral responsibility to stop a rape in progress?

110 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:13:02pm

re: #83 J.S.

I keep reading that the bulk of the Czech and Polish populatons are very much opposed to a US missile defense shield…so, why (really? why?) should the US invest gazillions dollars building it so as to defend eastern Europeans against some errant missiles from Iran? Meanwhile, the Czechs and Poles would have to put up with an irate Russia threatening the Czechs and Poles (if the shield goes up)…(I don’t see a clear American interest here…)

What?!

In what insane world have you read that? Link!

111 quiet man  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:13:25pm

re: #109 jcm
Not anymore

No democrat is a “Berlinner” these days

112 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:13:28pm

re: #98 LGoPs

Eerily similar to Neville Chamberlain’s views on Hitler IMO. Sure it doesn’t seem likely but I think that the growing aggression from Russia, as evidenced by action against Georgia in the recent past, should give pause. And I think that aggression will thrive in an environment of percieved American weakness. A weakness we are mightily striving to project.

Agreed. And what better way to strengthen our nation and appear strong than to have a robust and thriving economy? If we axed our entire European commitment, we could save billions and reinvest it here at home where we need it.

113 kansas  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:13:33pm

re: #49 jcbunga

I realize the prez doesn’t have to check in with the people on every decision he makes, but honestly, who is asking for the system to be scrapped? I mean besides the russkies…

The Iranians and perhaps his buddies Billy Ayers and the Reverend Wrong?

114 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:14:08pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

uh no. we defend our allies.

No, we don’t. We abandon and betray them with monotonous regularity.

115 Lee Coller  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:14:11pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

Agreed. And what better way to strengthen our nation and appear strong than to have a robust and thriving economy? If we axed our entire European commitment, we could save billions and reinvest it here at home where we need it.

You’re starting to sound like a Pat Buchanan supporter.

116 jill e  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:14:58pm

In his 2005 annual address to the Russian Parliament, President Putin stated that the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century was the end of the Soviet Union.

117 Pupdawg  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:15:24pm

Expect the President’s ‘wussification of America tour’ bus to roll on for at least 3 more years and about 6 months as our allies continue to be tossed under the bus…missle defenses, ‘under the bus!’…in fact, bet on it!

118 JustABill  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:15:50pm

A small missile defense system gives you at least the possibility of saving something from a massive nuclear exchange.

Now lets say Russia decides there are 500 targets it wants to hit to cripple the US. Given that some of the weapons might miss or otherwise fail, you could aim 2 warheads at each target. So a force of 1000 warheads would be sufficient to destroy 500 targets.

Now lets assume that the US has a defense system that can stop 30 warheads. At first glance, you might think that Russia would then need 1030 warheads total to insure they have enough to cripple the US (first strike or counterstrike). This would be wrong, since that would still leave only a little over 2 weapons per target, a stopping 30 warheads could save 15 targets.

To ensure destruction of all targets, you would need far more weapons. Since to destroy any target, you would need to launch 32 weapons at it, the thirty that the defense system might take out, plus an extra 2 in the event of a miss or other failure, multiply this by the 500 targets and you need 16000 weapons.

From Russia’s perspective, this means they cannot ensure total destruction of the US without drastically more warheads. This changes the whole idea of MAD.

I am not saying this is a reason not to proceed with missile defense, I just understand their concern.

119 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:15:51pm
120 J.S.  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:15:56pm

re: #110 Dianna

Angus-Reid polling? link here…(it’s all over the MSM)..

121 kansas  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:16:16pm

re: #99 SpaceJesus

watching as Russia waved its dick around in Georgia’s (not a NATO member) face?

Seems a few people were killed by the dicks. Asshole.

122 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:17:15pm

re: #99 SpaceJesus

watching as Russia waved its dick around in Georgia’s (not a NATO member) face?

And you can spout the drooling idiocy you’ve espoused on this thread?!

123 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:17:22pm

re: #108 Joshua Cohen

-4 min until landing of the Eagle on the moon!
(and +40 years)

[Link: wechoosethemoon.org…]

Don’t you mean “alleged” landing? :)

124 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:17:26pm

re: #107 Mad Al-Jaffee

It’s a mountain kitteh!

LOL-grizzly?

125 J.S.  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:17:37pm

re: #110 Dianna

I believe they’re opposed because the populations fear Russian (economic?) retaliations…

126 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:17:58pm

re: #120 J.S.

Angus-Reid polling? link here…(it’s all over the MSM)..

Who is Angus-Reid?

127 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:18:12pm

re: #102 pre-Boomer Marine brat

But we’re not going to defend our allies.
We’re going to let them fend for themselves.
(That’s what you recommended up-thread.)

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
GAZE

uh no, what I meant by that was let them shoulder their own defense costs. of course we would defend our allies in time of war. I was referring to right now. should some war breakout, of course we would come to our allies defense, we have a binding obligation to do so.

128 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:18:21pm

re: #122 Dianna

And you can spout the drooling idiocy you’ve espoused on this thread?!

Socrates of the Biliousphere

129 Eowyn2  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:18:28pm

re: #68 SpaceJesus

allow me to clarify. I think it’s highly improbable that Russia is going to steam into Prague or Warsaw anytime soon, especially because Russia knows the entire West would respond.

Really. Just like Hitler knew it. and stalin knew it.
How long would Nokor go prior to unleashing on SoKor if US troops were taken off the 38th parallel?

130 Joshua Cohen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:18:35pm

The Eagle has landed!

131 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:18:47pm

re: #111 quiet man

Not anymore

No democrat is a “Berlinner” these days

While back a liberal pacifist caller on a talk show. Was ask point blank if he’d intervene if he saw a women being rape.

“No.” was the answer.

I hope all those who wouldn’t intervene would think about this.

You are the one being raped, your country is being invaded, your belongs pillaged, your family or you being imprisoned or murdered.

Would you still want no intervention?

132 snowcrash  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:06pm

re: #99 SpaceJesus
Georgia sent hundreds of troops to Afghanistan last year in hopes of bolstering its chances for entry into NATO.

133 Eowyn2  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:16pm

re: #87 CyanSnowHawk

How could this bear hurt anyone?

my, what big teeth you have,

134 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:19pm

re: #124 CyanSnowHawk

LOL-grizzly?

I can haz hiker burger?

135 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:33pm

Georgia was a member of Nato’s Partnership for Peace.

Each Partner country makes a number of far-reaching political commitments to preserve democratic societies; to maintain the principles of international law; to fulfil obligations under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and international disarmament and arms control agreements; to refrain from the threat or use of force against other states; to respect existing borders; and to settle disputes peacefully.[Link: www.nato.int…]
136 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:40pm

re: #130 Joshua Cohen

The Eagle has landed!

We need to go back. We need to go to Mars. We need to keep on exploring.

137 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:49pm

Go Czechs and Poles.

138 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:50pm

re: #126 Dianna

Who is Angus-Reid?

Colonel Angus?

139 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:50pm

re: #130 Joshua Cohen

The Eagle has landed!

Houston, Tranquility Base here.

140 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:53pm

re: #127 SpaceJesus

uh no, what I meant by that was let them shoulder their own defense costs. of course we would defend our allies in time of war. I was referring to right now. should some war breakout, of course we would come to our allies defense, we have a binding obligation to do so.

Too transparent, idiot.
Try again.

141 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:19:56pm

re: #125 J.S.

I believe they’re opposed because the populations fear Russian (economic?) retaliations…

They’re opposed - if they actually are - because they’re pretty sure that the US will betray them. Just as we did Georgia. Just as we’re betraying Israel, and are going to betray Ukraine.

142 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:07pm

re: #115 Lee Coller

You’re starting to sound like a Pat Buchanan supporter.

I have no idea what crazy uncle Pat’s position is on this. Lessening government spending and putting money back in our pockets sounds like a good idea to me.

143 Charpete67  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:16pm

re: #138 Mad Al-Jaffee

u type faster than me…

144 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:23pm

re: #136 Honorary Yooper

We need to go back. We need to go to Mars. We need to keep on exploring.

To expensive when people need food and health care.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

145 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:30pm
146 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:36pm

re: #136 Honorary Yooper

We need to go back. We need to go to Mars. We need to keep on exploring.

“Does you tink that man will ever walk on the sun?”

-Ali G to Buzz Aldrin

147 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:41pm

re: #144 jcm

What’s with all the slashes?

148 zombie  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:47pm

re: #118 JustABill

Most of that may be technically true, but it is irrelevant, for one reason: SUBMARINES.

Submarines are forgotton leg of the American tripod defense concept (land-air-sea). At any given time, we have subs with ICBMS cruising the world’s oceans, and there’s NO way to take them out. So even if Russia in some crazy scenario launched 1,000 missiles at the US and “took out” the whole country, they’d STILL get a massive retaliation coming from our submarine fleet. No, the counterstrike wouldn’t be as massive, but believe me it would be bad enough to have made the original strike “not worth it.”

149 J.S.  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:20:50pm

re: #126 Dianna

(according to them) a world renown polling firm — when you want to know what population X thinks, you go to Angus-Reid polling…(they’re very well known in Canada…like Gallup)…

150 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:21:08pm

re: #10 kansas

Which means that missile defense is important, therefore Obama must destroy it. Have to weaken the US, don’t you know? Apologize for everything, trash the economy, weaken defense. Anything else?

Destroy the real enemy. Conservatives.
/

151 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:21:40pm

re: #142 SpaceJesus

I have no idea what crazy uncle Pat’s position is on this. Lessening government spending and putting money back in our pockets sounds like a good idea to me.

What is one of the Constitutional mandates for the Federal Government?

Mutual Defense.

Let’s save money by cutting where the Feds don’t belong, every think about that?

152 Wendya  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:21:45pm

re: #135 jaunte

Georgia was a member of Nato’s Partnership for Peace.

Spacejesus apparently bought the leftist meme that Georgia attacked a Russian territory and they were just defending themselves.

153 Pianobuff  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:22:11pm

re: #141 Dianna

They’re opposed - if they actually are - because they’re pretty sure that the US will betray them. Just as we did Georgia. Just as we’re betraying Israel, and are going to betray Ukraine.

Sheriff Joe is out there right now, isn’t he? What are the odds that he says something in direct conflict with what Obama has said so far?

154 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:22:13pm

re: #150 LGoPs

Further? :D

155 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:22:16pm

re: #147 mrbaracuda

What’s with all the slashes?

sarcasm to the nth degree.

156 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:22:38pm

Ron Paul Q&A:
Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense

157 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:08pm

re: #129 Eowyn2

Really. Just like Hitler knew it. and stalin knew it.
How long would Nokor go prior to unleashing on SoKor if US troops were taken off the 38th parallel?


probably never. unless we canceled our alliance with the south, dprk would never attack.

well actually i take that back. dprk might attack no matter if our troops are over there or not, because kim is fucking insane and old.

158 avanti  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:19pm

re: #66 Baier

The only benefit is that Europe might have to actually contribute something to defense spending. Our European allies have been taking advantage of our military power for too long all while spitting in our face.

That’s my main disagreement with us building a missile defense system. At some point we need to stop protecting the entire planet with our blood and treasure.

159 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:32pm

re: #154 mrbaracuda

Further? :D

An elephant stampede is not very impressive when they are all the size of schnauzers.

160 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:38pm

While I am deeply opposed to the general weak, callous and Chamberlain like stance of Obama, I would feel much better about this debate if we actually had a deployable anti missile that works.

Kinetic kill devices, designed to take out ICBMs have a less than 50% hit ratio in the latest generation, and that is when their targets are flying on pre known trajectories, have no decoy war heads and are well illuminated.

Theatre defense systems do better, and have a great deal more promise against conventional projectiles. However, those technologies are hardly at the fully deployable state.

If G-d forbid, the Russians or anyone else with ICBM technology were to launch at us, they would not warn us before hand, fail to use dummies or light up their birds so that the would be easier for us to see.

I am not saying that we should scrap research into these fields, however, it is very wrong to make policy that relies on a gun that we do not actually have holstered.

161 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:43pm

re: #138 Mad Al-Jaffee

Colonel Angus?

Well, their front page has an article referring to Japan as “ungovernable.”

Make of this what you will.

162 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:23:54pm

Ron Paul contd.:

Q: You recommend this: “I’d start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit.” How much money would that save?

A: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, it’s nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars


Money in your pocket, as long as you had a pocket.

163 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:24:07pm

re: #156 jaunte

Ron Paul Q&A:
Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense

Obviously Ron Paul is oblivious to the fact that we are still technically at war with North Korea.

164 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:24:08pm

re: #156 jaunte

Would you believe some retards think Germany is “occupied” by U.S. forces? (Well to be fair it was a Swiss asshole who also happens to be a lunatic, but he was cheered on by Germans so yeah.)

165 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:24:27pm

re: #157 SpaceJesus

probably never. unless we canceled our alliance with the south, dprk would never attack.

well actually i take that back. dprk might attack no matter if our troops are over there or not, because kim is fucking insane and old.

Really? What did the insane and old ever do to him?

166 poteen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:24:40pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

What would you spend it on?

167 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:24:51pm

re: #151 jcm

What is one of the Constitutional mandates for the Federal Government?

Mutual Defense.

Let’s save money by cutting where the Feds don’t belong, every think about that?

common defense. as in, common among the states. is poland the 51st state?

168 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:25:02pm

re: #159 CyanSnowHawk

They might have a cute-bonus though. “Aw, look at all those cute elephants march on the capital”. :)

169 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:25:14pm

re: #152 Wendya

Spacejesus apparently bought the leftist meme that Georgia attacked a Russian territory and they were just defending themselves.

Not quite. SJ simply doesn’t give a shit about anything other than himself.
Whatever comes into his Socratic mind sounds wonderful to him.

170 snowcrash  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:25:35pm

re: #142 SpaceJesus
“Fortress America” is a basic paleocon principle. That is what you seemed to be advocating.

171 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:25:37pm

re: #149 J.S.

(according to them) a world renown polling firm — when you want to know what population X thinks, you go to Angus-Reid polling…(they’re very well known in Canada…like Gallup)…

Well, I’d never heard of them, and they seem to collect polls, to go by their site. I’m a little short of time to spend on them, as I’m fighting with a printer over a stationery order and trying to summarize drivel into coherence (and I’m not talking about spacejesus’ extraordinarily confused thinking), but I’m not seeing the actual poll questions and demographics.

172 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:25:49pm

re: #158 avanti

That’s my main disagreement with us building a missile defense system. At some point we need to stop protecting the entire planet with our blood and treasure.

It would feel good to give the EU bird, but we need them. I would hope that we could continue to be strong in Europe, but Obama might make them realize how important we are by our absence.
“You don’t what you got until it’s gone, and you find out a little too late. “

173 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:26:02pm

re: #166 poteen

What would you spend it on?


actually, I’d rather see it go back to the tax payer.

if not that, on better infrastructure putting people to work. building nuclear plants, high speed rail, oil exploration maybe.

174 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:26:29pm

re: #172 Baier

Please stay.

Thanks,
Germany

175 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:26:40pm

re: #166 poteen

What would you spend it on?

A giant tea party!!!////

176 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:26:58pm

re: #158 avanti

That’s my main disagreement with us building a missile defense system. At some point we need to stop protecting the entire planet with our blood and treasure.

I agree that our allies should shoulder more of the burden.

How ever history has proven again and again, no man is an island, eventually we will have to deal with a threat. By the time it threatens us here it’s going to be that much, much harder to handle.

177 tradewind  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:27:21pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

No recent administration has been more bent on damaging and offending our allies while sucking up to and promoting our enemies.

178 Joshua Cohen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:27:26pm

re: #136 Honorary Yooper

We need to go back. We need to go to Mars. We need to keep on exploring.

The late 50ties and 60ties - a great time where technical dreams come true, things never imagined before - and some never achieved again since then.

179 capitalist piglet  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:27:39pm

re: #92 SpaceJesus

uh no. we defend our allies.

We’ll see if that’s still the case, I guess. It looks like the Flower-In-The-Barrel-Of-A-Gun crowd has finally taken over D.C., to me.

180 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:06pm

re: #178 Joshua Cohen

The late 50ties and 60ties - a great time where technical dreams come true, things never imagined before - and some never achieved again since then.

Yeah, I’m still waiting for my flying car. Where is it?!

181 Charpete67  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:13pm

re: #161 Dianna

Well, their front page has an article referring to Japan as “ungovernable.”

Make of this what you will.

Does Putin tap Obama on his head when negotiations are over?

182 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:19pm

re: #170 snowcrash

“Fortress America” is a basic paleocon principle. That is what you seemed to be advocating.

i’m not saying turn a blind eye to conflicts involving our allies, just let them provide for their own deterrents.

china loves the fact that america flushes billions down the drain every year protecting ungrateful nations. gives them more money to spend on developing their nation to overcome us, and in the end, take those ungrateful nations without even a fight.

183 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:24pm

re: #166 poteen

What would you spend it on?

Curtains.
Th’ neighbors can see in through that basement window.

/and his mother’s a cheapskate

184 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:30pm

Ukraine is also a member of the NATO Partnership for Peace.

185 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:39pm
186 eon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:28:59pm

re: #88 SpaceJesus

pretty sure I don’t have to have Kremlin access to realize that the Russians would never be insane enough to attack a NATO nation.

OK, let me put this simply.

The idea from Putin’s POV is not to attack NATO or Russia’s former “client states” with conventional forces. Because Russia hasn’t got enough conventional forces left to get the job done, and for the forseeable future at least can’t afford to build back up to the point where they could mount such an operation.

However, they still have enough nuclear assets to use as a credible threat to blackmail both their former “associates”, and the West, into giving them what they want, both economically and politically. Such as acquiescing in their actions in Georgia, or maybe even quietly killing the proposed oil/gas pipeline through Turkey that would seriously cut into their revenues. The game being “Don’t do anything that would adversely affect our income, or Oops! little atomic “accident” on your heads.”

(Incidentally, increasing revenues from Gasprom will, over time, give Putin & Co. enough moolah to rebuild their conventional military to the point where they can seriously think in “empire-building” terms again. Bet. On. It.)

As it stands now, Russia is the equivalent of the local mob running a protection racket, and getting away with it, because nobody has a way of avoiding getting their kneecaps broken if the mob decides to “make an example” out of them. Missile Defense would at least deprive them of one crowbar to swing at said kneecaps.

The fact that President Obama is opposed to giving our allies (and, incidentally, us) that much protection against thuggish behavior on the part of a government which has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy (Putin’s) tells me that once again, he values the “goodwill” of people who don’t like us more than he values our commitments to our actual friends.

As with everything else he does, this is a simple expression of his “Your friends are not my friends, and I don’t like your friends- or you- at all” worldview.

/I hope this clears thing up.

cheers

eon

187 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:29:12pm

re: #182 SpaceJesus

Polling you, right now! Would you say Germany is ungrateful?

188 Baier  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:29:14pm

re: #174 mrbaracuda

Please stay.

Thanks,
Germany

I’m a dual citizen or Germany and the US, believe me, I want the US to stay. I just would get some kind of satisfaction if I heard the European left regret being so hard on the US. I’d rather we didn’t leave at all, and I can live with not being appreciated. My enjoyment in such a scenario would be short lived, I’m sure.

189 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:29:21pm

re: #179 capitalist piglet

We’ll see if that’s still the case, I guess. It looks like the Flower-In-The-Barrel-Of-A-Gun crowd has finally taken over D.C., to me.


maybe so, but all we have to do is tell them that the czech republic and poland supply whole foods and trader joe’s with 90 percent of their inventory, then we’ll rally the war support should anything happen.

190 Wendya  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:29:27pm

re: #156 jaunte

Ron Paul Q&A:

RP doesn’t appear to believe in self defense. His view is to respond to attacks with letters of marque and reprisal.

191 poteen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:29:49pm

re: #173 SpaceJesus

Fair enough. Thats a good answer. Those projects DO give it back to the taxpayer.

192 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:30:31pm

re: #190 Wendya

Is it 1789 yet?

193 J.S.  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:31:17pm

re: #171 Dianna

Yes..I just took a look at Wiki — Angus-Reid is a Canadian outfit which does global research/polling…so, no wonder you haven’t heard about them..yet, they sound so familiar up here…(I don’t know how reliable their data is either…) But, I have read (iirc The Guardian, BBC?, that the Czechs and Poles are opposed to the missile shield — which at first glance seems to fly in the face of reality…but, maybe, given the kinds of threats that Russia has been making, from a Polish/Czech standpoint, saying “no” might make more sense…)

194 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:31:24pm

re: #181 Charpete67

Does Putin tap Obama on his head when negotiations are over?

No clue.

195 LGoPs  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:31:28pm

re: #185 taxfreekiller

of some note

The U.S. Defence Dept. even protects loon anti war loons like Jane Fonda and Space Jesus etal, as well as all other humans on the planet, notwithstanding the envirmental mental cases in the Democrat Party tell us day in day out,,”We the U.s. are destroying the planet” and that the only way to go is walk to war and throw stones or use sling shots.

which is it the loon kook Democrat kooks want,

Hell, we even defend Berkeley for crying out loud. Ain’t that a hoot?
///

196 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:31:30pm

re: #179 capitalist piglet

We’ll see if that’s still the case, I guess. It looks like the Flower-In-The-Barrel-Of-A-Gun crowd has finally taken over D.C., to me.

I don’t think that Obama personally is a flower in the barrel of a gun type. I think rather, that he is over confident of our military’s capabilities and moved by a sense of endless guilt about certain actions of America. I mean, American military might needs to be a giant dragon in his mind for him to be able to slay.

Therefore, he is willing to slash the military, because he thinks it is already big enough.

Further, it is not that he thinks use of force is always bad, he simply is interested in avoiding it to the extent of feeding allies to crocodiles.

My point is that he is not a hippie so much as a Chamberlain.

197 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:32:11pm

re: #184 jaunte

Ukraine is also a member of the NATO Partnership for Peace.

Then they’d best kiss their rears goodbye.

198 JustABill  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:32:38pm

re: #148 zombie

Most of that may be technically true, but it is irrelevant, for one reason: SUBMARINES.

Submarines are forgotton leg of the American tripod defense concept (land-air-sea). At any given time, we have subs with ICBMS cruising the world’s oceans, and there’s NO way to take them out. So even if Russia in some crazy scenario launched 1,000 missiles at the US and “took out” the whole country, they’d STILL get a massive retaliation coming from our submarine fleet. No, the counterstrike wouldn’t be as massive, but believe me it would be bad enough to have made the original strike “not worth it.”

Its not really about preventing a counter strike. The warheads aimed at ground based ICBMs will just hit empty silos anyways. Its about the ability to totally destroy your enemy. Since your enemy knows he will be totally destroyed, he will not attack.

Now the Russians think the US can, at least partially, survive total nuclear war. In other words, I can destroy your entire civilization, you can only destroy 90% of mine. Thus I can be more assertive in times of crisis, because if the war breaks out I “win”. Of course in the west we wouldn’t think of loosing 90% of our cities as a “win”, but we’re dealing with people who are willing to absorb huge losses in wartime (think WW2).

199 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:32:45pm

re: #186 eon

However, they still have enough nuclear assets to use as a credible threat to blackmail both their former “associates”, and the West, into giving them what they want, both economically and politically. Such as acquiescing in their actions in Georgia, or maybe even quietly killing the proposed oil/gas pipeline through Turkey that would seriously cut into their revenues. The game being “Don’t do anything that would adversely affect our income, or Oops! little atomic “accident” on your heads.”

(Incidentally, increasing revenues from Gasprom will, over time, give Putin & Co. enough moolah to rebuild their conventional military to the point where they can seriously think in “empire-building” terms again. Bet. On. It.)

As it stands now, Russia is the equivalent of the local mob running a protection racket, and getting away with it, because nobody has a way of avoiding getting their kneecaps broken if the mob decides to “make an example” out of them. Missile Defense would at least deprive them of one crowbar to swing at said kneecaps.

The fact that President Obama is opposed to giving our allies (and, incidentally, us) that much protection against thuggish behavior on the part of a government which has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy (Putin’s) tells me that once again, he values the “goodwill” of people who don’t like us more than he values our commitments to our actual friends.

As with everything else he does, this is a simple expression of his “Your friends are not my friends, and I don’t like your friends- or you- at all” worldview.

/I hope this clears thing up.

cheers

eon


well, you’re insane. the missile shield isn’t 100 percent effective anyway, so Russia could still use their arsenal to blackmail people like you say they will do. Plus, Russia could use all sorts of nasty weapons to blackmail nations with, or even just airpower alone. they don’t even need to put troops on the ground or use nukes to wreak havoc and destroy their neighbors.

Russia’s real leverage is energy to Europe, this is something no missile shield will ever protect against.

200 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:33:00pm

re: #167 SpaceJesus

common defense. as in, common among the states. is poland the 51st state?

You’ve said we should help our allies.
Now your saying we shouldn’t.

Make up your mind.

Isolationism, waiting behind our borders is no longer an option.

The world is 30 minutes wide, it was a 6 months wide in 1787.

201 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:34:48pm

re: #193 J.S.

Yes..I just took a look at Wiki — Angus-Reid is a Canadian outfit which does global research/polling…so, no wonder you haven’t heard about them..yet, they sound so familiar up here…(I don’t know how reliable their data is either…) But, I have read (iirc The Guardian, BBC?, that the Czechs and Poles are opposed to the missile shield — which at first glance seems to fly in the face of reality…but, maybe, given the kinds of threats that Russia has been making, from a Polish/Czech standpoint, saying “no” might make more sense…)

I didn’t wiki it, I went to their site.

202 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:35:04pm

re: #191 poteen

Fair enough. Thats a good answer. Those projects DO give it back to the taxpayer.


in long term benefits. plus, by getting ourselves off of fossil fuels and into nuke, we can further lessen our need on fuel from russia and the middle east. this would make it harder for russia to do all this blackmailing crap.

203 dhg4  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:35:27pm

From Barry Rubin.

If Obama had been president in the early 1990s, the letter hints rather subtly, “We would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.” The United States would have put an emphasis on good relations with Russia rather than supporting the real liberty of the nations in the area.

204 jcm  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:35:59pm

Gotta run….. later.

205 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:36:30pm

bbl too

206 mrbaracuda  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:36:30pm

re: #188 Baier

I’d get more satisfaction out of German companies decreasing their level of trade with Iran.

207 Pianobuff  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:37:01pm

re: #160 LudwigVanQuixote

While I am deeply opposed to the general weak, callous and Chamberlain like stance of Obama, I would feel much better about this debate if we actually had a deployable anti missile that works.

Kinetic kill devices, designed to take out ICBMs have a less than 50% hit ratio in the latest generation, and that is when their targets are flying on pre known trajectories, have no decoy war heads and are well illuminated.

Theatre defense systems do better, and have a great deal more promise against conventional projectiles. However, those technologies are hardly at the fully deployable state.

If G-d forbid, the Russians or anyone else with ICBM technology were to launch at us, they would not warn us before hand, fail to use dummies or light up their birds so that the would be easier for us to see.

I am not saying that we should scrap research into these fields, however, it is very wrong to make policy that relies on a gun that we do not actually have holstered.

Do you know if it’s settled which BMD technology would most likely be used?

208 Dianna  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:37:09pm

re: #199 SpaceJesus

Ahem. We repeat - for possible penetration - that missile defense does not have to be 100% effective.

Find yourself a clue with handles and hang on tight.

209 SpaceJesus  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:37:28pm

re: #200 jcm

You’ve said we should help our allies.
Now your saying we shouldn’t.

Make up your mind.

Isolationism, waiting behind our borders is no longer an option.

The world is 30 minutes wide, it was a 6 months wide in 1787.

hey, when some one says the constitution mandates we defend foreign states, i say it doesn’t. the constitution simply doesnt state that we collect taxes to provide for the defense of other nations.

now when we sign a treaty or agreement where the us says it will defend another state in time of war, that’s a different matter.

210 razorbacker  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:39:17pm

Remember PGI Obama going to Mexico and blaming Americans for providing the guns destabiling the country?

Turns out that he may be right, at least in one case…FBI agent charged in Texas firearms case

Goodness. Glad that the FBI was on the job.

211 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:39:25pm
212 capitalist piglet  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:39:28pm

re: #196 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t think that Obama personally is a flower in the barrel of a gun type. I think rather, that he is over confident of our military’s capabilities and moved by a sense of endless guilt about certain actions of America. I mean, American military might needs to be a giant dragon in his mind for him to be able to slay.

Therefore, he is willing to slash the military, because he thinks it is already big enough.

Further, it is not that he thinks use of force is always bad, he simply is interested in avoiding it to the extent of feeding allies to crocodiles.

My point is that he is not a hippie so much as a Chamberlain.

I think there’s some merit to what you say - but I wasn’t just talking about Obama. I’m talking about the Bill Ayers/student agitator generation, all grown up in suits, and many of them working in this administration.

I also think some of them have motives that are pure (some genuinely want “peace”, and they think voluntarily weakening the U.S. will gain us the global approval they seem to need), and others not so much.

Of course, I’ve read a lot of David Horowitz, so I have his words in my head while I observe these things.

213 capitalist piglet  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:40:30pm

re: #189 SpaceJesus

maybe so, but all we have to do is tell them that the czech republic and poland supply whole foods and trader joe’s with 90 percent of their inventory, then we’ll rally the war support should anything happen.

spacejesus, you made a funny!

214 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:41:13pm

“The Center for Global Development estimates that there are 25,339 power plants around the world that emit carbon dioxide. If the world starts replacing or converting these plants to carbon free energy production at the rate of one plant per day, then it will take 69 years to make all of these power plants carbon neutral, and an 80% conversion would take 56 years.
[Link: www.thebreakthrough.org…]

It will take longer to convert them to nuclear. In the meantime, missile defense is a relatively inexpensive means of defend the freedom of eastern european nations.

215 eon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:41:52pm

re: #199 SpaceJesus

well, you’re insane. the missile shield isn’t 100 percent effective anyway, so Russia could still use their arsenal to blackmail people like you say they will do. Plus, Russia could use all sorts of nasty weapons to blackmail nations with, or even just airpower alone. they don’t even need to put troops on the ground or use nukes to wreak havoc and destroy their neighbors.

Russia’s real leverage is energy to Europe, this is something no missile shield will ever protect against.

So, a defense that isn’t “100% effective” is therefore zero percent, and not worth building?

That’s rather like Hugh Dowding saying in 1940, “We can’t possibly intercept every Luftwaffe bomber that comes across the Channel, so it’s pointless to try to intecept any of them. And think of all the money we’ll save on all the Spitfires we won’t need to build, gas up, etc.”

Yes, Russia’s real leverage in Europe is energy, as I stated. I also stated what the likely outcome of giving Putin & Co. that much money to play with is- you seem to have overlooked that paragraph. (Hint; it’s the one in “parentheses”, like this sentence.)

As for Russia’s “other methods of blackmail”, that’s why we have the troops over there- that you want to remove (and apparently disestablish on purely economic grounds). Which means you’re contradicting yourself.

Why?

/I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about; I’m not so sure you do.

cheers

eon

216 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:42:47pm
217 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:44:04pm
218 Salamantis  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:45:06pm

How soon we forget the lesson of the peace benefits that accrued to us by virtue of Reagan’s Pershing missile deployment in Europe over the objections of leftists at home and abroad. In a single stroke, Reagan rendered the Soviet Fulda Gap conventional tank invasion scenario untenable, leaving them with no alternatives but nuclear armageddon and a slow economic crumbling into dissolution.

A defensive missile deployment is much less than this, and in addition, isn’t even aimed at Russia, but at Iran, from whom we have much to fear (but Europe and Israel even more), considering that the fanatical Hojetiyyists there are not the self-preservation-minded rational actors that the Soviets were, and messianically consider nuclear holocaust to be a religious incentive hastening the Return of the 12th Iman Mahdi (the Shia version of the Second Coming).

We dare not wait until Iran has nuclear-tipped ICBMs before we deploy such a system. The time to engage in the pre-emptive self-protection of Europe, Israel, and our assets there is NOW.

OTOH, if Obama backtracks on such a deployment, that may be precisely the decision that pushes Israel over the tipping point into a pre-emptive air bombardment of Iran’s nuclear assets. Is this a GOOD thing? Maybe not. In its absence, there is every chance that the present demographically superior anti-clerical unrest there might gain ascendancy and depose the mullahcracy before they cross the nuclear attack Rubicon. But after such an Israeli bombardment, all of Iran will be united in adamantine and inflexible animus against the West.

219 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:47:27pm
220 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:47:53pm

re: #207 Pianobuff

Do you know if it’s settled which BMD technology would most likely be used?

Right now, we seem to be putting most of our eggs in the kinetic kill basket for BMD. These are all counter missiles of some sort, and there are several systems in the works. None of them are as yet, particularly reliable.

Eon made a fabulous post about the need to counter the “crowbars” in the hands of the Russian mob. He made an excellent post about Russian oil profits allowing them to rebuild their empire building schemes. This is also why the Russians are so keen to establish an alliance with a nuclear Iran. If Iran and Russia collude on oil sales to Europe, and there is no way to make the Iranians behave either, because they are now nuclear, then that oil bloc could strangle Europe and use their profits to build empires. This is their game plan as clear as day. Both Bush and Obama were incapable of seeing it and doing anything about it.

To my mind though, the real way to fix this issue is not in terms of a missile shield, but rather in choking the finances of Russia and Iran by getting off of oil. That renders the whole issue moot and as opposed to reliable interceptors, we actually have deployable technologies to do it - or at least reduce dependence to the point that if Russia or Iran played games with the oil market it would not hurt so much, and pull the money out of their empire building.

The fact is though, the way to do it is by essentially replacing our oil industry with other technologies, like nuclear, solar and wind, backed by the newest generations of batteries.

As an added benefit we would solve a major portion of the AGW problem.

However, there was no way that Texas Oil man Bush would do such a thing, and the Cap and trade scheme of Obama only means that we burn icky stuff elsewhere and does not really address the issue of oil itself.

This is another case where the ideologies of both the Left and the Right have let us down.

However, any real talk

221 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:48:08pm
222 kansas  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:49:15pm

Russians waving “dicks” around caused civilian deaths during Georgia invasion. New military weapon: Russian Dicks. /////
[Link: invasionintogeorgia.org…]

223 eschew_obfuscation  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:49:23pm

re: #217 Iron Fist

Then 9-11 happened. For a moment, America woke up from the dream, and saw a very dangerous world. A world where rouge nations like Iran and North Korea were seeking to arm themselves with nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles. Missile defense rose from the ashes of 9-11, and the Bush Administration pushed boldly forward. The Democrats woke up from their slumber, and pronounced missile defense bad. At first they claimed that it could never work. You couldn’t hit a “bullet with a bullet”. American engineering proved that wrong. Successful tests followed. America withdrew from the ABM treaty, and missile defense was becoming a reality.

Are those like Gayistan and Lesbonia?

224 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:51:45pm
225 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:53:30pm
226 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:55:10pm
227 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:55:50pm

continued…

However, any real talk of fixing this has to start with removing their leverage over us.

IN the case of Russia and Iran, of course it comes down to oil for us and our allies.

If we are smart, we deploy and develop alternative energy technologies and mass market them. Europe would buy. Japan would buy, and that alone would drive petroleum prices down low enough that embargoes would not be such an issue.

If we were really smart we could through a combination of tariffs and incentives get the Chinese to build better and safer reactors and sell them our batteries. That would be a death knell for Russian and Iranian expansionism for the near future.

OF course the idea of a Democrat supporting Nuclear Energy is also absurd. It is even more absurd than the idea of a Texas oil man supporting it.

The fact is, if we want to be good capitalists about this, the oil industry makes buggy whips. We don’t need buggy whips anymore.

228 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:57:12pm
229 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:59:02pm
230 poteen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 1:59:08pm

re: #202 SpaceJesus

“Getting off fossil fuels” is impossible for a good long time. Petroleum products are everywhere in every part of every society today. From the shoes on your feet to the plastic keys you’re tapping. Motor fuel is the most important product. The ability to CHEAPLY move goods and people is what drives all economies. Make it more expensive and the economy falters.
Wind and solar are practical only in certain niche markets.
Coal and oil energize the world.

231 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:00:20pm
232 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:02:32pm

re: #218 Salamantis

How soon we forget the lesson of the peace benefits that accrued to us by virtue of Reagan’s Pershing missile deployment in Europe over the objections of leftists at home and abroad. In a single stroke, Reagan rendered the Soviet Fulda Gap conventional tank invasion scenario untenable, leaving them with no alternatives but nuclear armageddon and a slow economic crumbling into dissolution.

A defensive missile deployment is much less than this, and in addition, isn’t even aimed at Russia, but at Iran, from whom we have much to fear (but Europe and Israel even more), considering that the fanatical Hojetiyyists there are not the self-preservation-minded rational actors that the Soviets were, and messianically consider nuclear holocaust to be a religious incentive hastening the Return of the 12th Iman Mahdi (the Shia version of the Second Coming).

We dare not wait until Iran has nuclear-tipped ICBMs before we deploy such a system. The time to engage in the pre-emptive self-protection of Europe, Israel, and our assets there is NOW.

OTOH, if Obama backtracks on such a deployment, that may be precisely the decision that pushes Israel over the tipping point into a pre-emptive air bombardment of Iran’s nuclear assets. Is this a GOOD thing? Maybe not. In its absence, there is every chance that the present demographically superior anti-clerical unrest there might gain ascendancy and depose the mullahcracy before they cross the nuclear attack Rubicon. But after such an Israeli bombardment, all of Iran will be united in adamantine and inflexible animus against the West.

I hear you, but we do not have such a system to deploy.

I agree that progress has been made, but I do not want American military policy assuming that Chicago, or anywhere, is protected when in reality it is only protected at most 10% of the time.

The technology is simply not there yet.

That does not mean it will never be there, I am more optimistic about our capacity to build something like this than many of my colleagues in the department, however, you are making plans and policies around something that does not yet exist.

233 baconeatingkaffir  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:04:12pm

Personally, I’d like to see the missile defense shield stay. I’d like to see US troops stay in Germany and other parts of Europe where we seem to be downsizing forces. I think it would be more paramount as well to station troops in the former Eastern Bloc countries.We need to show our support for these countries. I don’t trust a united Germany. I”ve seen too many neo-nazi demonstrations and marches during my last time there in 2004. I am still a proponent of the theory of Peace Through Superior Firepower.

234 Pianobuff  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:04:43pm

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

continued…

However, any real talk of fixing this has to start with removing their leverage over us.

IN the case of Russia and Iran, of course it comes down to oil for us and our allies.

If we are smart, we deploy and develop alternative energy technologies and mass market them. Europe would buy. Japan would buy, and that alone would drive petroleum prices down low enough that embargoes would not be such an issue.

If we were really smart we could through a combination of tariffs and incentives get the Chinese to build better and safer reactors and sell them our batteries. That would be a death knell for Russian and Iranian expansionism for the near future.

OF course the idea of a Democrat supporting Nuclear Energy is also absurd. It is even more absurd than the idea of a Texas oil man supporting it.

The fact is, if we want to be good capitalists about this, the oil industry makes buggy whips. We don’t need buggy whips anymore.

I wonder how the Nabucco deal will end up playing out or if we are going to see crazy stuff happening now around Azerbaijan.

235 eschew_obfuscation  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:05:48pm

re: #225 Iron Fist

Funny. Everyone’s a comic. When you can’t answer the arguement, attack the editing. That is a dodge, not an answer.

So tell me, why do you want Iran to nuke New York City or Paris?

No, no, no…..I liked your post!

I’m just playin’ with ya…

Sorry, I shoulda used a tag or something.

236 Joshua Cohen  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:06:58pm

BTW: History that else happens on the 20th July:

The 20 July plot of 1944 was a failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany, inside his Wolfsschanze field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The plot was the culmination of the efforts of the German Resistance to overthrow the Nazi regime. The failure of both the assassination and the military coup d’état which was planned to follow it led to the arrest of at least 7,000 people by the Gestapo. According to records of the Führer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 4,980 people were executed, resulting in the destruction of the resistance movement in Germany.

The Numbers are from Wikipedia.

237 jcbunga  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:09:38pm

The issue of giving away an advantage in missile superiority was already addressed by General Buck Turgidson and his “Mussed Hair” strategy:

238 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:10:25pm

re: #230 poteen

“Getting off fossil fuels” is impossible for a good long time. Petroleum products are everywhere in every part of every society today. From the shoes on your feet to the plastic keys you’re tapping. Motor fuel is the most important product. The ability to CHEAPLY move goods and people is what drives all economies. Make it more expensive and the economy falters.
Wind and solar are practical only in certain niche markets.
Coal and oil energize the world.

They do now and because we don’t want to rock the boats of certain wealthy and powerful folks, we don’t have the courage to do differently. However, this is a human failure and not a technological one.

With the new batteries, solar and wind will be practical. Those two technologies are not currently developed enough to be sufficient in of themselves, but, at current technologies about 30% of our load. The biggest downside to wind is finding places where both hypocritical liberals and “I don’t care anyway” conservatives would not shout NIMBY.

Nuclear is practical. It is possible to build reactors that can not melt down using ceramic fuel pellets. About 200 of these would take care of the remaining 70% and give a lot of room for growth.

As to the plastics we need, there is this thing called recycling and as we remove our energy dependence on petroleum, then plastics get even cheaper.

All of this is human failing, not technological.

239 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:15:32pm
240 shortshrift  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:18:02pm

re: #73 zombie

For your Holdren report, your indefatigable due diligence, and your rationality, I salute you, sir.

241 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:19:50pm

re: #142 SpaceJesus

I have no idea what crazy uncle Pat’s position is on this. Lessening government spending and putting money back in our pockets sounds like a good idea to me.

Vistyoizel, du bist en ezels tuchis.

242 jaunte  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:19:55pm

Recycling plastic has only limited possibilities. We’re not going to get away from oil that easily.

“Only 0.9 million tons of plastics, or 4.7%, were recycled in the U.S. in 1994. Products made from recovered plastic bottles include drainage pipes, toys, carpet, filler for pillows and sleeping bags, and cassette casings. The useful life of plastic is extremely limited, after which it must be landfilled

.”
[Link: www.mindfully.org…]

243 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:25:12pm

re: #242 jaunte

Recycling plastic has only limited possibilities. We’re not going to get away from oil that easily.

.”
[Link: www.mindfully.org…]

You are correct about that. Still given how huge the plastic market is, 4.7% is a big deal. Honestly, if we are no longer using oil to run our cars or homes because we use better batteries (which currently exist!) and charge those batteries with nuclear solar and wind, we have the option of even using synthetic oil to make plastics, and the numbers still work out. We wouldn’t though, because at that point our oil consumption would have dropped by over 70% and oil would be really really cheap.

244 samsgran1948  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:34:42pm

re: #46 Desert Dog

The missile shield we are proposing must scare the crap out of the Russians.

At least since Napoleon decided to take a stroll to Moscow, the Russians have been paranoid sons-of-bitches. Twice since then — WWI and WWII — Russia has been invaded by Germany by way of Poland. Uncle Joe wasn’t simply after an empire when he stole all of eastern Europe after WWII; he wanted as much room as possible between Russia and the rest of the world. Putin is just carrying on the tradition.

I feel really bad for Eastern Europe because we all know Barry doesn’t give a good goddam about those countries. His only goal in Europe is to achieve the ultimate ’60s hippie/peacenik goal: total surrender to the Bear. He’s so proud of his missile pact with Russia — as if it really means anything to anybody but himself and the leftover Peace Now! idiots these days. They’ve got their eyes firmly shut to Iran, Pakistan and NorK while they belt out “Kumbaya” and “Imagine.”

245 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:35:57pm

re: #1 LGoPs

I have never understood the Left’s aversion to Missile Defense. To me it is one of the most purely egalitarian systems ever devised. It protects everyone not just conservatives……….

It’s because they want the Commies to win.

246 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:37:35pm
Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region.

As if 0bama gives a shit about our credibility.

247 eon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:38:27pm

re: #236 Joshua Cohen

BTW: History that else happens on the 20th July:

The 20 July plot of 1944 was a failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany, inside his Wolfsschanze field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The plot was the culmination of the efforts of the German Resistance to overthrow the Nazi regime. The failure of both the assassination and the military coup d’état which was planned to follow it led to the arrest of at least 7,000 people by the Gestapo. According to records of the Führer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 4,980 people were executed, resulting in the destruction of the resistance movement in Germany.

The Numbers are from Wikipedia.

Right now, I’m reading John Toland’s two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler, published in 1976. It’s highly illuminating, mainly for the myths about Hitler and the Nazis it demolished over three decades ago that still crop up.

Myth 1; Nazism was a “left-wing” movement.

Fact; Nope, sorry. The National Socialist Party was virulently anti-Communist from the beginning. It was also a small group of loud talkers meeting in a beer hall until the German Army noticed it, and sent Hitler (who was acting as a V-Mann, or “trusted man”, i.e. an informant) to join the outfit and report on it. When he reported that it was hardcore anti-Red, the German Army (specifically, his immediate boss, General Ludendorff himself) urged him to become a leader, with them bankrolling him and the party. He did, they did, and the rest is unpleasant history. The Nazi Party was literally created by the German High Command.

Myth 2; Hitler was insane.

Fact; By all indications, no. He was simply a political fanatic, convinced that he had a mission to “save” Germany from various “menaces” that didn’t actually exist, but which were accepted as being the gospel truth by most Germans at the time. If Hitler was “insane”, so were 37 million+ Germans, because his beliefs (about Jews, etc.) were very common in Germany. Unfortunately for the rest of the world.

Myth 3; Hitler came from poverty.

Fact; No, he came from a well-to-do family, and several times attempted to enroll in prestigious schools of art and architecture, which his family could afford the tuition for. He also repeatedly failed to achieve much, less because of a lack of talent (he was an excellent renderer) than a chronic laziness and lack of incentive to finish anything he started. Since his family’s money was always there to fall back on, he never really bothered to develop a work ethic. His “poverty” (in Vienna during his twenties) was mainly self-inflicted.

Toland spent over a decade (1964-75) researching this book, and in the process talked to a lot of “primary source” individuals, including Hitler’s surviving relatives and members of his staff. I’d say it’s as close to a definitive work on the man who turned Europe into a nightmare three-quarters of a century ago as we’re ever likely to find, and should be required reading in European history classes. Also by political pundits; I’m pretty sure that if Jonah Goldberg had read it, he wouldn’t have drawn most of the conclusions he did in his book, Liberal Fascism.

I highly recommend it.

cheers

eon

248 tradewind  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:44:33pm

re: #189 SpaceJesus

Funny, the WF in my town must have missed that memo, since they get an enormous amount of produce and dairy locally, and beef and pork from Neiman Ranch.
I don’t shop there for the canned goods.

249 tradewind  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:53:13pm

re: #191 poteen
(Surely you know he’s not serious)…

250 ladycatnip  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 2:54:39pm

247 eon

Myth 2; Hitler was insane.

Fact; By all indications, no. He was simply a political fanatic, convinced that he had a mission to “save” Germany from various “menaces” that didn’t actually exist, but which were accepted as being the gospel truth by most Germans at the time. If Hitler was “insane”, so were 37 million+ Germans, because his beliefs (about Jews, etc.) were very common in Germany. Unfortunately for the rest of the world.

I’ve never heard the myth Hitler was insane - just an evil psychopathic megalomaniac. There’s a difference, I think. If he was/is considered insane by some, then that makes every other evil despot insane - which, imo, lets them off the hook to a degree. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing when he had 6M Jews gassed. He also methodically tried to get rid of the homosexuals, Gypsies, handicapped, and any other human who wasn’t a blond Arian. Pure evil.

251 descolada9  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 3:23:47pm

re: #247 eon

Myth 1; Nazism was a “left-wing” movement.

Fact; Nope, sorry. The National Socialist Party was virulently anti-Communist from the beginning. It was also a small group of loud talkers meeting in a beer hall until the German Army noticed it, and sent Hitler (who was acting as a V-Mann, or “trusted man”, i.e. an informant) to join the outfit and report on it. When he reported that it was hardcore anti-Red, the German Army (specifically, his immediate boss, General Ludendorff himself) urged him to become a leader, with them bankrolling him and the party. He did, they did, and the rest is unpleasant history. The Nazi Party was literally created by the German High Command.

Eon, you don’t actually go into the political philosophies of Nazism as it relates to the management of a country. In relation to other political philosophies it is very left of center.

However, Communism is even further left than Nazism and the two ideologies had enough in common that they disliked each other for being too much alike on many principles. Also, Hitler and Stalin personally disliked each other as well.

Nazism as a right wing philosophy was started by Stalin in order to build division between Communism and Nazism and to make it easier to paint Hitler in a negative light for Stalin’s admirer’s.

252 eon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 3:48:32pm

re: #250 ladycatnip

247 eon

I’ve never heard the myth Hitler was insane - just an evil psychopathic megalomaniac. There’s a difference, I think. If he was/is considered insane by some, then that makes every other evil despot insane - which, imo, lets them off the hook to a degree. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing when he had 6M Jews gassed. He also methodically tried to get rid of the homosexuals, Gypsies, handicapped, and any other human who wasn’t a blond Arian. Pure evil.

I’ve heard it over and over, even people claiming he had syphilis (like Al Capone), which caused him to behave “erratically”. (Which is another myth Toland demolishes, incidentally.)

From Toland’s analysis, you’re correct; he was apparently convinced of his own “destiny” from an early age- even as a boy, he saw himself in the “leader” role’, and his behavior toward anyone who disagreed with him was an eerie preview of his behavior as Chancellor of Germany. He is proof positive that it’s possible for someone to gain power simply by being a spellbinding orator (which he was, as witnesses related to Toland), and yet have a worldview that is not merely bizarre, but actually dangerous.

By the way, Toland also noted that he was examined by a psychiatrist in 1918 after being gassed in the trenches. The psychiatrist concluded that, other than a bout of hysterical blindness lasting less than a day after he’d recovered from the effects of the mustard gas, he was no crazier than any other man he’d examined under similar circumstances.

Of course, the others didn’t have “visions” telling them they were to be the saviors of their (adopted) country, either.

cheers

eon

253 Joan Not of Arc  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 3:53:39pm

Has Poland contributed to Obama’s campaign? No? Then I guess they are out of luck.
The liberal/Democrat technique has always been one of appeasement and (as someone so astutely put it) “leveling”. And let’s remember Obama made it clear he would appease BEFORE the idiot masses voted him in.
I fear for Poland, North Korea and any country that could be benefitted by the US. They have been let down.

254 Salamantis  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 3:54:40pm

re: #251 descolada9

Myth 1; Nazism was a “left-wing” movement.

Fact; Nope, sorry. The National Socialist Party was virulently anti-Communist from the beginning. It was also a small group of loud talkers meeting in a beer hall until the German Army noticed it, and sent Hitler (who was acting as a V-Mann, or “trusted man”, i.e. an informant) to join the outfit and report on it. When he reported that it was hardcore anti-Red, the German Army (specifically, his immediate boss, General Ludendorff himself) urged him to become a leader, with them bankrolling him and the party. He did, they did, and the rest is unpleasant history. The Nazi Party was literally created by the German High Command.

Eon, you don’t actually go into the political philosophies of Nazism as it relates to the management of a country. In relation to other political philosophies it is very left of center.

However, Communism is even further left than Nazism and the two ideologies had enough in common that they disliked each other for being too much alike on many principles. Also, Hitler and Stalin personally disliked each other as well.

Nazism as a right wing philosophy was started by Stalin in order to build division between Communism and Nazism and to make it easier to paint Hitler in a negative light for Stalin’s admirer’s.

Wrong. There are many different varieties of collectivist totalitarianism, distinguishable from each other by the differing rationales that they employ in order to justify their assumption of absolute power over the individual.

The fascist right justifies their self-arrogation of absolute state power and control over the individual by appealing to racial purity and supremacy (Hitler - Aryans, Mussolini - Romans, Hirohito - Nippons).

The communist left justifies their self-arrogation of absolute state power and control over the individual by appealing to the erasure of class distinctions.

And the various and sundry theocracies justify their self-arrogation of absolute power and control over the individual by appealing to some scripture-based religious supremacist dogma or other.

255 eon  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 4:05:15pm

re: #251 descolada9

Eon, you don’t actually go into the political philosophies of Nazism as it relates to the management of a country. In relation to other political philosophies it is very left of center.

However, Communism is even further left than Nazism and the two ideologies had enough in common that they disliked each other for being too much alike on many principles. Also, Hitler and Stalin personally disliked each other as well.

Nazism as a right wing philosophy was started by Stalin in order to build division between Communism and Nazism and to make it easier to paint Hitler in a negative light for Stalin’s admirer’s.

Actually, Toland goes very deeply into those philosophies. And shows, based on actual accounts from people who were there, that at no point was German National Socialism anything like the Soviet version. It was, in fact, a reaction to the Soviet-style attempts at revolution by the Spartacists and other openly leftist and often Soviet-backed groups in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia at the time. And it was covertly funded and encouraged by the German Army as a weapon against the Communists from 1919 on.

Part of the confusion stems from the incorrect conflation of the German concept of volkisch philosophy, one of the foundations of Nazism, with Soviet-style proletarianism. They aren’t the same thing, in fact they aren’t even close to each other, as the Soviet style talks of the “common bond of the workers”, irrespective of ethnicity, nationality, etc., while the German concept is heavily dominated by the “innate superiority” of certain groups, specifically, well, Germans. Toland points out that the volkisch concept is so involved, and almost mystical in nature, that it’s difficult to comprehend by Western, logical means. This is probably why the mistake of confusing it with the Soviet concept of the “proletariat” is so often made; it’s easier to “understand” that way. Unfortunately, it’s also dead wrong.

As I said, Toland demolishes a lot of myths in this book, and I’m pretty much coming to the conclusion that it’s an important book to read, especially in light of the “activities” of the various “right-wing” groups in Europe today. Since they get a lot of their “philosophy” from this source, understanding the source is important, and Toland does a better job of explaining it than most more recent researchers, including having the intellectual honesty to admit that some of it may simply be incomprehensible to our way of reasoning.

As Sun-Tzu said,

Know your enemy, and know yourself, and in a hundred battles you will never be in danger.

Part of “knowing” the enemy is not making inaccurate assumptions about his motivations. Doing so can lead you to make inaccurate assumptions about what he’s likely to do.

Wars have been lost, that way.

cheers

eon

256 Clubsec  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 4:13:54pm

Ludwig is it #160? Pre known trajectories? Ahhh yea that’s why they’re called BALLISTIC MISSILES. No decoys? That’s a lie but you’re not in a position to know that. Countermeasures were deployed on the first sensor flight. Well illuminated? what the fuck does that mean? WE tract the target cluster with ground based radars so I suppose they were ‘illuminated’ so to speak. But they were not cooperative targets in any sense of a test scenario. Discrimination is key. We are the only country that has this capability. Period.
#217 Iron … Nice write up. But we’ll never get an answer if no one in the FMSM refuses to ask the likes of Carl Levin, Diane or Barb, The Minnesota Twins, Schmuckie Chuckie, the list is long.
#220 Ludwig again. … don’t need warheads they represent surperflous mass. In KEI (Kinetic Energy Intercept) manuverability/agility wins.

ObamUH will discard our trump cards before we ever get to the rubber game.
I’d repeat Mandy’s mantra but you know what … pretty soon no one will be happy. Except those mindless morons who will work to relect this childlike fraud.

257 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 4:45:02pm

re: #256 Clubsec

Ludwig is it #160? Pre known trajectories? Ahhh yea that’s why they’re called BALLISTIC MISSILES. No decoys? That’s a lie but you’re not in a position to know that. Countermeasures were deployed on the first sensor flight. Well illuminated? what the fuck does that mean? WE tract the target cluster with ground based radars so I suppose they were ‘illuminated’ so to speak. But they were not cooperative targets in any sense of a test scenario. Discrimination is key. We are the only country that has this capability. Period.
#217 Iron … Nice write up. But we’ll never get an answer if no one in the FMSM refuses to ask the likes of Carl Levin, Diane or Barb, The Minnesota Twins, Schmuckie Chuckie, the list is long.
#220 Ludwig again. … don’t need warheads they represent surperflous mass. In KEI (Kinetic Energy Intercept) manuverability/agility wins.

ObamUH will discard our trump cards before we ever get to the rubber game.
I’d repeat Mandy’s mantra but you know what … pretty soon no one will be happy. Except those mindless morons who will work to relect this childlike fraud.

Uhhh huh, by pre known, I mean that the launch of the ballistic target and it’s flight path were known by the interceptors before the launch even happened. If you were actually involved in the tests, I agree that you tracked it by radar and that a ballistic trajectory is ballistic. However, you knew where to point your radars from the get go. A Russian sub would not be so cooperative.

As to any discussion of effectiveness, if the system is ready to deploy, why, have there not been several dozen successfully reported tests? How much does a kinetic kill bird cost in comparison to an ICBM? Even if it did have something like 90% reliability, which it does not, how many could be build as opposed to saturation of the system? Only one nuke needs to get through to destroy any given city.

I am not saying that we should scrap the program. I am saying it is not ready to deploy. As to decoy mirvs, why wouldn’t the enemy deploy them? Instead of lobbing one missile with n mirvs, you launch two with the same number of nukes and decoys interspersed. Decoys are cheaper than warheads. manufacturing, keeping and maintaining warheads is more expensive than the missiles. How does you interceptor discriminate? Again, how many interceptors could we cost effectively build, given current technology and reliabilities compared to the number of targets we could not ignore potentially being thrown at us?

Again, where is all of the triumphal footage on CNN of successful test after successful test, if the system is as good as you imply?

258 jvic  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 6:27:13pm

re: #257 LudwigVanQuixote

I am not saying that we should scrap the program. I am saying it is not ready to deploy…

I have never understood Soviet Russian paranoia about missile defense, starting with the Reagan Star Wars speech and continuing to the present. My best guess is that they don’t fear our current capability: they fear we might innovate a game-changing wild-card technology which their economy is not tooled up to match.

259 GreenSoccer  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 7:10:26pm

Unbelieveable, to cut defence precisely when N Korea and Iran are building their missiles and ready to place them with Chavez and with Cuba and Chavez is trying to overthrow the government in Honduras precisely so that a missile doesn’t have to go quite as far to threaten the US, while Iran can threaten Europe, and N Korean missiles can hit Japan Hawaii and California.

Just goes to show you that intelligence is no indicator of intelligence.

I guess Israel will have to build missile defence and when someone feels threatened they can buy them from Israel.

260 [deleted]  Mon, Jul 20, 2009 7:55:03pm
261 seax  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 8:57:46pm

Sort of reminds me of Frank Whittle and his new fangled jet engine -
the Brit government didn’t want to know until the german started busting things with the Me 262.( more or less ).
Only problem with missile defence is that they will most probably start flying towards the USA - if they are start flying in Europe.
No good saying ” We should have missile defence” if
you can see their rockets red glare etc etc.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 107 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1