Eastern Europe: USA ditching missile defense. (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

Black, we live in a far more globalized world then we did in 1920 or even 1960, I could get on Facebook, MySpace, and have conversations this very afternoon with people in most countries all over the globe. Regrettable or not, we don't live in a vacuum anymore. If some major bank in Tokyo, Japan fails, all of us hear holy hell on it in most major markets on Wall Street.

Everything is sped up and intensified and pushed out to the masses now.

But that same line of argument was used at the turn of the century, when the world in many ways was more globalized than it is now.

But what does that have to do with foreign policy?

Are you saying we should dictate how Japan runs it's banks?

I would think, as always, there is risk and reward.

If you don't like the risks of doing business in some corner of the world, don't do business there. Otherwise, accept the risk and don't demand that the government in that part of the world be changed to one that will adopt practices you accept.

The world can be interdependent and diverse. It is an option. But the oligarchy doesn't like diversity in systems too much, because it undermines economies of scale and efficiency. Over time it is desired that the world be homogenized.

And that's not a world that's very interesting to me. I think good fences make good neighbors. Meddling leads to animosity, whether among friends, nieghbors or nation sates.

 

[feoinfunroe]

NATO chief proposes linked US/Russian/NATO defense

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_russia

By ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard, Associated Press Writer – 59 mins ago

BRUSSELS – The head of NATO called Friday for the U.S., Russia and NATO to link their missile defense systems against potential new nuclear threats from Asia and the Middle East, saying that the old foes must forget their lingering Cold War animosity.

Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen appealed for unity a day after the U.S. shelved a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile defense shield that has been a major irritant in relations with Russia.

"We should explore the potential for linking the U.S., NATO and Russia missile defense systems at an appropriate time," Fogh Rasmussen said.

"Both NATO and Russia have a wealth of experience in missile defense. We should now work to combine this experience to our mutual benefit," he said.

Since 2003, NATO and Russia have staged at least four simulated missile defense exercises. Both sides say they were successful.

"They showed (NATO's and Russia's) missile defense systems could be made interoperable," Rogozin told reporters Friday. "They showed this can enhance the level of security for everyone."

Thursday saw a break with the U.S. decision to abandon the Bush administration's plan to deploy an American missile shield in Eastern Europe because of a changed perception of the threat posed by Iran.

U.S. intelligence decided short- and medium-range missiles from Iran now pose a greater near-term threat than the intercontinental ballistic missiles the Bush plan addressed.

 

[blackadder]

The threat of Iran was always a little silly. Why would we need missle defense in Europe to defend against Iran anyway? This was always a way to expand our empire and the entire world knew it.

If we want to keep Russia in line just keep oil low.

So much more is needed here at home and I am happy Obama gave up on this nonsense.

Now to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Esepcially since the EU and Russia are Iran's biggest potential future trade and investment partners.

The notion that Iran would out of the blue attack Europe is absurd and beyond silly. It's just propaganda from the usual suspects to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

 

[Saintman2884]

Perhaps the world can be interdependent and diverse, but I'm sure even one ancient Greek philosopher you speak of frequently would agree with me that no matter how long the strong keep the weak under their boots, the weak won't always as inclined to remain that way. Would you not agree that could lead to trouble or spiraling out of hand at some point, no? So if that means a group of US relief workers are detained in a Pol Pot-esque society trying to help starving and malnourished children, it's their own damn fault for going to try and help out human beings as opposed to feeling good about giving $20 dollars to some Red Cross organization at a Publix supermarket in Orange Beach, Alabama. I wonder how much of a difference that really makes in the long run, considering what ME AND YOU know about relief groups that ask for money but as sometimes happens,mismanagement occurs and the money can find some pockets to crawl into.

Black, in terms of making a difference or even trying to help out our fellow man, we, as human beings can fail miserably in the worst ways sometimes. And it can be just around the corner in any neighborhood, or nearby city, or town, or people anyone we may pass into on any day in all our lives.

It's sad and regrettable but it's true but it's still a damning testament to human nature regardless.

 

[abnrgr]

I still think the price tag for fielding a missile defense system in eastern Europe is too high. What is the threat? It's not the Russians and Iran is seriously not going to do it. We are talking about $500,000,000 for a single radar and it would be sitting in Poland doing what? That's irresponsible spending to me. Talk of our duty to help the struggling countries of Eastern Europe sounds like cold war jibberish. The Soviets are not poised to overrun them. They will be just fine without a several billion dollar missile defense shield. Which is very specific in what it can do (very limited). This is all part of a global negotiation and not just about the sanctity and honor of small democracies striving for freedom. It's about money and agendas. Neither are critical to US key interests IMO.

 

[blackadder]

Perhaps the world can be interdependent and diverse, but I'm sure even one ancient Greek philosopher you speak of frequently would agree with me that no matter how long the strong keep the weak under their boots, the weak won't always as inclined to remain that way. Would you not agree that could lead to trouble or spiraling out of hand at some point, no? So if that means a group of US relief workers are detained in a Pol Pot-esque society trying to help starving and malnourished children, it's their own damn fault for going to try and help out human beings as opposed to feeling good about giving $20 dollars to some Red Cross organization at a Publix supermarket in Orange Beach, Alabama. I wonder how much of a difference that really makes in the long run, considering what ME AND YOU know about relief groups that ask for money but as sometimes happens,mismanagement occurs and the money can find some pockets to crawl into.

Black, in terms of making a difference or even trying to help out our fellow man, we, as human beings can fail miserably in the worst ways sometimes. And it can be just around the corner in any neighborhood, or nearby city, or town, or people anyone we may pass into on any day in all our lives.

It's sad and regrettable but it's true but it's still a damning testament to human nature regardless.

I believe when the strong and the weak change places, they change their behavior accordingly. It's just human nature, law of the jungle, unfortunately. There are always just enough out there playing by the jungle rules to ruin it for everybody else. Wasting lives and money trying to perfect mankind is futile. Jealously guard your own security and prosperity, don't fritter it away, and we passed the point of frittering.

Walk softly and carry a big stick. But we have spent 50 years tramping through everyone's yard, with a big stick.

As for your hypothetical aid workers, you do what you can to free them and punish the kidnappers. That doesn't require an oll out war or occupation or regime change, unless of course they have oil or some strategic value. Case in point would be the freeing of the crew from thew Somoli pirates a while back. Excellent work.

It's also like this a bit out in the world with the dark corners of the planet: As an American, I have the right to go anywhere in the U.S. and be safe ans secure in my person, correct?

But if I were to decide to take a stroll through the Desire Housing Project after midnite and get myself beaten and murdered, what would most people say?

I think they would of course agree that my murder was criminal and that the perpetrators be brought to justice. But the first thing they might say was "What the hell were you thinking? What were you doing there, that was stupid!" "What did you expect?"

I think that's about how it is in these backwaters where we go for the sake of globalism and liberal internationalism. What do you expect?

 

[TulsaSaint]

It represents our relationships and commitments to states that decades of Soviet domination are trying to be independent democracies. Something the US has stood in support of since the US decided to have a global forgien policy influence.

Unlike us, these flegling states are right next door to a country that has invaded them in the past and has shown agressive actions in Georgia in the present, and threating nature such as cutting off natural gas to Ukraine of they don't follow Moscow's directives.

These states have choosen to be democratic states and allied themselves with the United States, at significant risk to themselves in ways that not only include Russian aggression but also economic forces as well.

Forgien policy isn't always about specific defense systems. Its about perceptions, commitments, and strength. In backing down to the Russians we've given these states who considered themselves our allies the impression that we will not stand by them in their time of need. That we will not honor any previous commitment made to them and that we do not have the strength to stand up to agression weather it be Russia, Iran, or whomever it may be in the future.

Russia now has free reign to do what it wants to these states, wheather is means seizing terriroty in georgia, making people freeze in ukrain in the winter, or stopping ships in disputed waters.

If or when we ever need these allies in the future as our interests change, they have no reason to be their for us now, since we turned out backs on them when they needed us.

Thats how politics and forgien policy play out on the world stage. Unfortunately the president in his efforts for appeasement domestically, has shown he's a novice internationally.

So, wait. Let me make sure I've got this straight. Prior to yesterday, when we planned to build a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland to supposedly protect Western Europe against a missile from Iran, Russia was unable to seize territory in Georgia, make Ukrainians freeze in winter, or stop ships in disputed waters. But now that we've decided not to build that defense system - which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia in the first place - the Russians are suddenly able to do whatever they want?

This rests on the assumption that the threat of a missile shield that would have no bearing on Russia's ability to attack Georgia, Poland, or the Czech Republic, or cut off gas to Ukraine, was enough to restrain Russia - even though it had already attacked Georgia and cut off gas to Ukraine while the plan to build the missile shield was still in place. Russia pretty much did what they wanted in Georgia last year - there was really nothing we could do about it, and a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic would hardly have stopped a Russian invasion of Georgia, thousands of miles away. So I'm just not following your logic at all. I think this is another case of your chronic, "Obama did it, so it must be horrible" syndrome.

 

[Jeff Miller]

NATO chief proposes linked US/Russian/NATO defense

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_russia

IMO, Russia missed a huge oppurtunity in not joining NATO. Why it insists on being the great advasary is beyond me.

 

[blackadder]

So, wait. Let me make sure I've got this straight. Prior to yesterday, when we planned to build a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland to supposedly protect Western Europe against a missile from Iran, Russia was unable to seize territory in Georgia, make Ukrainians freeze in winter, or stop ships in disputed waters. But now that we've decided not to build that defense system - which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia in the first place - the Russians are suddenly able to do whatever they want?

This rests on the assumption that the threat of a missile shield that would have no bearing on Russia's ability to attack Georgia, Poland, or the Czech Republic, or cut off gas to Ukraine, was enough to restrain Russia - even though it had already attacked Georgia and cut off gas to Ukraine while the plan to build the missile shield was still in place. Russia pretty much did what they wanted in Georgia last year - there was really nothing we could do about it, and a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic would hardly have stopped a Russian invasion of Georgia, thousands of miles away. So I'm just not following your logic at all. I think this is another case of your chronic, "Obama did it, so it must be horrible" syndrome.

Of course, Georgia started it by attacking South Osettia and Russian troops there, and by many accounts committing war crimes by shelling purely civilian areas.

I don't think there are many hereos in that part of the world, the heroes certainly are not among the Georgians.

 

[Saintman2884]

Still, you must admit Black that we as human beings fall very short many times on helping our fellow man. Your example would apply also to seeing a homeless man along the side of the road asking for directions or just some money to help lighten the load he's carrying. I think most people who'd see him would dismiss him or assume all he wants is to buy liquor with the money we may give him. Where afraid that he might get into our cars, take it over, and cause us serious harm, so it's the element of fear and reservation that drives more of us far more to that extent that we're unable to understand or even admit too, some of us at least.

A very sad universal statement, but one can't still feel is regrettable.

 

[Saintman2884]

If you haven't already, you should exclude the Russians too, Black. There far from being anything close to heroes along with the Georgians or mostly everyone else in that part of the world.

 

[blackadder]

Still, you must admit Black that we as human beings fall very short many times on helping our fellow man. Your example would apply also to seeing a homeless man along the side of the road asking for directions or just some money to help lighten the load he's carrying. I think most people who'd see him would dismiss him or assume all he wants is to buy liquor with the money we may give him. Where afraid that he might get into our cars, take it over, and cause us serious harm, so it's the element of fear and reservation that drives more of us far more to that extent that we're unable to understand or even admit too, some of us at least.

A very sad universal statement, but one can't still feel is regrettable.

I regret it for about a second, then I remind myself of all the young ladies or others killed by drifters and go about my business of ensuring that I do not end up in his place.

And should the day come that I am in his place, I assure you I will not be hitchhiking or standing on the side of the road because it would be clear to me that if I were in the car I would be put off by the scraggly drifter.

I would go to a shelter , a soup line, a charity or something and get cleaned up and flip burgers or do yard work for as long as I had to. I wouldn't like it, but it would beat being on the street.

But that's just me.

 

[blackadder]

If you haven't already, you should exclude the Russians too, Black. There far from being anything close to heroes along with the Georgians or mostly everyone else in that part of the world.

I most certainly did, which is why I see no value getting between their centuries old animosities and then naively prattling on about "democracy".

 

[abnrgr]

Agreed Saintman. I am a realist and see no real heros or innocents in these areas (Eastern Europe, Caucus). I also don't see the critical US interest to validate sending a multi-billion dollar missile defense shield there. From a financial standpoint, I don't see the payoff. From a force protection standpoint I see a risk in letting the Russians and other Foreign Intelligence Service personnel get that close to our cutting edge defense systems. I don't see the "win" in deploying this system in Europe. In the US to protect Americans? Yes.

 

[blackadder]

Agreed Saintman. I am a realist and see no real heros or innocents in these areas (Eastern Europe, Caucus). I also don't see the critical US interest to validate sending a multi-billion dollar missile defense shield there. From a financial standpoint, I don't see the payoff. From a force protection standpoint I see a risk in letting the Russians and other Foreign Intelligence Service personnel get that close to our cutting edge defense systems. I don't see the "win" in deploying this system in Europe. In the US to protect Americans? Yes.

That's a great point and another reason why I have long agrued against these pointless interventions in places where we have no vital interests at stake.

What do you think the Chinese and Russians have learned about the way we operate from watching us in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How much info have they gathered on weapons systems, tactics, etc.?

And we gave the Russians the opportunity to test out the Kornet E (or someone some other system) quite afew times, which I believe proved capable of knocking out an Abrams:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...-felled-m1a1-abrams-tank-iraq-but-what-674-4/

What have they learned and how have they improved that weapon as a result?

There's a lot of info on how we work and what our equipment does that is now out there for free, and for what?

I am a realist and I am not in favor of disarmament, just proportionate preparations without waste and picking battles that really matter. We are giving a free education to adversaries that will be useful to them when there is a fight that matters.