Comprimise brought us a couple World Wars as well. You need to strike a balance between power and comprimise. While Bush may have gone too far one direction, I think Obama is going too far the other.
Comprimise brought us a couple World Wars as well. You need to strike a balance between power and comprimise. While Bush may have gone too far one direction, I think Obama is going too far the other.
You raise a good point but saying this position is an embrace of Chamberlain rather than a departure from Bush is incorrect in my opinion.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Unfortunate. I like the shield, I just think that the US should bring Russia more on board to assuage Russia's very legitimate concerns about the shield on their doorstep. I've always been sympathetic to Russia's problem with this shield right next door because it had the potential to grow quickly and in time it would not be hard to see it making their missiles impotent, which will turn them into a caged rat more than they already are.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I've been pro-shield from the beginning, but let's face reality: Its effectiveness in all tests to date proved minimal and the entire reason for its existence was not to protect against large powers like Russia. It was to counter small rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.
Now, if canceling the shield means a diplomatic solution can be found instead of continuing to fund and rely on the aforementioned minimally effective system, isn't that a win? The U.S. can always resume work on the shield if diplomacy breaks down. Removing the threat before it ever becomes one seems far preferable.
Now, if canceling the shield means a diplomatic solution can be found instead of continuing to fund and rely on the aforementioned minimally effective system, isn't that a win? The U.S. can always resume work on the shield if diplomacy breaks down. Removing the threat before it ever becomes one seems far preferable.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Good,
there is absolutely no need to one-up the opponent in a zero-sum game.
We build a shield, Russia start cruising tactical stubs around europe and shuffle mobile ICBM batteries around, we add more technology, they add more to counter ours... and quid pro quo goes on. Does that sound familiar?
there is absolutely no need to one-up the opponent in a zero-sum game.
We build a shield, Russia start cruising tactical stubs around europe and shuffle mobile ICBM batteries around, we add more technology, they add more to counter ours... and quid pro quo goes on. Does that sound familiar?
What exactly about the missile shield will prevent Iran from getting nukes?
What makes you think they would use them against Europe?
What makes you think they would use them at all?
They would cease to exist.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
We have to pay for it because we are the worlds police. We take it upon ourselves to help people if they want it or not. Much like a parent talking to a child, you will thank us later !
AeroEngy
Senior member
- Mar 16, 2006
- 356
- 0
- 0
Here is my simple take on it. Why would Russia agree to help us with Iran? The way I see it they probably secretly want us to build it.
First, Russia is fairly friendly with Iran and making money of of them.
Second, the missile defense system proposed in Europe has no real threat toward Russia. It could not and never will be able to stop all all out strike from Russia. 10+ interceptors vs. 100s of ICBMs it is not difficult to do the math. Russia knows this as well as we do.
Third, they can use the system as a political tool against us. It gives them something to posture and flex their muscles over.
So in helping us they have to piss of one of their allies by taking a stance against Iran and lose a political tool. So unless I am missing something I don't see the net gain for Russia if they decide to help us with Iran.
On another topic I don't know why people insist on saying the missile shield does not work or is only partially effective. It has been pretty successful in shooting down RVs in recent test (both Sea and Ground based). There were some rough patches several years ago but as of late they have been working very well (note: spiral design model). Some might say the tests aren't operationally realistic but I will argue they are pretty close considering you want to collect as much data as possible per test since they are so expensive.
First, Russia is fairly friendly with Iran and making money of of them.
Second, the missile defense system proposed in Europe has no real threat toward Russia. It could not and never will be able to stop all all out strike from Russia. 10+ interceptors vs. 100s of ICBMs it is not difficult to do the math. Russia knows this as well as we do.
Third, they can use the system as a political tool against us. It gives them something to posture and flex their muscles over.
So in helping us they have to piss of one of their allies by taking a stance against Iran and lose a political tool. So unless I am missing something I don't see the net gain for Russia if they decide to help us with Iran.
On another topic I don't know why people insist on saying the missile shield does not work or is only partially effective. It has been pretty successful in shooting down RVs in recent test (both Sea and Ground based). There were some rough patches several years ago but as of late they have been working very well (note: spiral design model). Some might say the tests aren't operationally realistic but I will argue they are pretty close considering you want to collect as much data as possible per test since they are so expensive.
The missile shield has made us less safe, not more safe. It is a HORRIFYING waste of money, and it flies in the face of 50 years of successful and proven nuclear weapon doctrines. Doctrines that kept us safe from even the USSR.
2001: China has 20 ICBMS. "This suggests that China has chosen to pursue survivability rather than expansion. If there is no deployment of a US NMD system, this is likely to remain the case."
http://www.janes.com/security/...ir/jir010307_1_n.shtml
2006: "China plans to deploy by year's end the first of 60 Dong Feng 31-series intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which will be the first Chinese nuclear-tipped weapons that can target all of Europe or the entire continental United States...Experts say the DF-31A family represents a quantum leap in Chinese ICBM capability. The missiles will replace 20 two-stage liquid-fueled Dong Feng-5, or CSS-4, rockets.."
http://cisac.stanford.edu/news...lear_policies_20060807
Basically, China's old strategy was to scare us with the idea that L.A., S.F. and Seattle would be huge holes if we ever attacked them militarily. They only needed 20 missiles because even if only two or three made it, the U.S. would be really messed up.
Now, with a shield that can stop 20-50 ICBMs, China has/is deploying up to 200 new ICBMs (by some estimates).
In college I studied under a man who negotiated the SALT treaties. He is a nuclear weapon expert (and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), and he said that there is NO DOUBT that the shield is a bad idea.
Korea and Iran WILL NOT use ICBMs. The CIA and other Intelligence agencies are almost certain that Korean or Muslim nuclear weapons would be delivered on a ship or plane.
Thus, the shield does jack-shit against those threats, and it makes China (and to a large extent, Russia) nervous as SHIT, and very interested in expanding their weapon systems and making them more survivable.
MORE SURVIVABLE and MORE NUMEROUS CHINESE AND RUSSIAN NUKES DESTABILIZE THE NO FIRST USE DOCTRINE, POTENTIALLY LEADING TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR.
Did you even read the article? It certainly meant that were the US/Russia to succeed in resolving Iran's nuclear program problems (ie: no nukes for Iran), then the missile shield would not be needed.
I for one hope Obama does scrap that worthless piece of destabilizing shit.
Also, read this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2170604
1) It has already cost tens of billions (hundreds, depending on how you count it), and it has only produced a couple dozen interceptors that still have a significant failure rate.
2) We could simply never afford to build enough interceptors to stop a "real" attack -- e.g. an attack from Russia.
3) China only had a couple dozen old liquid fueled (non-first-strike) missiles before we started building the ABM system. Only *AFTER* we started building 50 interceptors did they decide they start building more than 50 ICBMs.
4) The Cold War proved that no sane nation will launch a first strike, especially against the USA, because of our unquestioned countervalue / second strike capability against any nation.
5) Only sane nations can build a *lot* of nukes, and sane nations do not launch first strikes.
6) If there *IS* a nuke attack against the USA, it will come in a container ship or truck, not an ICBM.
7) Nuclear weapons are really ***NOT*** that powerful. It would take thousands to destroy the USA, and tens of thousands to destroy the world, and we CANNOT make that many interceptors.
8) Global warming would unleash MANY MANY more destructive megajoules of energy than all nukes ever made.
9) Building interceptor missiles would not have as large of a benefit to the economy because they are not consumer goods like cars.
Bottom line: even if they work, they are a waste of money, do not address the REAL threats, and don't add that much to our technical knowledge
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2170604
1) It has already cost tens of billions (hundreds, depending on how you count it), and it has only produced a couple dozen interceptors that still have a significant failure rate.
2) We could simply never afford to build enough interceptors to stop a "real" attack -- e.g. an attack from Russia.
3) China only had a couple dozen old liquid fueled (non-first-strike) missiles before we started building the ABM system. Only *AFTER* we started building 50 interceptors did they decide they start building more than 50 ICBMs.
4) The Cold War proved that no sane nation will launch a first strike, especially against the USA, because of our unquestioned countervalue / second strike capability against any nation.
5) Only sane nations can build a *lot* of nukes, and sane nations do not launch first strikes.
6) If there *IS* a nuke attack against the USA, it will come in a container ship or truck, not an ICBM.
7) Nuclear weapons are really ***NOT*** that powerful. It would take thousands to destroy the USA, and tens of thousands to destroy the world, and we CANNOT make that many interceptors.
8) Global warming would unleash MANY MANY more destructive megajoules of energy than all nukes ever made.
9) Building interceptor missiles would not have as large of a benefit to the economy because they are not consumer goods like cars.
Bottom line: even if they work, they are a waste of money, do not address the REAL threats, and don't add that much to our technical knowledge
Deleted member 4644:
"But honestly.. name *ONE* country that will build say 100 (10x10 MIRV) nukes and then launch at us?
There isn't a SINGLE country that would do that. The next attack will either be 1-2 bombs delivered in a truck or ship... or it will be 100s/1000s of MIRVed/Decoyed/shielded nukes that we have NO chance of stopping.
A system that can shoot down 50 or even 100 nukes is useless.
If we got shot with 50 nukes, we would launch 1000. And even Kim Jung Il knows that.
"
"But honestly.. name *ONE* country that will build say 100 (10x10 MIRV) nukes and then launch at us?
There isn't a SINGLE country that would do that. The next attack will either be 1-2 bombs delivered in a truck or ship... or it will be 100s/1000s of MIRVed/Decoyed/shielded nukes that we have NO chance of stopping.
A system that can shoot down 50 or even 100 nukes is useless.
If we got shot with 50 nukes, we would launch 1000. And even Kim Jung Il knows that.
"
Deleted member 4644:
"The truth about the ABM system is that it is designed to give us a first-strike/only-strike capability against nations like Pakistan/North Korea/Iran.
But why the HELL would we want a first-strike capability against them?
If we launched against them, it would only be a matter of time before they or their allies smuggled nukes into the USA on land or ship as a counter attack.
Unfortunately, we have more to lose in this war than they do.
"
"The truth about the ABM system is that it is designed to give us a first-strike/only-strike capability against nations like Pakistan/North Korea/Iran.
But why the HELL would we want a first-strike capability against them?
If we launched against them, it would only be a matter of time before they or their allies smuggled nukes into the USA on land or ship as a counter attack.
Unfortunately, we have more to lose in this war than they do.
"
Deleted member 4644:
"
ABM is *inherently destabilizing* and as such, it is in fact an offensive weapon.
The U.S. cannot launch a first strike against smaller nuclear countries like China or NK because of the fear that 2-3 of their nukes could escape and blow up LA or NY.
The ABM system allows the US to destabilize that system and first-strike.
THAT is why China, Russia, and Europe have all protested against it.
"
"ABM is a destabilizing technology. It is an offensive technology.
NO ONE. Repeat, NO ONE, will launch a mere 10-100 nuclear weapons at the United States of America. To do so would result in one thing -- the country that did that would be glass, and the USA would be a very very angry, very hurt, but functioning beast.
Our military is VAST. Our country is VAST. It would take 100s if not 1000s of large nukes to really truely topple the USA. Anything less would just make us very very mad. And even the "crazy" leaders in Iran/NK/Pakistan understand that.
Perhaps you are merely over estimating the destructive power of threat-power nukes?
"
"At this point we are all just repeating arguments, but the bottom line as I see it is that a missile shield will never protect us from existential threats. Russia, China will always make sure they have more nukes than we have interceptors, period.
As far as less than existential threats? Those attacks wont come from ICBMs anyways. They will come from a cruise missile launched from a sub or a boat, or from a ship tied up next to NYC.
In the most simple terms, that is why the ABM is a waste of money. AND, even worse, it forces China to significantly expand its missile fleet (from ~50 to 100s).
Finally, as eskimospy pointed out, it is fairly easy to use chaff, decoy MIRVs, and other technologies to defeat any reasonable system we might field. Even NK has enough resources to start a credible arms race with us if they wanted.
"
"Obviously, a small launch from NK or Iran is the only threat that the system would work against. And I will concede that it would probably work fairly well.
However, will you concede that even a "crazy" nation would be *MUCH* more likely to deliver their limited number of nukes in a deniable manner, that is, some sort of method other than ICBM?
I personally think we would be better off spending $100 billion on port security and a better border with Mexico.
Also, keep in mind, that even in the most insane nation, quite a few people have to agree to press the launch button before a missile actually flies.
There is a difference between hating the USA and wanting us to burn in Satan fire, and hating us so much that you are willing to sacrifice 100% of your own population.
"
"
ABM is *inherently destabilizing* and as such, it is in fact an offensive weapon.
The U.S. cannot launch a first strike against smaller nuclear countries like China or NK because of the fear that 2-3 of their nukes could escape and blow up LA or NY.
The ABM system allows the US to destabilize that system and first-strike.
THAT is why China, Russia, and Europe have all protested against it.
"
"ABM is a destabilizing technology. It is an offensive technology.
NO ONE. Repeat, NO ONE, will launch a mere 10-100 nuclear weapons at the United States of America. To do so would result in one thing -- the country that did that would be glass, and the USA would be a very very angry, very hurt, but functioning beast.
Our military is VAST. Our country is VAST. It would take 100s if not 1000s of large nukes to really truely topple the USA. Anything less would just make us very very mad. And even the "crazy" leaders in Iran/NK/Pakistan understand that.
Perhaps you are merely over estimating the destructive power of threat-power nukes?
"
"At this point we are all just repeating arguments, but the bottom line as I see it is that a missile shield will never protect us from existential threats. Russia, China will always make sure they have more nukes than we have interceptors, period.
As far as less than existential threats? Those attacks wont come from ICBMs anyways. They will come from a cruise missile launched from a sub or a boat, or from a ship tied up next to NYC.
In the most simple terms, that is why the ABM is a waste of money. AND, even worse, it forces China to significantly expand its missile fleet (from ~50 to 100s).
Finally, as eskimospy pointed out, it is fairly easy to use chaff, decoy MIRVs, and other technologies to defeat any reasonable system we might field. Even NK has enough resources to start a credible arms race with us if they wanted.
"
"Obviously, a small launch from NK or Iran is the only threat that the system would work against. And I will concede that it would probably work fairly well.
However, will you concede that even a "crazy" nation would be *MUCH* more likely to deliver their limited number of nukes in a deniable manner, that is, some sort of method other than ICBM?
I personally think we would be better off spending $100 billion on port security and a better border with Mexico.
Also, keep in mind, that even in the most insane nation, quite a few people have to agree to press the launch button before a missile actually flies.
There is a difference between hating the USA and wanting us to burn in Satan fire, and hating us so much that you are willing to sacrifice 100% of your own population.
"
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I am thinking that when you play chess, you don't get 2 turns in a row, which means Russia was suckered into Georgia by the previous administration to make Obama look like he is willing to take it in the ass. Pretty good move and quite predictable outcome.
On the other hand, it may be the only way to deal with Iran, because Obama is absolutely powerless to do any thing else that will hurt them, unless he is willing to make a preemptive strike, or lie.... We know he won't do the preemptive part, as his political career comes 1st.
On the other hand, it may be the only way to deal with Iran, because Obama is absolutely powerless to do any thing else that will hurt them, unless he is willing to make a preemptive strike, or lie.... We know he won't do the preemptive part, as his political career comes 1st.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter