Obama "Not Commited" To ABM site in Europe.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

A position of western world, United States included to Czech republic and other smaller countries in europe has been always driven by whatever convenient was in their domestic politics. They did not have any qualms about throwing us to the wolwes twice within 10 years period just because it was easy solution.
We do not owe them a thing.

J.

I'm curious; what did the US do in the last 10 years?

[CmdrWilkens]

Taking a brief cue from Sts, Russia has become a resurgent power and in turn they view a certain zone of exclusion, if you will, in the countries immediately surrounding them. In much the same way that the US would view Russian intereference in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean to be an affront so too does Russia view actions within its neigbhoring sphere to be an affront.

Neither side is rational in this assessment because it speaks to national pride which is a much mroe elusive and hard to quantify obejct. Deliberatley poking and prodding Russian pride through the expansion of NATO and the possible staging of the ABM in what was once part of the USSR is foolish in that it antagoizes Russia, who holds a great deal of sway within Europe in terms of energy. One has only to think back to when IRBMs were in Greece and Turkey so the Soviet Union responded with IRBMs in Cuba. Neither sided needed them in any strategic sense rahter they were deliberate expressions of power within the "enemies" sphere of influence. Doing so now is just uselessly ratcheting up old Cold War animosities. Actually negotiating with Russia to acknowledge that we both sitll have a crapload of nukes pointed at each other and finding a way to make sure they never kill anybody should be top priority.

I truly get the sense that Obama undersands that wounding Russian national pride is foolish unless there is some tangible reward which interceptors in Poland would be a stretch to call such.

[Beowulf]

That's what I figured. One thing, though - what's the range on this particular variety of ABM system (or any of them, in general)? I don't doubt that we need one, but does it need to be based in Eastern Europe to be effective, or could you operate it from farther west (or from a ship or ships in the Baltic Sea) and still cover the Eastern Europeans?

If it's just because the Russians are sad for making a bad investment in strategic weaponry, then whatever - maybe we could throw them some kind of economic bone or something.

Ship basing is going to be inherently more expensive, simply because you need 3 ships (and sets of equipment) for each site, not to mention the fact that you're on a ship.

Turkey is a bad location, because it's too close to Iran. Reduced time to respond to a launch, as well as other technical problems. Sites in Poland and the Czech republic are better, and it's actually not much easier for those sites to hit Russian ICBMs, because Russian ICBMs wouldn't be coming especially close to those sites (at least, the ones targetted on the US won't). Russian ICBMs would generally go straight over the North Pole.

[Kane Starkiller]

I'm curious; what did the US do in the last 10 years?

He is probably referring to British betrayal in the 1930s and later allowing the Soviets to keep them after the WW2. Now the West didn't really have a choice after WW2 other than head on attack at the Soviet Union. Situation today is quite similar to pre WW2 in that both Poland and Czech Republic rely on assurances of distant US just like they relied on assurances of distant UK 60 years ago.
However US is actually building bases inside the countries so their commitment is more serious.

Taking a brief cue from Sts, Russia has become a resurgent power and in turn they view a certain zone of exclusion, if you will, in the countries immediately surrounding them. In much the same way that the US would view Russian intereference in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean to be an affront so too does Russia view actions within its neigbhoring sphere to be an affront.

Neither side is rational in this assessment because it speaks to national pride which is a much mroe elusive and hard to quantify obejct. Deliberatley poking and prodding Russian pride through the expansion of NATO and the possible staging of the ABM in what was once part of the USSR is foolish in that it antagoizes Russia, who holds a great deal of sway within Europe in terms of energy. One has only to think back to when IRBMs were in Greece and Turkey so the Soviet Union responded with IRBMs in Cuba. Neither sided needed them in any strategic sense rahter they were deliberate expressions of power within the "enemies" sphere of influence. Doing so now is just uselessly ratcheting up old Cold War animosities. Actually negotiating with Russia to acknowledge that we both sitll have a crapload of nukes pointed at each other and finding a way to make sure they never kill anybody should be top priority.

I truly get the sense that Obama undersands that wounding Russian national pride is foolish unless there is some tangible reward which interceptors in Poland would be a stretch to call such.

The thing is Europe is practically a Russian peninsula in geographic terms. Any expansion of Russian influence westwards means that European security position deteriorates rapidly. Couple that with European energy dependence and entire Europe can fall under the sway of Russia quite easily which means expulsion of US from Europe. Couple the energy dependence to several thousand warheads pointed at you and you see that Europe wouldn't have much options but to do as Russia says. So there really is no room in Eastern Europe to grant Russia it's "sphere of influence" while at the same time ensure Western Europe is free from Russian influence.

[Guardsman Bass]

The thing is Europe is practically a Russian peninsula in geographic terms. Any expansion of Russian influence westwards means that European security position deteriorates rapidly. Couple that with European energy dependence and entire Europe can fall under the sway of Russia quite easily which means expulsion of US from Europe. Couple the energy dependence to several thousand warheads pointed at you and you see that Europe wouldn't have much options but to do as Russia says. So there really is no room in Eastern Europe to grant Russia it's "sphere of influence" while at the same time ensure Western Europe is free from Russian influence.

Keep in mind that it's not as if Europe is going to simply wilt under Russian pressure if the US either left or got kicked out of Europe; even with energy dependence, there would still be a very strong impetus for them to re-build defense forces (and ABM systems, which we'd hopefully sell to them). One other thing - don't the Russians count as part of Europe (although they are also an Asian power)? You could always hold out the possibility of EU membership.

Thanks for the answers, Beowulf. That also suggests that we ought to really get cracking on a really thick ABM shield over North America.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The thing is Europe is practically a Russian peninsula in geographic terms. Any expansion of Russian influence westwards means that European security position deteriorates rapidly. Couple that with European energy dependence and entire Europe can fall under the sway of Russia quite easily which means expulsion of US from Europe. Couple the energy dependence to several thousand warheads pointed at you and you see that Europe wouldn't have much options but to do as Russia says. So there really is no room in Eastern Europe to grant Russia it's "sphere of influence" while at the same time ensure Western Europe is free from Russian influence.

All the more reason then for Obama to take a cue from the French and aggressively push for nuclear power expansion among NATO allies. If nuclear ends up being touted as a cure not only to environmental and domestic security concerns, but to foreign security interests as well, it would only be a good thing.

[Axis Kast]

Let's put to rest some ridiculous canards.

Europe is beholden to Russia for energy.

Only in the short term. Putin and Medvedev (or any Russian leader) can shut the valve and put the "deep freeze" on Europe only so long as Moscow wants to swallow all that oil. There is no alternative infrastructure for shipping western consignments to other markets. While Europe shivers, Russia will bleed rubles.

Furthermore, Russia's ability to play the "oil card" is linked directly to the price of oil on the world market. When oil prices are high and Russia earns more per barrel, it will have larger reserves to burn through during times of trouble. When oil prices drop, belts tighten. At the most recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Council, Russia didn't keep pace with China in offering financial bailouts to countries like Kazakhstan; they are too busy raiding their foreign exchange reserves to reduce the adverse affects of the global downturn.

Installing an Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield now lays the groundwork for neutralizing Russia's strategic capabilities in the future.

Debatable.

Russia would rather this technology not succeed at all, and that related equipment be kept at a far length. It's an unavoidable truth that the command-and-control assets are the big expense. Yet this ignores the math on the other side of the fence. For every interceptor we build, the Russians can deploy decoys and countermeasures more cheaply. Entering a race designed to nullify Russia's capabilities? For the foreseeable future, that would be foolishness on our part.

Why in Eastern Europe?

The official line is that the missile shield is meant to protect Europe, and that the Eastern European nations are convenient for this purpose.

The Europeans do appear to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. While the 2007 NIE reported that Iran had stopped work on a weapon (unsurprising, since they apparently already mastered the fabrication technique for a warhead), and suggested that it was going to go the route of a "virtual" nuclear power (capable of assembling a bomb on short notice), interested European nations released a statement at the end of September alleging that Iran was still working on a bomb.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Quite frankly, I don't think this goes far enough; we must absolutely revert the course that worthless zombie Reagan put us on in this nation, which is to pour a quarter of our revenue into the military black hole without any sort of positive impact on the greater economy. A bullet, once shot, is completely spent; a steel beam can be re-used. Let's cut the defense budget by ten or twenty or thirty percent and use that money to invest in worthwhile jobs.

[Gildor]

Quite frankly, I don't think this goes far enough; we must absolutely revert the course that worthless zombie Reagan put us on in this nation, which is to pour a quarter of our revenue into the military black hole without any sort of positive impact on the greater economy. A bullet, once shot, is completely spent; a steel beam can be re-used. Let's cut the defense budget by ten or twenty or thirty percent and use that money to invest in worthwhile jobs.

Which would be political suicide for Obama. After all, one of the biggest things McSame harped on was the meme that O is weak on defense. The Republitards would smell blood in the water.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Quite frankly, I don't think this goes far enough; we must absolutely revert the course that worthless zombie Reagan put us on in this nation, which is to pour a quarter of our revenue into the military black hole without any sort of positive impact on the greater economy. A bullet, once shot, is completely spent; a steel beam can be re-used. Let's cut the defense budget by ten or twenty or thirty percent and use that money to invest in worthwhile jobs.

Which would be political suicide for Obama. After all, one of the biggest things McSame harped on was the meme that O is weak on defense. The Republitards would smell blood in the water.

Obama won this election on a message of change, and if cutting defense spending lets him live up to that promise in the long run, then there's no amount of bleating from the old guard that won't simply look like a vindication of his policies at the expense of the Interests. It may not be a given, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.

[Ender]

I know they developed and tested them, but aren't Russian missiles now hypersonic ICBMs, and thus beyond the capabilities of the ABM shield to intercept and destroy? Or has the ABM been significantly upgraded, allowing it to target such missiles now? I remember there was a bit of a stink about it back in 02-03, that we were finally getting interceptor technology to work, so the Russians showed off their new missiles that meant we had effectively just pissed away all the R&D money. But if this in no way negates the Russian strategic capability, why the complaints, just national pride?

[The Grim Squeaker]

I know they developed and tested them, but aren't Russian missiles now hypersonic ICBMs, and thus beyond the capabilities of the ABM shield to intercept and destroy? Or has the ABM been significantly upgraded, allowing it to target such missiles now? I remember there was a bit of a stink about it back in 02-03, that we were finally getting interceptor technology to work, so the Russians showed off their new missiles that meant we had effectively just pissed away all the R&D money.

The Russians upgrading their missiles to outdo the ABM shield doesn't mean it was wasted, it forced them to research and upgrade their missiles (they'll need to upgrad eall of them to make the current ABM worthless, assuming it can't intercept hypersonic missiles, since it will still be able to deal with non-upgraded missiles), and that cash, technology and upgrades/maintenance always comes at the expense of something else.
In addition, it'll still work on low end nuclear powers (such as unnamed desert states), and it's a continuation of a long trend towards increasing the "length of the fuse" of the tripwire leading to nuclear war.

[[R_H]]

Let's put to rest some ridiculous canards.


Installing an Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield now lays the groundwork for neutralizing Russia's strategic capabilities.

Debatable.

Russia would rather this technology not succeed at all, and that related equipment be kept at a far length. It's an unavoidable truth that the command-and-control assets are the big expense. Yet this ignores the math on the other side of the fence. For every interceptor we build, the Russians can deploy decoys and countermeasures more cheaply. Entering a race designed to nullify Russia's capabilities? For the foreseeable future, that would be foolishness on our part.

From Quick question regarding ICBMs

Marginal relative to its direct strategic counterpart, which by your own admission has 10 times the necessary firepower to saturate the system using one leg of the Triad. Of course fifty SLBMs loaded with instant sunrise doesn't feel marginal to anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end, but relatively speaking it is compared to the U.S. I don't know the official technical term for secondary strategic threats like the UK for the Russia, versus primary threats like the U.S. And we'd almost always be part of a UK joint strike, right? I'm sure France wouldn't sit it out either.

The Moscow ABM system was far from being marginal. It was (and remains) a very important component.

I've said this before but it bears repeating. The original UK plan in the 1950s was for the V-bomber fleet to attack 200 targets in the Eastern USSR. That was regarded as causing the USSR enough pain to make them think twice. However, by the early 1960s, the Soviet Air Defense system was perceived as having the ability to severely compromise the V-bomber fleet. So, the UK shifted to Polaris, one submarine on station with 16 missiles, each with three warheads. At most, that meant hitting 48 targets, meaning that 152 of the previously assigned targets were now uncovered. Thus, the Soviet Air Defense system had protected those 152 targets without ever firing a shot.

However, when anti-missile systems were installed, they made Polaris vulnerable. So, the British instituted a Polaris Upgrade called Chevaline. This removed one of the three warheads and replaced it with decoys and penetration aids (which didn't work but that's another story) plus targeted all 32 remaining warheads on Moscow in the assumption that one of them would get through (note the numbers there - an anticipated 97 percent kill rate for the ABM system in the presence of decoys etc they thought would work). The reality is that the British target list was now reduced to 1. The combined air defense and anti-missile screens had protected 199 out of the original 200 targets without firing a shot. Eventually, the Brits bought Trident which gave them 198 warheads on targets and that gave them back their 200 target list. That's why there was such a concerted attempt to stop the Trident acquisition.

So why is all this so critical? Collectively, the Russians are probably the toughest people around but losing 200 cities is going to make even their eyes water. By reducing the target list to 1 they effectively eliminated the British nuclear deterrent (and, by implication the French one as well). Now we have a critical point. Russia can be hit by British and French IRBMs and bombers from Europe, the US cannot be hit by intermediate range Soviet systems. So, as long as Britain and France have the means of inflicting a serious hurt on the USSR, they are decoupled from the USA, In short, in a war in Europe, the UK and France could hammer the USSR with nuclear strikes while the US throws it's hands up on horror,declares neutrality and says "we want no part of this." Russia ends up crippled, the US is intact, we win. Without firing a shot.

OK, so now Russia has neutralized the British and French nuclear systems. Now, the only systems that can hurt the USSR are the strategic weapons in America - but using them means the US itself is at risk. The US and Europe are now coupled. That also means that the USSR can use nuclear weapons in Europe and turn around to the US and ask "Do you really want to trade New York for Frankfurt?". The answer would probably have been "no", the USSR blasts and occupied Europe while America sits it out. The USSR wins.

Now the UK gets Trident, it's ability to independently put a serious hurt on the USSR is back, the US and Europe are decoupled once again.

The importance of an ABM system isn't just that it can shoot down missiles, its the political impact of being able to shoot down missiles is tremendously advantageous to the country that has it.

(relevant part bolded by me)

[Illuminatus Primus]

I like this part

His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.

Bureaucratese for "Lets kill it."

Richard Clarke said the campaign stands for continued deployment where its already being placed, like GMD in Greeley. He's not committed to the European site though. And its not necessary the way GMD and the other continental projects are. I am somewhat of a neo-isolationist, and I don't see the need to be indefinitely engaged in Eastern Europe and close the door to improved relations with Russia, of the kind that Stuart in particular has advocated.

[Slacker]

Hawk, I need to know-do you honestly think there weren't going to be any nukes targeted at Prague or other Czech cities if the radar site wasn't there? Your country is in NATO, if WW3 breaks out with the Russians (you know, the Devil'll have orange sno-cones that day), you will be glassed, just like most of the rest of us.

[hawkwind]

Honestly - its because as military target of value we are just laughable vaste of ammo?

Understand this, the radar and the whole system is not going to protect us. Where will all the crap which is going to eventually be shot down? On our heads.
Even so, one would expect to actually get something of value in exchange for alowing somebody to install military target of highest priority 50 km from the largest city in the country. Hmm?
Hovever that did not happened and our people are treated like crap in relationship with US. Hence the disdain.

J.

[hawkwind]

Hawk, I need to know-do you honestly think there weren't going to be any nukes targeted at Prague or other Czech cities if the radar site wasn't there? Your country is in NATO, if WW3 breaks out with the Russians (you know, the Devil'll have orange sno-cones that day), you will be glassed, just like most of the rest of us.

Forgive my bitchin, but that does not justify putting american military instalation in the middle of the country and getting nothing for it.

J.

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, yeah. Russia should bend over and enjoy the US doing whatever it wants regarding ABM defense, especially installing ABM in other nations on the other side of the world.

Poland and the Czechs are part of NATO.

Right now, we have the capability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles that are aimed at CONUS. Russia also has this capability for Western Russia (If you think the Russians suck so badly, that they can only defend the outskirts of Moscow with an interceptor noticeably larger than the GBI, you've got something coming).

So why shouldn't we expand our ABM shield to protect our NATO allies? Face the facts; if we sited the system in Germany, Russia would still be bitching about it.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Quite frankly, I don't think this goes far enough; we must absolutely revert the course that worthless zombie Reagan put us on in this nation, which is to pour a quarter of our revenue into the military black hole without any sort of positive impact on the greater economy. A bullet, once shot, is completely spent; a steel beam can be re-used. Let's cut the defense budget by ten or twenty or thirty percent and use that money to invest in worthwhile jobs.

Which would be political suicide for Obama. After all, one of the biggest things McSame harped on was the meme that O is weak on defense. The Republitards would smell blood in the water.

That bird doesn't fly in a world where our greatest enemy isn't a massive collectivist superpower, but small cells of terrorists with suitcase bombs. We could do a much more effective job combating terrorism by cutting personnel and devoting some of the saved resources to training our troops in more advanced counterinsurgency and search-and-destroy skills. A smaller, nimbler, more specialized force employing more highly advanced technologies is the wave of the future, and also more cost-effective for the foreseeable future.

[Adrian Laguna]

That bird doesn't fly in a world where our greatest enemy isn't a massive collectivist superpower, but small cells of terrorists with suitcase bombs. We could do a much more effective job combating terrorism by cutting personnel and devoting some of the saved resources to training our troops in more advanced counterinsurgency and search-and-destroy skills. A smaller, nimbler, more specialized force employing more highly advanced technologies is the wave of the future, and also more cost-effective for the foreseeable future.

A light nimble force dedicated to fighting terrorists and insurgents is totally worthless in a conventional conflict, while a conventional force can be jury-rigged for fighting unconventional forces. In other words your plan would cripple America's capabilities. Sure the ability to wage large scale conventional wars doesn't matter much right now, but nobody can reliably predict what the world will look like 30 years down the line.

[Axis Kast]

(relevant part bolded by me)

You provided evidence that British decoys didn't work. That's it. I read nothing about decoys generally.

[ArcturusMengsk]

A light nimble force dedicated to fighting terrorists and insurgents is totally worthless in a conventional conflict, while a conventional force can be jury-rigged for fighting unconventional forces.

The next 'conventional conflict' waged between superpowers will be fought with nuclear weapons anyway. For all the other conceivable wars - such as a possible intervention in Darfur, or any other number of third-world nations - a light army will suffice.

[Axis Kast]

The next 'conventional conflict' waged between superpowers will be fought with nuclear weapons anyway. For all the other conceivable wars - such as a possible intervention in Darfur, or any other number of third-world nations - a light army will suffice.

I think the War in Iraq showcases perfectly the defects in opinion favoring "light" forces in small numbers as the appropriate solution to modern and future military conflict. If that isn't enough, look at Somalia.

The problem in Darfur involves failures of intelligence, limitations on mobility, and lack of specialist troops. But the central crux is that, even at an authorized size in excess of 20,000, there simply are not enough troops to respond across an area the size of France.

[Sarevok]

(relevant part bolded by me)

You provided evidence that British decoys didn't work. That's it. I read nothing about decoys generally.

From my total layman understanding a decoy is up against computational power which had been increasing at staggering rate. Not only must a decoy look same as a real warhead to a wide variety of sensors it must move like one as well. At some point to look like a convincing nuclear warhead you end up with a decoy just as massive and expensive as a real live nuclear warhead. Which kind of defeats the point of employing decoys.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The next 'conventional conflict' waged between superpowers will be fought with nuclear weapons anyway. For all the other conceivable wars - such as a possible intervention in Darfur, or any other number of third-world nations - a light army will suffice.

I think the War in Iraq showcases perfectly the defects in opinion favoring "light" forces in small numbers as the appropriate solution to modern and future military conflict.

The War in Iraq was fine while we were fighting Saddam's forces. It was only afterwards, during the occupation, that problems incurred, because a nimble military isn't meant for pulling occupation duty (equally frankly, I'd feel fine pulling out immediately and letting Iraq descend into its natural state of civil war). What they are meant to do is to attack in blitzkrieg fashion and then pull out, letting the natural tendency towards instability in any decentralized state do its work and soften the enemy up. Had we not sent troops into Iraq after we destroyed its infrastructure, it woulds soon have devolved into pandemonium anyway, and we would have been able to go in during the aftermath to pick up the pieces, on the pretense of some humanitarian mission. That would have been a much more effective way of operating the war, rather than treating it like Vichy France.