U.S. Missile Defense Against Iran Makes China/Russia Mad, Might Not Even Work 408
An anonymous reader writes "The United States, since the 1980s, has been trying to make missile defense work. Billions of dollars spent, tons of political capital spent, and not a lot to show. The U.S. does have two viable options: the SM-2 and SM-3, although neither are perfect. The U.S., with European allies, has been deploying missile defense in Europe to block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles (even though they have not made nukes or the missiles to carry them). One problem: such defenses could, in theory, also block Russian and Chinese missiles. Russia is now planning to make more missiles to counter such defenses and could pull out of the New Start Treaty. They may also stop helping U.S. forces to supply themselves in Afghanistan. Is this all worth it for something that might not even work?"
Quite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is not that it makes Russia mad, but that with further development it could make America not MAD. Without mutually assured destruction, the nuclear peace will come to an end. It's like the US is deliberately trying to force a WW3. It's about time to realise that the cold war is over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Haaaaaa. Wow. Because the US, today, really is going to use nuclear assets on Russia. Ok. No. You're just insane.
This is all economics. Russia and China are mad not because of anything relating to war, but because the US is selling things to countries that lessens the value of the things that Russia and China want to sell to different countries.
Think about it. Think about it. No not too hard, you'll hurt yourself.
Yeah. The countries that these missile defense systems are aimed at stopping from aggr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>> the US is selling things to countries that lessens the value of the things that Russia and China want to sell to different countries.
Flat wrong. Russia asked to be part of the shield and buy anti-missile missiles direct from the U.S. just like the Europeans are doing. But the U.S. turned them down (President Obama said "nyet"). So your theory doesn't fly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flat wrong. Russia asked to be part of the shield and buy anti-missile missiles direct from the U.S. just like the Europeans are doing. But the U.S. turned them down (President Obama said "nyet"). So your theory doesn't fly.
Not relevant. What Russia/China want to sell (and in fact have a long history of doing exactly that) is not a ballistic-missile shield (which they don't possess) but ballistic missile systems (which they do) and which are rendered considerably less valuable if there is a semi-universal anti-ballistic system. Of course, it won't impact China or Russia's ability to blow up the planet: thousand of missiles with thousands of warheads assures no ABM system in existence right now could do that (not to mention the
Re: (Score:2)
A missile shield just means you need to buy more missiles in order to overwhelm it. Hardly a bad thing for the sellers of missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
That just means Russia doesn't 100% trust the people they're selling their military hardware to. You must've missed the point. If I sell you a bat, you might value that bat, but if someone sells the guy you want to hit with that bat an anti-bat shield.. well, you'd probably not be interested in my bat very much anymore, and I've got a BUNCH of bats and NOT a lot of money. You see the problem now, right.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, seeing how the US messed with the middle east for decades and is apparently not decided to stop, it kinda looks like only WWIII is going to stop this whole insanity.
I honestly don't see what else is coming unless the US start realizing that the best way to not antagonize people is to let them alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble with your reading comprehension hmmm? Maybe I did hit a sensible subject.
Nobody's comparing - I mean, I didn't. Nobody ever said that America is the worst offender in all the history of humankind. But you've got to admit that since 50 years they took the lead.
Re: (Score:3)
No. You're just insane.
Don't look at me. I'm not telling the assholes to do this. I didn't even elect any of them. They've stopped looking at election results as as any kind of mandate or direction on policy long ago. Plus enacting laws to stop and search me for any reason, and jail me without any need to see a judge at all, for as long as they want? Sheeat, the constitution & bill of rights is just an annoying peice of paper to them now. They've all gone rogue as far as I'm concerned. And they have all the guns.
Re: (Score:3)
SAT question:
Citizen firearms is to the US Military as:
a) bows and arrows were to muskets, rifles and cannons.
b) mole hill is to bulldozer.
c) mouse is to cat.
d) drizzle is to monsoon.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:4, Interesting)
That is true only if the US Army is willing to nuke NYC or go full Fallujah on Atlanta. Which isn't going to happen; the generals won't do it, and the soldiers will frag officers who dare to order such a thing.
If so, what you have is a Syrian situation where the army has armor but doesn't have enough men to control all the important locations ... and there are plenty of such locations in this country. There aren't even enough soldiers in the standing army to hold major cities, let alone thousands of smaller towns. Those soldiers will be also targets of potshots from every walk of life, from ultra-racist militia to gangs, each for their own reason. It is not possible to be safe from snipers in a US city.
Most importantly, the US Army will be losing soldiers by tens of thousands per day. After the initial period the soldiers will understand that they are just cannon fodder, a buffer that their superiors are using to delay the inevitable. It is not possible for an army (any army) to conquer this country - not without nuking it all. Soldiers will be deserting, which is extremely easy in their own country.
Citizens of the USA amassed a large number of firearms and ammo. If each armed citizen just walks up to a soldier, kills him and then gets killed himself (making it an equal exchange) then the US army will be wiped out to the last man.
You can see how that works in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military was able to defeat organized troops but it has no defense against militants. Why do you think it will fare any better here, against a better trained and better armed opponent? Why would it even want to fight? The President will be arrested as soon as the generals decide that the game is lost and a sacrificial victim is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
the US is selling things to countries that lessens the value of the things that Russia and China want to sell to different countries
You wanna qualify that? Last I heard China was selling things so cheaply wholesale industries are moving out of the US, for quite some time now.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm talking about the weapon systems that Russia and China sell to despotic rulers of shitstain nations so they can feel powerful. That stuff. It's going to be worth much less if there's a system in place to defeat it.
So you're saying Russia and China are mad because the missile shield will interfere with their ability to sell nuclear ICBMs to small nations?
That's... I'm not sure whether to call it 'massively uninformed' or just bugfuck insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Na, they just don't like the US causing nuclear proliferation. You said it yourself, the US will never attack Russia because even with a missile shield enough nukes will get through to send both sides back to the stone age. North Korea and Iran thought they would be safe from the US and Israel if they had even a couple of long range nukes, but now it looks like they need lots.
All that will happen is countries want more nukes and Russia and China end up spending vast sums of money developing their own nuke s
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure how this rambling mess made insightul but I assure you "selling stuff" is not the major issue. It may be "a" issue but it is way down on the list.
The U.S. doesn't have to use nukes to acheive their goals. All they need is A) a credible first strike offensive capability Russia and China can't stop and B) a credible defensive capability that has the potential to stop Russian and Chinese weapons.
It is extremely tacky on the part of the U.S. to be developing defensive missile capabilities on one hand while they are asking Russia to reduce its arsenal with START treaties, making it more vulnerable to a defensive shield.
If the U.S. has a credible chance of winning a nuclear war, it doesn't have to fight one to win. It wins when it can dictate global policy on everything, economics and economic systems, commodities(oil), who runs which third world country, etc. and no one can say NO. Russia in particular is furious the U.S. toppled a close ally in Serbia with military force, and is on the verge of doing the same to Russia's allies in Syria and Iran.
If the U.S thinks it can win any confrontation, it can start dictating terms without ever resorting to an actual military confrontation.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the U.S., especially the neocons, began proclaiming the U.S. as the worlds sole remaining superpower and acting accordingly. If they ever develop a real shield against nukes they will be even worse. That's why the Reaganauts and the Neocons keep spending staggering sums trying to develop one.
To counter my own argument it is totally NUTS for the U.S. to think they CAN develop an effective shield against nukes. There are simply to many countries with them, too many ways to deliver them and they are too smal. You have low flying cruise missiles, hypersonic air breathers, stealth, a tramp steamer or fishing boat sailing in to the harbor of a major coastal city, a pack mule walking across the Canadian border, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is a neocon (just in case you hadn't noticed). He loves war just as much as the last guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I stressed that it requires further development. This could be one of three things: one, the US tells the truth and the goal is to defend against small rogue nuclear powers; two, this is another bluff like SDI; three, this is the first step in development of a large-scale missile defence system. Knowing America's past intentions the third option can't be ruled out. And if indeed the truth is the first one, then the US should be more willing to compromise and knowing how sensitive this topic is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The missile shield has no hope of countering the ICBMs that Russia currently maintains. However, there is a realistic hope to stop a stray missile--say, from a corrupt regime fixated on self-destruction. MAD still exists, but CGAD (Crazy General Assured Destruction) does not with such a system.
This is all posturing, particularly from two of the least moral nations in the world: Russia and China. And, unsurprisingly, they are both backers of a nuclear Iran, which just sounds wonderful considering the frequen
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Informative)
>>> they are both backers of a nuclear Iran, which just sounds wonderful considering the frequency of their "death to America" and "death to Israel" proclamations.
When did these statements happen?
Citation please.
Oh and before you drag-out that tired "wipe Israel off the map" quote..... the phrase wipe off the map does not exist in the Iranian language. It was a very poor translation. What was actually stated by the Iranian president was this: "In a few years the government of Isreal will collapse and fade into history." Somewhat similar to what Reagan said about the communist government of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to avoid you jumping on any particular news group:
http://letmegooglethat4u.com/?q=Khamenei+february+3 [letmegooglethat4u.com]
Just to be clear: only an absolute moron believes the Iranian government. From stealing their election from the people by stuffing the ballot box, to calling for the destruction of both Israel and the United States, to denying the existence of the Holocaust, to denying the existence of gays in Iran: Iranian leaders are on the wrong side of every single issue. As a nation that literally sponsors terroris
Re: (Score:3)
Are you nuts? Russia has thousands and thousands of nuclear missiles on land. They have a bunch of nuclear missiles on submarines. No matter how accurate the SM-2 and SM-3 missiles get, we just don't have enough to prevent the Eastern seaboard from getting wiped out, not to mention the fact that they don't do jack shit against submarine-based missiles.
Now China might get pissy about this, but it's not like they were a real nuclear power to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it does not make Russia mad. The problem is that it makes Russia, or at least some Russians, very happy. Russian leaders have been spinning it as an attack on Russia by the evil west. Russian military have been using it as an excuse to ramp up military spending. And Russian defense industry uses it to justify producing more and more nukes and conventional weapons. They know very well that we are not going to nuke them, and that any talk about nuclear balance is really just a nonsense
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian defence industry is very different from the American one. Russia have lost the last weapons race, and wouldn't have better chances in a new one. They make plenty of money from selling weapons, stockpiling it would cause them a huge loss. The Russians wouldn't want a weapons race unless they feel that it's necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
MAD only works if all the powers are rational and interested in living. When one party has no problems with suicide because they are eager to meet their god in a blaze of Rapture glory then its time to spend a hell of a lot more on ABM technology.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except your stupid attempt at humor ignores a massive difference between Christian and Muslim ideals. Muslim suicide bombers are hailed as martyrs, and they get to go to Heaven. Christian ideals see murderous suicide as a sin, which cannot be forgiven because you are dead, thus sending you to Hell. The idea of the Rapture is that you ascend to Heaven before the Apocalypse, rather than as/after you cause it.
I'm not particularly religious, but I can recognize which side is crazier than the other; it's not eve
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Islamic world is definitely considerably more prone to crazy, yet this doesn't mean we should ignore the Christians who appear eager to speed-up their messiah's return. Coaxing Russia in to war would certainly please those who think their invasion of Israel to be a prophetic precursor to the end of this wretched age of sin. Those think the guys who supplied the US Military with rifle scopes, complete with Bible verse references, are not crazy? Even if Christians aren't busy loading up with ball bearings
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except your stupid attempt at humor ignores a massive difference between Christian and Muslim ideals. Muslim suicide bombers are hailed as martyrs, and they get to go to Heaven. Christian ideals see murderous suicide as a sin, which cannot be forgiven because you are dead, thus sending you to Hell. The idea of the Rapture is that you ascend to Heaven before the Apocalypse, rather than as/after you cause it.
The interesting thing is that both ancient and modern organized Christianity tend to see murderous suicide as a sin, but just plain murder as fine so long as the people you're murdering aren't Christian (and sometimes even just the wrong kind of Christian). In fact, soldiers who fought off pagans in the early years of Christianity occasionally became honored saints (e.g. Demetrius of Thessaloniki [wikipedia.org]. Many Christians also applauded when Christian Europeans were slaughtering American Indians, writing cheerily ab
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. MOST Muslim clerics regard targeting civilians via suicide bombings a sin and against the precepts of Islam. MOST Christian clerics feel the same.
However, all it takes is a few religious nutjobs of whatever stripe to go all batshit about whatever it is they feel like going batshit about and come up with a fatwa or an ex cathedra letter proclaiming the infidel as something that shouldn't be allowed to live in the Glory of God and so is a valid target for your crusade or jihad.
Religions, gotta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting thing is that both ancient and modern organized Christianity tend to see murderous suicide as a sin, but just plain murder as fine so long as the people you're murdering aren't Christian (and sometimes even just the wrong kind of Christian).
Keep in mind that a lot of the 16th and 17th century battles over the reformation were as much political as anything else. Its been said before: people dont need religion as an excuse to kill each other; it just happens to be a good excuse at various times and places.
Many Christians also applauded when Christian Europeans were slaughtering American Indians
Is this anecdotal, or are you asserting that this is a widely shared sentiment? I could probably find atheists who applauded too; would it be fair for me to say "see, atheists are all bloodthirsty killers!" Cause that appears to be the argu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If that correction was true, then why didn't we launch under Regan or Carter?
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
Therein lies the problem. Russia and China should be buying into the ABM system, not the other way around. Who knows what crazy thing will happen if north korea goes to the next level of crazy, or pakistan or saudi or egypt, algeria, or the like.
An ABM system isn't so much a problem for today. It's a problem for '10 years from now the next guy in charge of somewhere could be completely mental and we can't risk them shooting first'.
In 1930 the nazi's weren't in power, or, well, in anything. 10 years later they were dancing in Warsaw and Paris. One of these days Iran, North korea, algeria, egypt, saudi are all going to suffer dramatic political upheaval. I have no idea what that upheaval will translate into (which is sort of what's going on in algeria and egypt at the moment) and nor does anyone else. But a nuclear armed north korea, that decides it wants to blame their friends in china and russia for whatever is wrong with them this week is far more dangerous to the world than a north korea who are pointing big guns at south koreas big guns. Iran, under the ayatollahs may be willing to play by MAD rules (with israel and saudi) but if that government starts to fall can you still count on that? Will they go down in a blaze of glory and take the conspirators (Saudi) and the infidels (Israel) with them? Will they be replaced by someone for not being conservative enough and for having not launched a war with israel?
The world can play out in very strange ways. ABM might be a waste of money. But it might not. And that can be said of fire trucks, aircraft carriers and police body armour. How much ABM should be 'worth' in the grand scheme of things I really don't know, but I'd tend to think it should be more than a few grad students pontificating on forum posts when they should be working (says the grad student pontificating on a forum post).
That doesn't mean ABM is the only measure we should ever rely on, or that ABM won't be so absurdly expensive that it can't work. But I don't really know what the crossover point is on cost, or how much more or less value you get against a relatively abstract potential future threat.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about China but Russia tried to "buy in" to the anti-ballistic missile system. They wanted the EU shield to be extended over Russia to protect their citizens too.
They were flat turned down.
What a stupid move by Obama (or McCain, or whoever is pulling the strings).
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
what we don't know is if that meant that the US wanted conditions (the most obvious being 'you cannot keep selling missiles to unstable regimes and you have to cough up full technical information on all missiles already sold'), if the russians were genuine, or just wanted in so they could build counter measures to sell, or if the US Bush/Obama/Clinton were just being dumb.
My money is on 'dumb' but I could easily be wrong.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
MAD only works if all the powers are rational and interested in living. When one party has no problems with suicide because they are eager to meet their god in a blaze of jihadi glory then its time to spend a hell of a lot more on ABM technology.
Normally don't reply to AC, but that is a dangerous assumption that is probably not correct. Middle-eastern dictators yell "death to Israel, death to America" so much so that it's the most tired, worn-out cliche in the world. The Iranian people don't even believe it any more. The greatest fear of Iran's leadership is that they have lost their legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and they need a confrontation with an external enemy to deflect criticism about their own mismanagement of the country.
When we make assumptions, i.e. Iranians are a bunch of suicidal maniacs bent on Armageddon, we limit our abilities to find the best answer to solving real political problems. Yes, a nuclear Iran is a very bad thing. But another middle-eastern war wouldn't be much better, and might be even worse. We need to honestly evaluate the situation and develop our plans based upon sound assumptions. We tend to build up all these third-rate dictators in our heads to be the next Adolf, go to war, then find out the emperor never had any clothes. I have seen way too many false assumptions driving plans in my day and I have the scars to prove it. Let's all cool down and get this one right.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was talking about America. Re: Mittens and TheFrothyMixtureOfLubeAndFecalMatter both belonging to extremist cults/sects.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice stereotyping. Iranians and Pakistanis have no more interest in dying than you or I do. In fact it is MAD that keeps these two Muslim countries peaceful, because both Iran & Pakistan know if they nuked either Israel or India, then those countries would turn Iran/Pakistan into a nuclear wasteland.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect solution. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:4)
Yes. He's the one that ordered development of missile defense... except... wait... he wasn't. This all began under Reagan (I'll wager it's certainly been considered earlier). So WTF with Obama? I don't understand this blaming of the current president for technology that's been under development for the last three or four of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame Obama because Russia asked for the shield to be extended over Russian territoru, and he turned them down.
I think that decision was stupid; you will protect all your EU democratic allies but not Russia? Not even the western half ot it? Talk about giving the middle finger.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia just said that because they knew the US would refuse it anyway. And it's not "EU trading partners", it's NATO. They are welcome to invade Sweden and Finland, but don't mess with Norway!
They have been major trading partners (including arms sales) with Iran, Syria, etc. for a long time, and have no worries about Iran firing missiles at them. It's all politics.
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all welcome. The "open secret" of NATO's plans for USSR attack on Finland was to use tactical nukes to cripple the country's infrastructure. Basically to backstab the country that tries to defend itself at the critical moment.
That's why most finns are rather sceptical on NATO trying to show itself as the "good guys" during Cold War.
Re: (Score:3)
I will clarify the following remark:
On one hand your "open secret" is absolute baloney, i.e. nonsense.
It is directed at your proposition that NATO's intent would be to "backstab" Finland and the implied hostility toward Finland as opposed to defeating Soviet military units operating in Finland. Clearly NATO had no meaningful dispute with Finland during the Cold War, but would not ignore Soviet forces operating from conquered Finnish territory to attack NATO and allied countries. If the Finnish military lost control of a major facility or area to Soviet forces, there wou
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I am a finn. If you know any finns that would "in polite terms disagree with me", they are a minority and below you'll find out why.
You see, as with any small neutral country stuck between two grandiose empires that could stomp us out and not barely notice it throughout our independence (which is what they thought of us, namely Germany, USSR and later on NATO), we had our shills for all sides. During cold war we had our Soviet shills, and our NATO shills. I'm guessing you've been talking to descendants of the latter. Notably their numbers are in low 30 percentile and have been going down steadily across the country for almost a decade now as people with severe phobia of anything Russia-related due to WW2 part of our history die out of old age and we get more and more Russian tourists bringing good money into the economy.
On topic of disinformation, that either wasn't it, or if it was, it sure fooled everyone (including some medium level NATO attaches who were spying for us). In here, when you build a building that houses more then a few people, you have to, BY LAW to build a bomb shelter in it with mandated level of low ABC proofing since early cold war. Every big city has one to several bomb shelters typically dug into solid rock rated to survive a 20 kiloton tactical nuke explosion directly above itself. Note the payload, it was exactly what we were expecting NATO to drop on us in potential conflict and the goal was the classic Finnish pragmatism - to allow as many of our people as possible to survive to fight another day even at significant additional costs to economy. During peace time, they're used as hokey rinks, swimming pools and so on. I go to one such swimming pool weekly - the entrance is less then 500m from my home. They are also required by law to have a plan on how to prepare it to function as a bomb shelter within 4 weeks.
Do note that we had near zero nuclear treat from Soviets due to geography - any nukes in southern Finland where biggest cities are and where biggest shelters are built mean a likely fallout in 5.000.000 people city of Leningrad.
All in all, your argument is that of a classic NATO shill. "You had two wars with Soviets, therefore anyone opposing them is a force for good!". Except that opposing force was about as "evil" from our point of view, and the only meaningful difference for us independents caught between was the direction in which guns are pointed. Which was usually at us, from both sides, because both followed the "if you're not with us, you're potentially against us" doctrine. In the end, we survived independent because we played both sides against one another, just like we played Germany against USSR in 1944 to stay independent in spite of suffering the heaviest Red Army assault in the entire war.
Notably USSR gave us very good trading terms during Cold War, we were classified in the "Warsaw pact countries and Finland" category. Something that even NATO liked to use to trade with USSR and vice versa, because it meant being able to indirectly trade for things you couldn't trade directly due to political fallout through a politically stable country with a culture that valued privacy of such deals.
So in short, most Finns that actually live around here would tell you, in actually polite and laconic terms, to stuff it. We're the only country in Molotov-Ribbentrop that succeeded to stay independent, we succeeded to stay independent during Cold War in spite of pressure from USSR and NATO to join one of them, and we'll stay independent now if current polls about desirability of NATO membership are anything to go by. That is because history taught us one thing: empires only care about themselves and allying yourself with one of them would likely cost you independence as most unbalanced deals with the devil do.
P.S. It may surprise you to find out that we also have quite a few statues of Lenin around here. They're usually tactfully hidden, but we do remember who it was that gave us independence for first time in our history. So if you think that our history together with our neighbours started in WW2, you're sorely mistaken.
Re: (Score:3)
Finland did not collaborate with the Nazis. Finnish troops never crossed the Finn border to advance upon Leningrad no matter how much the OKH (and Hitler himself) begged and pleaded and whined and cajoled.
Finns did not round up their Jews, or their Communists (in fact, even communist Finns who had actively participated in the Russian invasion were pardoned).
Even the Finnish volunteer SS battalion (Finland's only semi-official contribution to the Nazi war effort) was not accused of any war-crimes. It was est
Re: (Score:3)
True. Sweden coordinated its defences with NATO in secret during the cold war era (and probably still is).
Swedish soldiers were trained to shoot at the tanks with a red star on them, not to stop and think about who the enemy was.
And at the same time Sweden was oficcially neutral, which is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that is Swedish foreign policy.
Sweden was officially neutral during WW2 also, but still allowed German troop transports through Swedish territory. This was partly out of fear of being invaded,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:5, Funny)
Obama is responsible for the daily price of gas.
Obama is responsible for the effect that the Bush tax cuts have had on our economy.
Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican-led deregulation of the financial industry.
Obama is responsible for the Lewinsky scandal.
Obama is responsible for AT&T's terribly-implemented "unlimited data" plan.
Your favorite restaurant just hiked their lunch buffet up to $11.95, and Obama made them do it.
Obama is responsible for Newt Gingrich's congressional ethics violations (unless you're talking to Newt, in which case they never happened and/or he was completely exonerated.)
Have you, or has anyone you've ever known had cancer? Thanks, Obama.
Obama is responsible for the Reagan tax increases.
Obama is responsible for Iran-Contra.
Obama is responsible for funding jihadists during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and thus responsible for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Obama is responsible for Barry Goldwater.
The Vietnam war is just yet another example of Obama's complete incompetence.
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:5, Informative)
Obama IS responsible for due process free execution of several American Citizens based on a secret legal memo (repeat of the GWB policies toward due process free detention).
Obama IS responsible for Yemen's continued imprisonment of a news reporter. His sin? Most likely:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/singleton/ [salon.com]
Seriously, you make light of Obama's failings with things that clearly aren't his fault, but that only serves to obfuscate the fact that he's taken everything that GWB did that was considered radical and dangerous, and made it the new normal. In a world of asshole murdering civil liberty destroying shits, Obama is president.
Here's a partial list, address some of that before you defend this guy:
http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]
Re:Quite the opposite the opposite (Score:5, Informative)
"Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican led deregulation of the financial industry"
You do know that some of the more catastrophic deregulation was a bipartisan effort and was led by Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin, especially repealing Glass Steagal and blocking derivatives regulation. You seem to be doing them same thing you are ridiculing, saying its all the other parties fault. Its entrenched power and greed that is at fault, and both parties have it in equal measure.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow the ignorance on this topic is amazing (probably from pro-war propaganda on NBC, FOX, CNN... in other words the defense corporations). Iran doesn't even HAVE a missile capable of reaching Israel. The only missile that has the necessary carrying capacity for the weight of a nuke only goes 100+ miles. They have longer missiles that reach 1000 miles, but that's still far short of Israel, and those only carry a few pounds of TNT/conventional bombs. So why on earth are you worried about a missile strike that is beyond Iran's capability?
Besides Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons. They don't need the U.S. to act because in the event of a war, Israel will have already turned Iran into a wasteland, long before our soldiers arrive on the scene. They are more than capable of wiping-out their Arab neighbors (which is why they don't attack).
Final thought: Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty with the U.S., England, France, and so on. Israel is not. There's nothing to hold them back.
Re: (Score:3)
I was mistaken - Israel does apparently have second-strike ICBM capability.
Yes (Score:2)
Speculation both ways (Score:2)
(even though they have not made nukes or the missiles to carry them)
Are you sure about that? You know they are working very hard towards both ends, right? You did see the news the last couple days about Iran launching another "satellite" into orbit next month?
Clearly what is needed (Score:5, Funny)
is a cryptographic protocol between the ballistic missile and the interceptor:
Scenario 1:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: Huh?
US missile shield: **BAM**
Scenario 2:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile here to wipe out New Jersey. Here's a message digest signed by my private key.
US missile shield: Oh... well, OK.
Scenario 3 (imposter):
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile. But you see, I'm afraid the dog got a hold of my...
US missile shield: **BAM**
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's their problem right up to the point they decide they should start a nuclear war with you that they might win (or lose less than you), rather than face an enemy you can't nuke, but who can nuke you, and thus dictate terms to you. Better death than slavery, say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?
The problem with missile defense is that is shifts the balance. Nuclear War doctrine is all about balance, if one country is immune to missile strikes then that country could ostensibly launch its own strike with impunity.
Nuclear doctrine is weird like that, it's quite different from normal war.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you eliminate all offensive weapons that is not going to fly. The whole argument against missile defense is that not only does it shift the balance so that a nuclear power with a well developed missile defense system could potentially launch a first strike without fear of reprisal.
Another argument against missile defense is that it provokes an asymmetric response, that is the easiest way to get around a missile defense system is to either launch more missiles or stick MIRVs on your missiles, thus a m
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is an offensive weapon, the offence part being the fact that the mutually assured destruction of the US is no longer assured. If the missile shield worked as advertised the US would be free to nuke other countries with impunity. The whole point of other countries developing their own nuclear capabilities was to protect themselves from nuclear attack, and if the US acquired such a system everyone else would be forced to develop their own.
So even if the system did work it wouldn't be long before someone figures out how to thwart it, and a new arms race begins.
This seems to be a common theme for the US: destabilize the world in the name of self-defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about what you are saying. There is no way the US could ever launch a nuclear attack on anybody with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a way:
"Someone" fires an apparently crappy-ass nuclear missile from a submarine in the Persian Gulf. The submarine is pursued and destroyed by the US Navy. It goes off somewhere relatively unimportant in Israel. All signs point to Iran, or so they say, and Israel goes nuclear on Iran.
Only thing is, the original sub was CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US shared the tech allowing equal defense for all maybe China and Russia would feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be cheaper too if we had them build it... why not? If it ever gets used, it already failed miserably. May as well not work as work.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?
I believe you are completely missing the point here... Try imagining it the opposite way for a second: China and Russia is setting up an missil shield that US cannot penetrarte - all to protect their own citizens in
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt the US would rush out and start building a bunch on new missiles if Russia or China were to build a missile defense. We might build a missile defense for ourselves though. The cold war is over. That kind of insane thinking doesn't dominate politics these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Missile defense systems are actually offensive weapons, because they enable the country that operates them to engage in a first strike without fear of reprisal.
Of course, all of this is extremely hypothetical: the ROI on a first strike is so far in the negative that you'd need a telescope to see the bottom of the pit. Nobody benefits from a first strike. Not even Iran.
What this is really about is what every other military boondoggle is about: money for the military-industrial complex. Missile defense
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh*
Most types of military capability can act as force multipliers, even if they are incapable of being used in a directly offensive capacity. This is particularly true of anti-ballistic missile defense.
If the US becomes capable of protecting itself from possible Russian or Chinese nuclear missile strikes, then it gains enormous leverage on the global stage: it would be able to dictate the terms of most agreements to any one it wanted to, because their would be no effective check against the direct use of
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not funny.
How do you know? Huge strides are made everyyear in the fields of electronics, radar, and optics. These advances are directly applicable to a missile defense. Things which weren't possible in the '80s (I can't believe people even still bring star wars up in these discussions) and 2000s may be possible today. Saying it will never be possible is quite a bold statement, espe
Three probs (Score:5, Insightful)
Two probs:
1) "block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles" I'm going to take a wild guess that culturally they Might prefer using a Toyota pickup truck or a shipping container or a standard passenger jetliner as a delivery vehicle. In the US we've forgotten why we're fixated on missiles, its because the USSR couldn't realistically, say, drive a truck over here with a H-bomb, so it ends up being missile vs missile.
2) SM series is "standard missile". Its really hard to specify how much work went into ballistic missile defense vs plain ole blowing stuff up. So political types will charge it as either thousands to billions depending on which axe they have to grind. So.. that vim editor... how much money was spent on editing Python? Well, you could evaluate what percentage was used in the field for Perl vs Python. Or you could look at bugs filed. Or some BS about test suites. Fundamentally its just a pretty darn useful editor. Much as a SM is a pretty darn useful wide envelope missile. It is emphatically not a "ballistic defense only" weapon.
3) There's endless rumors and BS about how SM series can be hacked into hitting seaskimming cruise missiles, but fundamentally you're better off with fast acting projectile weapons. You don't get much warning...
I would assume "they" would put their bomb into the vehicle "we" (well, we as in we are merely a province or whatever of Israel, always acting exclusively with their interests in mind, according to our leaders) are least suited to defend against. I suppose with the possible exception of WWII era strategic bomber, I can't think of a less likely delivery vehicle than a ballistic missile. I would guess its almost infinitely more likely that an off the shelf Iranian submarine gets as close to the USS Enterprise as physically possible before the deadman switch is released, or a shipping container is delivered to the port of L.A. or whatever thats marked as Couscous but actually glows instead...
There ARE interesting things for Iran to do with ballistic missiles. Nuke is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
This part of your post is inaccurate and I hope to correct your understanding here. The Standard Missile is not usually intended for defending against tactical missiles. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is. The RAM is preferred over the Gatekeeper/CIWS gattling type systems since the RAM has
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I've spent thirty odd years studying nuclear and strategic technologies and related issues.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't dream of arguing the issues with me either.
That's because everyone who has them, has plans to use them, even if they never intend to execute those plans. Without the (preferably demonstrated to some degree) ability to use them, they have zero political value.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have defenses against those things.
We have a defense against toyota pickup trucks and passenger jetliners and submarines? News to me.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk [youtube.com]
About Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to understand that anything the US does makes Russia, or rather its "national leader", mad. The anti-American rhetoric on the Russian TV today is virtually identical to that during the height of the Cold War. It is also worth pointing out that today the level of state control over Russian TV is not much lower than it was back then.
To the Russian leadership the US is the whipping boy. According to them, the US State Department has organized and financed the protests against massive election fraud that are happening in Russia as we speak. According to them, all the problems in Russia are not caused by corruption and total disregard for the law or human dignity, but by the US. Therefore, anything the US does on the international scene will be immediately labeled a threat to Russia and loudly condemned.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Very well put.
Read the English Pravda website. That is what a lot of people are believing and swallowing every day.
And people complain about Fox News...
Troll article (Score:5, Insightful)
Editors, this article is a complete troll. This has nothing to do with "News for Nerds", and it's not even newsworthy.
For the record, it was recently published that President Obama is in talks with Russia to give some classified tactical information [reuters.com] about United States nuclear missiles in return for Russia's approval of the missile defense systems.
Quick answer (Score:2)
Boromir's answer -
One does not simply stop the "Star Wars"
Oh great... (Score:2)
Are we going to be having another arms race now all of a sudden?
I thought Reagan and Gorbachev figured out back in the 80ies that missile defense was a terrible idea, since it's trivially overwhelmed by an 'asymmetric response', that is one side just launching A FUCKTON of missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Every defensive missile turns a ~95% certain kill of 20-30 million people into a chance they might live. Count me in on that..
And when every defensive missile causes several new offensive missiles to be built, what then? Or when every defensive missile results in five or ten extra warhead per missile then what?
Or when we decide that the Star Wars solution with nuclear pumped x-ray lasers in space is the optimal solution and start putting nuclear weapons in orbit then what?
Might not? Try will not (Score:5, Interesting)
At one point, I worked in the mil side of weapons at Boeing.
The correct answer is not "might not". It's "will not".
Everyone in the industry knows what actually does work, and what we're talking about for the EU is not in the "workable" solutions choices.
Unless you think a 10 percent success rate with 90 percent getting through if they use all standard countermeasures is a "good thing". In real world operations with real weather, not faked tests.
Not that Iran could hit the broad side of a Polish barn - that's a fiction too.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok. If they don't work, then why is Russia/China so concerned about them to the point of increasing their Missile arsenal?
There has to be something there if those countries want to invest billions/trillions of their respective currencies in weapon systems that will most likely never see war and would just eat more money they could be investing in other systems, say a Competing missile defense system that has the potential of saving lives vs an missile offensive system which does nothing but kill lives.
Iran does have ballistic missiles (Score:2)
As usually, the Slashdot editors have missed trivial fact checking. The summary states that Iran does not have nukes or the missiles to carry them. The first part of this is true (for the next year or two) but the second is not. Even a casual Google search brings up a wealth of links detailing Iran's ballistic missile program.
For example:
define "work" (Score:2)
It will "work" as in provide money to line the pockets of all the contractors. And the contractors do the same for the politicians....so it definitely "works" already.
However to "not work" it would have to fail. For that to happen, it would actually have to miss a missle.... which would require one be actually fired. So its unlikely to work unless the politicians here are so fucking stupid.....fuck....
Yuri's Night (Score:2)
Answers (Score:2)
Is this all worth it for something that might not even work?"
Short answer: YES!
Longer answer: HELL YES!
Re:Political, and not tech (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur - the simple facts are that we have a hand-full of anti-missile missiles. Russia has hundreds. They can overwhelm the system trivially. The system is only good against bad actors with a small number of missiles, i.e. North Korea and potentially Iran. Russia is more likely pissed off about the Radar near their borders being able to see stuff they shouldn't, but they use the anti-missile aspect of it as the whipping boy.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology could probably be used as a stepping stone for developing ways to beat it plus have lots of offshoot possibilities. It's not like they're going to agree not to backward engineer it in a Eula.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just give them the same technology? They wont need to build more offensive missiles if they have their own method of blocking incoming missiles.... unless their motives are less than honorable.
If we didn't give them the technology, perhaps America's intentions are less than honorable.
Reagan is that you? That strategy worked so well when you discussed it with Gorbachev in the 80ies!
Re: (Score:2)
The basis of not having a nuclear exchange during the Cold War was that it was impossible to nuke your enemies without getting nuked in return. An effective anti-nuke shield makes it plausible to launch a "winnable" nuclear war. And if you're the one without the effective shield, you're suddenly feeling defensive and cornered and you've got a lot of nukes laying around.
Re: (Score:3)
President Obama flat turned them down. President Medvedev was not happy, and recorded a very stern video explaining why rejecting Russia was bound to escalate tensions along the EU-RF border. (In other words he didn't like hearing "no" to being part of the missile shield.)
I can't figure it out. Why would President Obama say no to a potential partner and ally in this endeavor? It was the kind of thing I would expect from Bush not Obama.
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010. Russia resisted, and came back a year later demanding that NATO legally bind themselves to never aiming the system towards Russia, which the U.S. and other NATO countries rejected. Most recently there has been some noise about sharing technical data with the Russians to assuage their fears
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010.
Russia has no nuclear-capable "potential enemies" except the USA. China is very safe, and Israel's arsenal is purely defensive. Russia has good relations with both. Europe is not interested in wars. India and Pakistan are focused on each other. However the USA habitually wages wars and t
Re: (Score:3)
knew
Actually, that should be "believed". The shield doesn't have to work to provoke a nuclear war -- it's sufficient that people who make decisions believe it to be effective. Beyond that, it could just as well be an Angry Birds style slingshot.