backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 198 comment(s) - last by crafty.. on Jul 11 at 3:06 AM

An X-band radar tracking station.
Russia threatens military response.

The U.S. announced a "landmark" agreement with the Czech Republic to expand its missile defense system into the region.  The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, was signed today in Prague.  Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, described the deal as an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world".

Last year, the U.S. announced its long-awaited missile defense shield -- a.k.a. "Star Wars" -- was functional and ready to defend parts of the nation from attack.  Since then, effort has focused on expanding system capabilities.  The Czech agreement will allow sitting of an advanced tracking radar station in the nation, to allow early detection and interception of missile launches.

The U.S.'s top diplomat called the agreement essential for long-term security. "Ballistic missile proliferation", said Ms. Rice, "is not an imaginary threat".  She pointed to efforts by Iran to build longer-range missiles capable of reaching most of Europe.

Response from other nations was quick to follow.  Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action.   A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods".  The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.

The U.S. has said the defense system was not aimed at Russia, and in the past has suggested Russian inspectors could visit radar and interceptor sites themselves.  

Poland is the next bone of contention, with the U.S. hoping to site interceptor missiles there.  Talks with the Polish government have stalled, however, and the U.S. has suggested Lithuania may be an alternate site.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
..."I'm afraid of Americans." And seriously, after reading some of the posts here, I'm truly afraid of Americans; but not all of them, myself included. I'm only afraid of the Americans that bleed red white and blue, and not simply red, the color that ALL people bleed. The 'My country right or wrong' crowd that posts on heated political articles such as this one, need to put a little more thought into what they are saying when it comes to the 'us vs. them' attitude in the nuclear arms context.

What we are dealing with here is essentially an end game. The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best. The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species. We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world. We can no longer afford to view the world through an 'us vs them' lens.

I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up' or that 'they' (being the terrorists, whoever and whatever a terrorist is) want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms (of which are being sold down the river by 'our' congress and 'our' president who so zealously want to 'protect' our freedoms and cite them as a cause to defend our nation, while concurrently undermining them). To you who do accuse me of being a 'terrorist sympathizer' in so many words, I have this to say to you: I love my country MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL and refuse to allow myself or my friends, family, and fellow countrymen to be ruled by fear and state terror.

This is the fucking United States of America! We were conceived in the midst of intellectual and philosophical criticism of government and the status quo, to the likes of which we have yet to see again (the Civil Rights era seems to be the closest we've come to something tantamount, yet wholly inadequate, to our revolution). Questioning the government and its official policy IS WHAT WE DO! We cannot, and never have been able to rely on our media, our traditional educational institutions, nor the popular understanding of our history IE: America as a beacon on a hill, America as the benevolent giant - and one can substitute the word 'giant' for 'empire' any time they like - or any other feel good 'my country right or wrong' invocation. No, our revolution didn't come from following a well-trodden path, but from ideas of liberty, and equality that went beyond that of mere rhetoric.

Of course, this is all a work in progress. We have never truly achieved the ideals that sparked our revolution during the nascent era of our democratic republic, nor will we ever achieve those ideals; they are not ideals to be achieved, but to be aspired to.

These are the ideals that will guide us through a seemingly hopeless national and world situation. As long as we can hold onto that which we KNOW is good and decent, we can prevail in even the most cynical of times. I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity, in the people, that is sometimes overshadowed by those few, the 'movers and shakers' of the world, or as Bob Dylan put it, "The Masters of the Universe," who distort humanity for their own cynical gain. As long as we can recognize this, there is still hope for us to be able to break the shackles of fear and terror that these cynics use to frame our view of reality.

So please, when we speak of ICBM's, mutually assured destruction, missile defense systems, and terror, remember that these are all the tools of fear that have brought us to the precipice of our own destruction. If we do not recognize these weapons of mass destruction and mass distraction for what they are, and rail against them for what they are, then perhaps the twilight of our existence is truly upon us. I hope that is not the case, and I hope that those of you who pound your chests and speak so forcefully, realize that the game you are playing has an ending, and there are no winners.




RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 4:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
'My country right or wrong'


Ultimately, if one lives in America, then one lives in America. Not Uganda. So there is only one logical hope a person can have for his country of residence, particularly if you bothered to quote Stephen Decatur entirely: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

In fact, I think you fundamentally don't understand the quote. One can very easily criticize their country while not being against their country, which is really what the quote is saying. No fair-weather friends, no fair-weather patriots.

quote:
The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best.


That's not what this system is about, which appears to be a misunderstanding.. possibly a deliberate one. There is no way the system can handle a nuclear war between stable superpowers with large arsenals. It is designed exclusively to intercept a small launch by a small rogue state.

quote:
The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species.


Open a textbook. Like it or not, with respect to superpowers, it has worked. Rational countries understand that to use such a system is to lose by default. Again, this system has nothing to do with that balance anyway.

quote:
We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world.


Wonderful rhetorical flair, but "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," because as much as liberals may want to think the world is anywhere close to being in a situation where everybody can sit down and have a big group hug, it is not. Until such a glorious liberal day arrives where all national sovereignty is yielded to the United Nations (much like how national sovereignty in Europe has slowly been transferred to Brussels), sovereign leaders have a responsibiltiy to those citizens living in their country to look after their security interests. In case you failed to notice, rogue states aside, China is an upcoming superpower of its own and appears to have no intention of playing high-minded political softball.

quote:
I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up'


Not a "pussy," simply misguided and ignorant of the history of the past 100 years.

quote:
want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms


Why does Kim Jong Il do anything? For all we know, he just gets kicks out of watching his people starve. Such a warped mind can't be understood. Thankfully, he's in the process of being disarmed.

What of Iran? I don't know why a Persian state would seek the annihilation of Israel, I thought Israel's beef was with Arab nations, but they repeatedly say that is their goal, and they fund terrorist groups and back satellite nations (Syria) that actively undermine the Israeli state. This system seeks to protect against such an attack, the exact reason for it being meaningless.

quote:
This is the fucking United States of America!


FUCK YEAH!!

Unfortunately, the rest of that paragraph was intellectually inconsistent with the second paragraph. You take the European intellectual anti-nationalist and collectivist approach in the 2nd paragraph, then try to invoke nationalism and rugged individualism here. George Washington would've looked after America first and foremost. As for the missile defense scheme, I believe he would've supported it, on the following logic: While it was possible to isolationist in the 18th century, due to the globalized nature of the economy and the long reach of military power, it is not today. It is critical, then, to have allies, and protect those allies. Israel and, as part of NATO, Europe, and Japan are staunch, long-time allies. Therefore, a system of defense in their benefit and ours make sense.

Also, the Civil Rights movement was an odd thing to bring up. Things like affirmative action have created reverse discrimination, not equality, at least in day to day life.

quote:
I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity


Could have fooled me on the first point, and the point of missile defense, indeed the entire military, is protection against what history suggests is a brutal world. You can't look at history and glean from it only what you want, and you can't look at China's militancy or the nasty state of Africa and glean what you want there either.

In fact, the supposition that humans are in fact intelligent animals and no more is by far an easier position to defend than anything else.

Ultimately, I don't even know what you're suggesting be done. Remain completely naked to the whims of foreign and unstable regimes? Iran, for example, is by no means ruled by the will of its people (who would likely never use nuclear weapons). Unilateral disarmament? Surely you know then that would simply put America in a position of weakness; we could never defend ourselves to any great extent against the aggression of a nuclear power for fear of nuclear reprisal.

To correct one last misstatement, it was ICBM's that brought us to that precipice, and MAD that kept us from going over. Just like this Iraq-retreat nonsense, my view to nuclear weapons is similar; we are where we are, and must now proceed in the way that serves our interests best. Unilateral disarmament is not that way.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
It's fun to cherry pick and tear apart a posting based on its 'ignorance' or misguided and uninformed historical accounts that you arbitrarily label as being such. I could, of course do the same to you, which is pretty much all that I’ve seen within this forum so far, but I won't...at least not too much.

It's also fun to pull out the good old 'you're just a liberal who doesn't know what you're talking about' card and slap that on the table. By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical. Does that frighten you? I actually just wanted to say that for the sake of a little bravado. I personally don’t like labels that attempt to place someone within a single political paradigm, but apparently you do.

I’m going to continue to use the ‘radical’ line for this next little bit, because it certainly more accurately applies. The revolutionary thinkers of our nation's conception who envisioned something better than that of existence under the rule of the British Monarchy, were radical...for the time…even though the majority of those 'revolutionary' thinkers were a part of the 'gentleman's' class and certainly cared more for their wealth and prestige than they did for the average rural American (who, by the way, through the means of posterity has fought tooth and nail via organization and unionization as well as political upheaval to obtain what we now call universal suffrage, an 8 hour workday, job safety requirements, healthcare, higher wages, social security etc.). If you would like to read a bit more about our revolutionary history from someone who was not associated with the gentlemen class of yesteryear, then pick up “Common Sense,” “The Rights of Man,” and “The Age of Reason” from Thomas Paine. Those will be nice starters for you.

I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history. Maybe after that, you could even graduate to reading Noam Chomsky. If you do, read Hegemony or Survival and get back to me on that one. Oh, and speaking of 'rogue states' which you had implicitly mentioned by citing Iran in your response to my post, read "Rogue States" by Noam Chomsky as well. I'm sure you'll love that one....and it may even cause you to bleed red white and blue from your eyeballs. By the way, you labeling China as being militant, clearly suggests to me that you cannot see the forest from the trees, my friend. But don't worry, if you try to think hard enough about them, and maybe read the books a second time, you'll once again be able to bleed red like the rest of us (and by "the rest of us" I mean the Americans that I'm not afraid of).

I'm sure at first, you'll feel overwhelmingly compelled to label Mr. Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist, possibly even a heretic, but if you give it some time, and take yourself out of your little comfort box that you've built up around you, then you may be able to lose some sleep at night, and actually be concerned about our country and wear its government is taking it... which, by the way, is not a reference to 'my country right or wrong,' but our country the way I would like it to be. Oh and yes, I just 'misquoted' Stephen Decatur again, even though I wasn't trying to capture the essence of what he was saying to begin with (I was simply using it to describe people who can't handle deep criticism of their government, which, I think, deserves a certain degree of criticism right about now). I don’t think you would share that view, considering the fact that you think pulling out of Iraq is nonsense, and that right there, is quite telling of your perspective.

Oh, I just want to say that I’m expecting you to reply and say something about me having a narrow view because all I read is Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, etc, and that I’m just the flipside of what I am criticizing to begin with. If not exactly that, then something in the ballpark. (and yes, that was a sentence fragment, of which I am acknowledging just in case you want to bust out an ad hominem or two…you know, like the ‘liberal and therefore naïve and ignorant’ card that you played)

Oh, and the accusation of me somehow citing 'European anti-nationalism’ within my words - which in itself is funny because you are suggesting that Europe is somehow currently and has been anti-nationalist (maybe you should read a few articles about France’s Jean Marie Le Penn, and now, consult a textbook and read about what nationalism did to Europe mid-twentieth century) - and then using a 'nationalist' approach with my description of what it is to be American, and thereby call me inconsistent, is utter nonsense; especially because you seem to be incorrectly defining my version of what you call ‘nationalist’ and ignoring how it could be implicitly defined from the tone of my post...that is, if the word were to be used at all. I’ll break it down for you so that things are clear: If being nationalist is tantamount to being critical of government rule and state power, then I'm all for it. And that is what I am appealing to with my invocations of ‘nationalism’ and ‘rugged individualism,’ which, once again, are words that you cherry picked from the ether and misused as points of criticism. Criticism of the government, by the way, is a Western democratic ideal, and not an American ideal (and I don't mean to give a certain dichotomy or culture-centric twist to my response by invoking an image of West vs East, when I say ‘Western’ ideal ).

There are plenty of people like me in Europe who do not subscribe to ‘nationalism’ and an ‘us vs them’ world outlook. No, they understand that the danger and violence that exists within the world, as you proclaim to be a truism according to history, is not created and perpetrated by the average person who is not politically well-connected, does not have immense wealth, and does not control a military machine (and industrial complex) - that can only justify itself by doing the one thing that it knows how to do, destroy - , but by a relatively small number of people who have an insatiable appetite for power, and are, as Kurt Vonnegut (God rest his soul, or whatever) labeled them, “sociopaths” (I hope there are Vonnegut fans out there that just got my dual reference, because I’m certain that the person I’m replying to has never read anything by Vonnegut, and if so, utterly failed to grasp Vonnegut’s style or message(s).

I can go on, and I probably should, but I think I have said enough, in a highly condescending manner, to label you as a total cherry-picking-words-from-the-ether ass, worthy of a pat on the back by William “Ad Hominem” O’Reilly. Good day sir.

PS: I don’t have answers for you, and I am not suggesting a single solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. But I DO suggest that we preserve the species, and by doing so, begin to reduce and hopefully altogether eliminate, our and the world’s nuclear arsenal. Take some advice from Robert McNamara; he’d tell you the same. And considering his history, he might be someone you’re more inclined to entertain (that’s assuming that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are too much for your comfort box to handle).


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 8:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history.


I'm not going to bother with a full response, as the above ideology doesn't deserve one. "History doesn't agree with my world view, so I will stick only to the account of history that does." Intellectual debate is, therefore, impossible.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: As David Bowie Said...
By beepandbop on 7/9/2008 10:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're hardly an intellectual. Howard Zinn's book has already been debunked by serious historians and individuals who actually take things like this seriously and aren't a bunch of distorters and historical perverters.
As much truth as Howard Zinn's book might have, which in this case, is substantially limited, he ultimately cannot cover his disdain for America or anything West. I wonder how he would have prefered a culture that did not condone freedom of speech, such as any other culture you will find under the globe. That's not to say these others cultures are substantially inferior, but I have yet to see a culture that condoned individuals voicing their own minds as much as Western civilization has.

Yet Howard Zinn has portrayed the West and America as this evil empire, bereft of any sort of dignity. It was the West that invented human dignity as a ubiquity, rather than the Hindus who applied it only to a select few, or the Chinese who assigned it to bureaucrats and well born men.

I'm not going to read the book because it's "ZOMG Communist" I'm not reading it because it's plain asinine, and there's no point in trying to decipher any other message worth using brain cells.

As for your other points, you took Stephen Dectaur's quote the wrong way, typical of people of your limited caliber, and yet you have the gall to pass yourself off as an intellectual.

What's more aggravating is that you simply say "read Howard Zinn's stuff, he'll fill you in."
That is the mark of no intellectual, merely a brain washed tool who would like to fancy himself intelligent.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/10/2008 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Bro...I may call you bro, yes? You undermined your entire response by letting me in on your little secret there: YOU HAVEN'T READ A PEOPLE'S HISTORY. You're the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. You're accusing me of being uninformed, or misinformed at best, by having READ the book, and then you nonchalantly mention that you haven't read it. Did you not catch this?

Here's another thing. I would like you to do some research and tell me on which page(s) Howard Zinn specifically says that he holds 'disdain' for AMERICA. I think you're confused. He's talking about the GOVERNMENT (the ruling elite) of America, and how the PEOPLE have struggled throughout our history to gain what civil liberties that we have. The military (the strong arm of the ruling elite) doesn't do it (and by 'military' I'm talking about the guys who are calling the shots, not the soldiers who are dying for them), the wealthy and powerful don't do it, and our 3 main branches of government (the arms of the wealthy and powerful), certainly don't do it. It is the common citizenry, with a little organization, a flexible constitution to ground and guide them, and a belief in the democratic process, that achieve a better standard of living by putting pressure on their elected representatives; via the ballot and/or the streets.

You know, Howard Zinn hates America so much, that he went through the trouble of recommending, at the end of the book, ways in which we can improve our democracy. You like democracy, don't you? How about a proportionally representational state and federal election system? (this would truly provide a multi-party system, complete with actual competing ideas and everything...consider it to be the free market of the political system). He covers this. How about a federally mandated publicly financed state and federal election system in order to remove the taint of money from influencing our elected representatives? He covers this as well. The list goes on. I'm not here to give a historical lecture, although you seem to possibly need one. I suppose that's what a college education will give you, depending on what you major in. Of course, you could save money and just start seeking out publications that you know will assault your comfort box. I recommend starting with Z-magazine online. Remember to jump in feet first.

Like I said before, it's difficult to criticize your own government, especially when it has so ubiquitously inserted itself into the idea of America, so as to BECOME America. I, as well as you, have spent my primary educational years being indoctrinated and taught about American history from a government-as-America perspective. It was a monumental challenge to step outside of the comfort box that was built around me from 18 years of 'education.' But, I eventually did it, and have now become the quintessential 'America Hater' that you and any other goon that bleeds red, white, and blue would label me to be. For me, it's people first (excluding the 1% of the population, which owns 40% of the country’s wealth), Constitution second, and government-as-America third...a distant third.

By the way, nuclear weapons are bad, m'kay?


One minor point of contention
By Fluxion on 7/9/2008 3:44:23 AM , Rating: 4
Very nice article masher.

One small point of contentin - the statement:
quote:
Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action. A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods". The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.


I think puts a little too much emphasis on the idea that Russia would actually carry out a military action-type response to counter the missile defense shield in the near-future. As the Russian Foreign Ministry individual's quote alludes to, especially given past Russian statements, their military-technical response is more a long the lines of development of either countermeasures of some kind to neutralize the effect of a kinetic energy kill system, or the development/production of additional delivery systems designed to simply overwhelm the missile defense system.

Thus, while any such development can be considered military action or the military's response to our shield, I think it's more of a passive strategic development in order to try and keep the status quo present, rather than a true military response.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Point taken.


Russian response
By crafty on 7/11/2008 2:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
The Russian governmental response is strong because the US is attempting to further limit Russia's power and influence. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have joined NATO and many of the Warsaw Pact countries(such as the Czech Republic) have also joined. These NATO countries threaten the Russian government's ability to do what it wants to in the Republic of Georgia as well with issues surrounding the breakaway Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as in Chechnya.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and claim that the anti-ICBM system works(it works when the missile tests are rigged). Most modern ICBMs have MIRVs(multiple independent re-entry vehicles) meaning a single missile has multiple targeted warheads. No anti-missile system strength has the ability to counteract these multiple warheads, but the very danger of a anti-missile system will cause there to be alarm bells in Moscow.

The basic problem with this concept is that it is a Cold War idea whose billion dollar budget has been supported over the years by the most ardent of hawks in order to control the nuclear initiative. This in effect makes it highly destabilizing(mutual assured destruction caused a stalemate that anti-missile systems can end) and will ultimately lead to more nuclear proliferation and greater brinkmanship from both sides. The creators of this system are still trying to win the Cold War through nuclear intimidation, and we are not going to be able survive for long with this attitude of attempting to gain leverage by destroying any possible Russian nuclear response to attack. Developing weapons systems that don't function for hundreds of billions of dollars(over the life of the project) and ultimately are destabilizing to world politics are not what I would call a good investment. Arms control and the disposal of fissionable material under programs like Nunn-Lugar are a good idea that are much cheaper and limit proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have to work with people we don't like sometimes even when we don't like it. The stakes are too high not to.




9/11 Worked
By crafty on 7/11/2008 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
Al-Qaeda killed a lot of people so that the US would forcefully respond. The response could be framed as a war against Islam that could bring more recruits to further the fundamentalist Islamic revolution in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda knew it could count on the failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East to help its spread.

Their strategy failed. At first.

Then Bush invaded Iraq. Al-qaeda still is a longshot to ever get anything approaching real power but the invasion of Iraq really helped the spread of their brand of international terrorism. In Iraq they were doing well as long as the US occupation forces were in the area, but once the US started withdrawing from Anbar, the local Sunnis started killing them. Al-Qaeda are a bunch of real zealots that were killing and torturing people for simple things like smoking cigarettes. Their greatest hope involves the US torturing and massacring people in an endless occupation that has neither rhyme nor reason. If al-Qaeda is able to launch another successful terrorist attack in the US, the world response will be nowhere near as sympathetic as it was the first time around. Bush needs to be removed, the occupation of Iraq needs to be ended, Republicans and some Democrats need to come to terms not only with their failed foreign policy but the failed ideology behind it, and most of all our country needs to come back under the rule of law.




What I'd like to know...
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: What I'd like to know...
By AlexWade on 7/8/2008 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
This idea is not new. I remember Reagan talking about star wars and showing some space anti-missile system on TV.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the same system as the original "Star Wars" system from the 70s and 80s. But yes it has been in development for a long time. But Bush pushed the development of the system up to a top priority back in 2001-2002.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
SDI -- Star Wars -- dates from the 1980s actually....and yes, it's the same program. The original focus on beam weapons, though, has switched to kinetic kill vehicles.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Fluxion on 7/9/2008 3:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's the "same program" in only the most basic of ideas. SDI put much greater emphasis on Directed Energy Weapons and Space-based interception and anti-satellite weaponry. SDI was renamed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization by Bill Clinton, and also saw it's entire coverage strategy change from national coverage to regional coverage, and based more along the lines of specific theatre.

BMDO was renamed in 2002 to the Missile Defense Agency, with the emphasis mainly now on Kinetic Energy-based interceptors and to a smaller extent (and currently largely still in the testing and development phase) ground and aircraft-based lasers, although KE Interceptors are and will be the primary component.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Dobs on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: What I'd like to know...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 9:44:46 AM , Rating: 1
Your age is showing - SHHH!

It has been around since Reagan - which Masher referenced in his original article.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Grast on 7/9/2008 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
DigitalFreak,

In a world were the russians and chinese are selling every piece of technology they have to the highest bidder and Iran activly seeking nuclear weapons, I want a missle defense weapon of this type in operation. This system is specifically designed to stop a single or two weapon launch from a rogue nation. This system since its retasking in the 2000's was never designed to provide protection from a complete nuclear exchange.

This systems duty is to elliminate the ability of rogue nation such as Iran, Pakastan, and every other Isreal hating country from launching a nuclear strike on Isreal, Britain or another NATO ally.

This same system is being deployed in South Korea and Japan for protection for North Korea missle capability.

If this system did not exist and one of these countries launch a single nuclear warhead and/or dirty bomb at a NATO ally, It would start WWIII for real and make the current war look like a footnote.

later...


Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By FuzionMonkey on 7/8/2008 7:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So where is the threat? I have seen NO missiles shot against US for the last 4 decades at least.


Just there hasn't been any threats recently doesn't mean there won't ever be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:12:02 PM , Rating: 5
Yes because the entire world is just completely understanding. Those articles about Iran threatening to kill citizens who write blogs against the government or Islam are completely false.

We should just sit around and sing songs.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/8/2008 9:26:32 PM , Rating: 5
Radar stations launch nukes?


RE: Enough is enough.
By PointlesS on 7/9/2008 12:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
no ps2's do


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:37:48 PM , Rating: 5
No. Just your house.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 10:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah right...


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By Grast on 7/9/2008 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 3
Obsoleet,

You are right Iran is none of our business. But the protection of NATO allies from rogue nuclear strikes is one of our responsibilites. You do realise that only 22 interceptors will deployed to protect the entire Western European theator at the completion of the system and 12 interceptors for Japan and U.S. West Coast.

This system is defensive. It nutralizes the threat a country such as Iran can truely pose. You should be happy such a system exists. Think if it this way...if Iran truely creates a nuclear weapon; what good is it if they have no hope of being able to launch the weapon. Any long range missle being fired out of Iran once the system is operational can be elliminated. We would then have provocation to use our air forces to destroy their ability to make war. I am NOT in favor invading or even caring about Iran. However, I am all for providing systems which protect ourselves and our allies from devistating attacks which could really lead us into WWIII.

As to your comment about suiting up. I have my DD214 discharge papers; Do YOU?. I have already performed my duties for 6 years in the first Gulf war. If you have never signed on the dotted line, you have no right to berate other people about their lack of service.

The facts stand that less than 1% of U.S. citizen will ever sign up for the military. That is fine it is the reason why our military is the best in the world. Only citizen which want to server sign-up.

Later...


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think if it this way...if Iran truely creates a nuclear weapon; what good is it if they have no hope of being able to launch the weapon.


Because a missile is the only... or the easiest, or the cheapest... way to deliver a nuclear warhead?


RE: Enough is enough.
By ttowntom on 7/9/2008 2:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's the only UNSTOPPABLE way to deliver a nuclear warhead. That's why missile defense is so important. You can stop a bomber or a suitcase nuke in many different ways, but once a missile is in the air, you're screwed.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
If that was true why was anyone worried about Iraq? Even if they had the hypothetical nuclear weapons they most definitely did not have the means to launch them very far. Hence the whole "mushroom cloud" speech was obviously nonsense... right? ;)


RE: Enough is enough.
By louzamos on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By ttowntom on 7/9/2008 2:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"from Lithuania which by the way everybody knows its just so close to Iran (sarcasm) than lets say Turkey (with whom we already have good relationships)."
Instead of making an ass of yourself why not learn how this technology works? An interceptor in Turkey can't protect all of Europe. Turkey is too close, it would have to catch the missiles in their boost phase, rather than when they're already ballistic.


RE: Enough is enough.
By louzamos on 7/10/2008 9:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
then build them in Greece or Italy.
you just have to go to break some Russian balls, dont you..?


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 8:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's so damn easy to build an ICBM that even a group of terrorists can do it... sure...
Never mind that even many first world nations don't have that kind of capability. If I was a terrorist I sure as hell would use a much easier and cheaper delivery method, like smuggling weapons into the country.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/8/2008 7:54:28 PM , Rating: 5
You sir need to get a reality check.

Just because nobody has fired a nuke at us in the last 4 decades doesn't mean they wont in the future. It's Mutually Assured Destruction between most of the current nuclear powers and the sole reason why nobody has fired them at each other. What if some nutjob in some random country decides to fire one at us? We are screwed. Best we can do is nuke them back. But with missile defense in place we just shoot it down and retaliate using conventional weapons that won't annihilate 80,000 civilians. Sorry but I would hate that the only deterrent to a nuclear attack was simply that we will nuke you back, that isn't enough to stop some crazy military/government that doesn't care if it goes out in a blaze of glory, just as long as they take many with them.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/8/2008 8:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
In a weird way what you said made sense. However any military buildup increase the destruction in case of things going out of hand.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By Smartless on 7/8/2008 8:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
True. But like it or not, might makes right will be around until there are no more 2nd and 3rd world countries and maybe even after. Sad part the shield works against ICBMs but what happens when countries like Russia sell nukes to a low-tech country or terrorists.

Which reminds me, they're making a remake of the movie, "The Day Earth Stood Still" though its Keanu Reeves as Neo. haha. Okay not Neo.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 9:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
They have been talking about small nukes for decades, and about some east-country getting hold of the technoligy allthough nobody used it at all. Judging by the missile defend systems coverage area, it's like an invisible wall over again.

"Dark City", not to forget. Brilliant movie!


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:24:51 PM , Rating: 4
God I just want to hit you.

Yes. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Because it was either kill a few hundred thousand Japanese and lose no US troops. Or kill over a million Japanese and lose a few hundred thousand of our troops.

No one else has used nuclear weapons because they saw from our use of them what kind of massive destruction they can cause. And our nukes today are tens or hundreds of times more powerful than those used on Japan.

And you act like most people when angry go and kill the person they're mad at.

Please do us all a favor and keep your "lets all hold hands and get along" attitude to yourself. It's not reality, nor will it ever be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Nfarce on 7/8/2008 10:44:17 PM , Rating: 4
You have to understand that this is what's being passed off for "education" in our government runs schools today: Give peace a chance and Reagan was a reckless cowboy who hated the poor and sucked and weapons and guns suck!

I can guarantee you people like that were never taught the phrase "Speak softly but carry a big stick" nor its underlying meaning in the Roosevelt administration. Peace has never worked in this world as a deterrent. Never has, never will long term. "Peace" only works long term after someone's ass gets kicked - or annihilated. That's the painful reality of truth.

Some of the comments on this blog really concern me for the future of not only America, but the entire Western civilization in general.


RE: Enough is enough.
By caqde on 7/9/2008 3:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
...........

Well actually we probably wouldn't have many problems if morons didn't run office when making decisions regarding other countries. *cough* "Vietnam" *cough*.. Read some history and see what choices America made that made absolutely no sense. Peace can work, but only if you PAY attention to what other people need and want.

Although I will say you can't please everyone, and I do support this technology. It is best to be prepared and ready, but peaceful ways should be a priority when possible.


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 7:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see what do those we're fighting want.....the death of every American?

How about we compromise here. We'll give them.....you.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 11:58:37 AM , Rating: 1
Ironically enough, they want us dead because of Americans like you.

I say, we willingly off you ourselves so they don't have to kill all of us because your aggressive head is up your arse.

Oh wait, you're not that aggressive, you're posting on this forum instead of standing up for your foreign interventionism by fighting in our wars that "keep us safe." I forgot, you don't have the balls just the mouth and let others do the heavy lifting that you endorse.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Grast on 7/9/2008 1:25:59 PM , Rating: 1
Obsoleet,

I am NOT going to appologise to anyone about being an American. These people want to kill us based on our freedoms. I will NOT and SHOULD NOT have to change my life or culture because some other group of people do not like it. I am not saying my culture is superior to theirs. I am not saying I want them to die for having an opposing point of view.

I am saying that I will NOT change my culture to appease another. If these people want a war, I can give it to them. I have killed before in the first Gulf war to protect my country and fellow service men. I will gladdly do it again to protect your right to free speech and appeasement to these other cultures.

This in my opinion is the best aspect of America which you have forgotten. The freedoms you hold today are the cost of American blood. Fathers, Sons, and even daughters have died to ensure you have the RIGHT to say you hate AMERICA and we are the problem.

I disagree with your statements about comprimise with other cultures. I believe instead we need a leader which will for lack of better words... "Walk talk and care a big stick". If you want to do business with the U.S., that is great but we will not be bullied or threatened by other countries and/or cultures.

Later...


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
These people want to kill us based on our freedoms.


This is absolute garbage. They could not care less about how we live. Do you think that say the Taliban gives a damn about what life is like in the US when they shoot at American soldiers? They want control, power, influence, land, whatever... and we stand in their way.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want control, power, influence, land, whatever... and we stand in their way.

As well we should.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and no one would argue about that. But this isn't purely an American issue. They'd shoot at absolutely anybody, Chinese, French, Russian, Mexican, it wouldn't matter. That's why the whole "they hate our freedom" thing is so silly. We aren't the only country in the world that has trouble with terrorism.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
No argument there. The U.S. just has the most power projection overseas, this is why we tend to be on the top of the hate list.


RE: Enough is enough.
By caqde on 7/9/2008 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please read the History of the wars America was a part of and you will see some of the "lovely" things that the American diplomats did. Here let me make a synopses for you.

"Vietnam"
1. Give weapons and aid to a group that wants to attain freedom.
2. Backstab said group.
3. Try to implement American government in that country.

Hmm. Why are they pissed. I don't know. And I will tell you what this isn't the only place something like this happened. It may not be the same, but it is similar.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 8:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
Repeating WWII era propaganda still doesn't make it true...
Conventional bombs killed more Japanese then the nukes did. The Japanese government would have likely surrendered regardless, and the soviet army was already amassing in east asia and would have entered Japan if given the order. (Funny how no one mentions that the soviets were perfectly willing to invade even if the US did not). This was a military demonstration to the soviets, nothing more. There is plenty of historical documentation pointing out that the military did not subscribe to this invasion nonsense. It's spin.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:49:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The Japanese government would have likely surrendered regardless, and the soviet army was already amassing in east asia "

To correct a few mistakes, the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan until after the nuclear bombs were dropped, and the Japanese government certainly would not have surrendered without such an impressive show of force.

In fact, even after the bombings, the Japanese Supreme War Council voted against surrender. It wasn't until after Hirohito made a personal appeal to the people by radio that surrender was granted, and even then, a group of military officers revolted and stormed the Imperial Palace, trying to prevent the shame of surrender.
And even then, it still wasn't the unconditional surrender the US demanded, but a conditional one, which allowed them to keep their monarchy.

Immediately before the bombings, Japan was training civilian men, women, even children to fight invading Americans. The government felt its die-hard population and mountainous terrain meant they could fight the US to a standstill, an invasion too costly for the US to proceed. The fact it would have cost them millions of their own was considered irrelevant. The nuclear bomb changed that equation, and saved those millions of Japanese lives.

It also saved American lives, a fact you probably consider meaningless, but one very important to most people at the time. In preparing for the invasion of Japan, the US government manufactured and stockpiled half a million Purple Heart medals for those wounded in battle. In fact, we're still using those medals today -- the total number of US soldiers wounded since then, in all the wars and conflicts since, is substantially smaller than we would have lost in a Japanese invasion.

The bombing was justified on military, ethnical, and even humanitarian grounds. Those historical revisionist apologists who decry it don't have a leg to stand on.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By HakonPCA on 7/9/2008 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
haha

quote:
I already demonstrated that this is completely false


wow, you do have superb debate skills, such that you have covered and closed all possible rebuttals! LOL!

you also forgot to demonstrate that after Japan was falling toward surrender, Russia went on a major land grab initiative in Asia, trying to take all the could (not to liberate of course, but to keep, ala East Germany)

If Russia had invaded Japan alone (something that never, never, ever would have happened; perhaps, maybe perhaps a joint invasion like D-Day Europe, but even that was not very likely) They would have tried to keep it under their rule. Russia would not have spent trillions of dollars trying to help them rebuild if they invaded the country as the U.S. did.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
How does that disagree with what I said? What I said was that the decision to drop the bombs was primarily politically motivated, and not solely to "save American lives" as so many keep trying to insist. It's strategic value was more as a show of force for the USSR's benefit, then putting pressure on Japan.
No one is saying that soviet occupation of Japan would have been a good thing. However
let's call a spade a spade and stop pretending that this was all to "save American lives". It was needlessly brutal too... the demonstration would have been just as effective had the bombs not been dropped on civilians.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "Stalin had pledged to declare war during the Yalta meeting"

A list of all the pledges Stalin broke would fill books. The notion that the Soviets would have unilaterally invaded Japan is ludicrous. Furthermore, the entire issue is moot, as a Soviet invasion would -- just like a US-based one-- have killed a hundred times as many Japanese civilians as the nuclear bombs did.

> "Which is not only irrelevant but only proves that the authority was squarely in Hirohito's hands"

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Any student of history knows just how the powers of the Emperor were limited.

And once again, your issue is moot, as Hirohito was only convinced to call for surrender because of the nuclear bombings.

> "Wow... and this proves that the invasion was going to happen? "

You're seriously trying to suggest we would have allowed a stalemate to stand? Sorry, but you've simply descended into abject nonsense.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 3:21:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Because you said so?"

Because the facts say so. The acts of the Supreme War Council and Hirohito's position are all a matter of public record. They had already declined several surrender offers, they had already ignored hundreds of thousands of their own civilians dying from conventional bombing, and they had already began implementing plans to prepare for all-out invasion.

Japan not only would not have surrendered without the nuclear bomb, it very nearly didn't surrender even *with* it. Even after the second nuclear explosion, the SWC voted against surrender. It was only the confluence of those bombings, the threat of many more, the Soviet manuevering for a land grab in the Kurills (land it still hasn't given back to Japan even today, FYI) and Hirohito's sudden change of heart that led to surrender.

And even after all that, they STILL refused to unconditionally surrender. Had the US stuck to its original demand, the invasion would have happened regardless, even after the bombings.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 3:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did you go to school in the US maven? Everything you've said is the exact opposite of what I was taught in class.

It was the show of literally unlimited potential to wipe out their entire existence that ended the war.

Flying over there and bombing military targets with regular munitions wouldn't have accomplished anything put prolonging the war and as you said we had already been doing it.

It was a hard and terrible decision and history has proven it to be the correct one.


RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
edit: So there's no misunderstanding - A hard and terrible decision to have to make ....


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 5:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you go to school in the US maven? Everything you've said is the exact opposite of what I was taught in class.

I sure did, but are you implying that everything we have been taught is 100% true?

quote:
It was the show of literally unlimited potential to wipe out their entire existence that ended the war.

But surely you are aware of the fire bombing missions that took place? It wasn't exactly as psychologically effective as one plane, one bomb, but killed an even greater number of civilians. If the goal was to demonstrate massive destruction, that was already happening. Contrary to Masher's black and white assessment of everything the Japanese did not suddenly say "oh my god this new weapon is the death of us". It was closer to "we pretty much already lost, and after this it's truly hopeless". It had a much greater psychological effect on the Soviets however, who suddenly realized that they were at a serious disadvantage.


RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 6:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I absolutely agree with you on the school point. But I do think that it's a huge mistake to teach children how bad/wrong their country is or what we could've done differently in the past from a professor who likely wasn't even alive at the time. Unfortunately/Fortunately the nature of teaching is that you might learn the teachers ideals as well, ideals which are often biased. Sometimes they're right and sometimes completely wrong.

quote:
It wasn't exactly as psychologically effective as one plane, one bomb, but killed an even greater number of civilians.


This was my point, it's the effect it had. For all they knew we had hundreds of these bombs. Imagine for the first time in history; tens of thousands of lives vanish in a flash from one single explosion. It's hard to imagine because the idea is common place in today's world, we all know about these weapons and what they're capable of but only because of situations like Hiroshima.

The thinking of the leaders was more likely "oh sh*, we're f*ed." - basically what you might say just before getting in a car wreck. Masher has obviously researched the exact history of it, but I imagine the guy pleading on the radio was thinking about what's best for his people. I guess we may never know but if it were me I'd be thinking the "Oh my God, this new weapon is the death of us" choice.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/8/2008 8:28:24 PM , Rating: 4
"It's Mutually Assured Destruction between most of the current nuclear powers and the sole reason why nobody has fired them at each other."
Exactly. Then why does US want to break this equilibrium is beyond me. Rice states that new missile shield program is not aimed at Russia but the reality is this shield would be able to effectively catch and neutralize any transcontinental missile launched from the Russian soil east of Ural mountains. Considering that this is where Russia keeps close to 70% of it's nuclear stockpiles, it negates most of the threat that Russia poses to the west. With that in mind Russians have full right to be extremely concerned and act accordingly. I wonder what would US government do if China deploy it's own missile shield in Mexico saying they want to protect themselves against Columbia terrorists. This is purely hypothetical scenario, of course, but the one, reflecting what Russia feels about current US plans.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Felofasofa on 7/8/2008 9:18:02 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, Russia has every right to feel miffed about the deployment of US military tech on their doorstep. The US is the most forward deployed of any major nation, yet takes huge offence at any other nation wanting to station arms and weapons OS. Let's not forget how the stationing of US (CIA) listening posts in Tibet provoked the Chinnese invasion. Oh you forgot about that one eh? Current US doctrine which maintains that the US must be the most dominant military power is doomed to failure in the longer term, the quicker the US realises this and comes up with a more sophisticated approach to global affairs the better. Running the Federal Reserves printers 24/7 churning out devaluing script is hastening your decline.

They say countrys elect governments they deserve. In the election of Bush the US went for a government of greed, and you got it 100%. Possibly the worst ever administration in the White House has presided over reckless capitalism, and the formulation of foreign policy which has been staggering in it's ineptitude. Going it alone eh? keep this up and you will be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/8/2008 9:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Can't Russia just move their stockpile if they feel so threatened?


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
It won't matter where its launched from in Russia. The system will still attempt to shoot it down before impact. At least that's the idea.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 10:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
I was being facetious, but I've come up with a new solution. How about Russia just not shoot crap at us. I don't understand why they're so worried/threatened. Since when were they so interested in blowing us up?


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/9/2008 7:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you said something like:
Let's not forget how the stationing of US (CIA) listening posts in Tibet provoked the Chinnese invasion.
i want to read more about that, know of any non biased sources ?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Felofasofa on 7/10/2008 6:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
There's plenty on the web about CIA funding of Tibetan guerillas after the 1950 invasion, but not much on the OSS in Tibet just after WW2. Having the highest mountain range in the world, Tibet was attractive to Spooks from Britain/US who were concerned about events in China, post WW2.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/10/2008 5:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks alot buddy


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
> ""It's Mutually Assured Destruction...why does US want to break this equilibrium is beyond me."

Primarily because MAD is predicated on an inherently unethical concept -- that of holding millions of innocent civilians hostage for the good behavior of their leaders.

Furthermore, while MAD is a semi-stable condition in two-player game theory (e.g. the US-Soviet Cold War) it breaks down entirely when a dozen or more players are all involved.

If a world leader launched a missile at the US, would the knowledge that we can kill ten million in retaliation really be worth it? What if it wasn't even the nation's leader, but a dissident faction that had somehow gained access to launch codes? What if it wasn't us attacked, but one of our allies? What if it wasn't even an ally? Would we be willing to kill a few million innocent North Koreans, if Jong-Il killed a few million Mongolians or Indonesians? Or would that be just as evil as his own actions?

Defense, however, is always ethical. The ability to destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their targets is a good thing, no matter how you slice it.


RE: Enough is enough.
By BansheeX on 7/8/2008 11:39:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defense, however, is always ethical. The ability to destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their targets is a good thing, no matter how you slice it.


So Nazi defense is ethical? I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding where you're going here. I'll agree to a missile shield on the condition the United States gives it to everyone else who wants it. Otherwise, it completely breaks the MAD theory and creates a worse situation, a situation in which a country with a nuclear arsenal and a missile shield can launch a nuclear strike without the fear of retaliation. That no one could launch a strike with impunity before is exactly what prevented it from happening.

And don't feed me BS about how the U.S. would never do such a thing. This country is capable of some of the slickest propaganda you'll ever see. McCarthy had every person in this country thinking their neighbors were reds. We killed 50,000 of our own men in an effing swamp for no reason whatsoever.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'll agree to a missile shield on the condition the United States gives it to everyone else who wants it."

They already have agreed to do so. The US has said on many occasions the system would be used to block any launches, no matter their origin or target.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Hare on 7/9/2008 12:23:12 AM , Rating: 4
So why are the russians so upset? Haven't they been told that no matter what the situation may be, they will have all the access they want... Let's not be naive...


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because we've got such good propaganda that we're convincing our people that blowing themselves up, which results in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, is the path to heaven and a bunch of slutty girls for all eternity.


RE: Enough is enough.
By BansheeX on 7/9/2008 2:44:30 AM , Rating: 5
Collateral damage in war also causes innocent deaths, and let's face it, the only reason radical muslim propaganda has stayed so effective is because of past interventionist policies on our part allowing it to be.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 after the deposing of his father, Reza Shah, by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops in 1941. Reza Shah, a military man, had been known for his determination to modernize Iran and his hostility to the clerical class (ulema). Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi held power until the 1979 revolution with a brief interruption in 1953, when he had faced an attempted revolution. In that year he briefly fled the country after a power-struggle had emerged between himself and his Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil fields and sought control of the armed forces. Mossadegh had been voted into power through a democratic election. Through a military coup d'état aided by a CIA and MI6 covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and arrested and the Shah returned to the throne. Iranian sentiment has remembered this undermining of Iranian democratic process as a chief complaint against the United States and Britain.

We seem to fail to understand that every time we intervene, no matter the intentions, we give the anti-Westernization crowd the the ammunition they need to make their propaganda infinitely and extraordinarily effective.

But it didn't end there. Then in the Iran-Iraq war when Iran was winning, we buddy up with Saddam and give him a bunch of weapons to use on Iran, some bio, and he uses them. That really helped put the anti-America clowns out of business didn't it? Then one of our warships shoots down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian waters and issues no apology. Oops! Strangely enough, Hussein ends up using some leftovers of what we gave him against ethnic kurds later on. I'm sure you can find pictures of women and babies lying dead in the street for that one.


RE: Enough is enough.
By VashHT on 7/11/2008 12:45:11 AM , Rating: 1
Oh wait, our propaganda tells us our soldiers our protecting our "freedoms" in the middle east. Last time I checked we're not protecting jack shit, and oh yeah, we're killing innocent men, women and children all the time. Give me a fucking break with your own stupid propaganda man, do you really believe every muslim wants americans dead on the promise of virgins?


RE: Enough is enough.
By beepandbop on 7/9/2008 10:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you try telling that to the refugees from Vietnam and they'll be more than happy to aid your efforts in receiving a lobotomy.