Tests show US shield 'not needed'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

The results of recent Iranian missile tests prove that US plans for a defence shield in Europe are unnecessary, says Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

He said the tests confirmed Tehran had missiles with a limited range of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles), meaning the US system was not needed.

Iranian media said missiles tested this week included one that can hit Israel.

The US says it wants to build the shield in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend allies from rogue nations.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7501498.stm

---

Took them a while to figure that one out.

[hack89]

1. Some shaky logic here

1. How do we know that Iran demonstrated their full capabilities.

2. How long will it take for Iran to develop a missile that can reach Europe. The North Korean have such a missile - is it unreasonable to assume Iran won't try to buy the technology?

[Spouting Horn]

2. It's absurd to have

missile defense....how dare we protect ourselves?

(But why is it our responsibility to protect Europe from missiles?)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. wrong question.

how dare we waste tens of billions a year constructing and installing a fully untested program that has failed every fair test miserably?

Think of this as the maginot line on steroids. Except it is more expensive, and more doomed to failure.

Not just the software problems, not just the lack of mid-range satellites, not just the lack of early launch detectors, not just the tracking problems always present with missile to missile collisions, and not just the growing problem with cheap decoys that were proven to confuse and overwhelm our system.

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. The Navy version...

launched off of the Aegis cruisers and such seems to been pretty successful in all of their tests so far, although its a more limited system than the one that is being deployed in Alaska.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. it better be, if Israel uses US bases in Iraq to attack Iran.

because some supersonic cruise missiles will be paying a visit to two carrier groups. In self defense.

[hack89]

9. Actually not

Iran only has sub-sonic cruise missiles - Silkworms and C-802s. Old, big and easy targets for AEGIS.

[hack89]

11. They have been practicing for an Iranian attack

Naval Defenses Against Iranian Missiles

Last week, the U.S. Navy sent a message, and conducted some anti-missile training, as two Aegis warships (one off the coast of Israel, and the other in the Persian Gulf) practiced defeat a combined missile attack, from Syria, Lebanon and Iran, against Israel.

So far, the Aegis system has knocked down nearly 90 percent of the missiles fired towards it. This includes shooting down a low flying space satellite.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20080710.aspx

[unhappycamper]

3. The reason to build a 'shield' is simple.

$$$$$

This crap's been on the drawing board since st. ronnie.

[hack89]

4. Not even a remote chance that there is a geo-political angle to this? nt

[Alcibiades]

5. Of course there is

But the geopolitical angle is the preservation of US military hegemony. A nation that has ICBMs suddenly becomes less vulnerable to conventional attack. Although there's a lot of talk about "rogue nations" launching unprovoked missle attacks, none have ever done this, because, no matter how rogue a nation may be, the missles they would luanch all have a return address. Our real missle shield is our massive retaliatory capacuity. The drive to get a "shield" is to prevent the limitations that would come with widespread missle technology.

[hack89]

10. And why is this bad?

it appears to me to be morally neutral.

[Alcibiades]

18. Morality has nothing to do with it

Which is part of the problem. What does it matter, for example, if we prevent other actors from gaining missile capability or neutralize it with a "shield?" If the only reason for so doing is to keep other military options open, that is not inherently bad. On the contrary, there are advocates of hegemonic stability who hold that it is good for a nation to have such a capacity, even better if it is your own nation, or at least a fairly benign hegemon.

Quieter voices who still advocate some sort of balance of power argue that other nations can actually exert a check on the overweening ambitions of the powerful. They would point out that it's hubris to assume a benign hegemon, or that a hegemon who is benign today will remain so tomorrow. For example, if a powerful nation were to vote in a leader with the soul of Caligula, it would not be good for that nation, other nations, or the world, for him to have access to unchecked military power.

In other words, what a Bush wants, or what the people who do his thinking for him want, is the unchecked power to get this nation into war on a whim. There are many who think that's a bad idea.

[Kolesar]

12. A missile shield is destabilizing because it gives each party an incentive for a first strike

...And a massive strike.

[tidy_bowl]

16. And the reason not to fight global warming is $$$$$...

.....so what's the difference? Just asking.

[Igel]

13. Lavrov's not that innumerate, or short-sighted.

But he knows the Western media are.

2007: It'll be 5 years, maybe longer, if Iran's trying to develope nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence and IAEA estimates. Five years from 2007 is 2012. (There have been shorter estimates, but they're a bit controversial.)

The anti-missile system is scheduled to come online in 2012. That's not a coincidence. Of course, since Iran doesn't have any weapons that the anti-missile system could affect now, but that's not an especially relevant assertion.

On the other hand, we don't know what developments in missile technology Iran's pursuing. There were those that said a 600 mi range for the Shahab-whatever was sufficient and Iran would stop there; that was necessary to argue because a longer range might feed rabid war-mongering, not because there was actually any evidence Iran would stop at being able to project payloads that far. The question isn't, What was the range on the latest missile test? The question is, What will the missile range be in 2012? Lavrov is suspiciously silent on what the real question is, perhaps because he has no answer.

[Hugabear]

14. protecting Poland and the Czech Republic from rogue nations

:rofl:

Seriously, who in the world would possibly be targeting either of these countries?

[hack89]

15. That's not the issue

To protect all of Europe you need the radars and interceptors as close to the launch point as possible (assuming it is the ME) - this allows the earliest possible detection and interception.

[paparush]

17. What?? You mean The Shield is just another Trillion Dollar Boondoggle Tax Dollar Giveaway?

SHOCKING!!!
:sarcasm:

[daleo]

19. This missile shield is meant to protect Americans from universal health care

Reliable pensions, unemployment insurance and other scary social programs. Money that goes to the military has to be diverted from domestic priorities.

[Whoa_Nelly]

20. Russia denies Iran is a threat and orders United States to drop missile shield plan

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Russia has ordered the United States to drop its missile shield proposals after claiming that Iran's recent military exercises proved that Tehran did not have the firepower to attack Europe.

Escalating a war of words with Washington, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said that this week's Iranian missile tests had provided further evidence of an American plot to neuter Moscow's nuclear deterrent.

<snip>
"This proves what we've said before, that the idea of deploying the US missile shield in Europe is not needed to monitor and respond to missiles of this range," he said.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2287472/Russia-denies-Iran-is-a-threat-and-orders-United-States-to-drop-missile-shield-plan.html

[gateley]

21. I can't believe we're fucking with Russia, too.

And I'm concerned to see how our 'diplomats' will respond to the ORDERS from Russia.

This administration couldn't be destroying our country any more if they tried. It's like watching a nightmare in slo-mo.

[Purveyor]

22. Without a doubt, Russia is 'drawing a line in the sand' with the missile shield.

I don't know that the question has been posed to 2008 presidential candidates but it should be an issue worthy of dicussion.

[gateley]

24. We can probably predict the McCain line

which would be Iran IS dangerous. Not sure how Obama would handle it.

I'd like to hear what those in the KNOW think -- Biden, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar...

[Whoa_Nelly]

23. BushCo: Manipulating the USA toward a slow burn suicide

one stupid greedy fuck us in the ass moment at a time.

[paparush]

25. Condi, et al, will handle it with their standard deft aplomb....

:sarcasm:
Look for Russian Naval maneuvers. Increased military exercises. More cold war flight patterns.

[hack89]

29. The Russians are not eager to put their military on display

in large numbers - all it would do is show how weak they really are. The Russian military was ignored for over a decade - most of their equipment is old and obsolete while the quality of their conscript soldiers is very poor. Massive political corruption has siphoned off millions of rubles intended for modernization. They still design and produce state of the art planes and tanks but they are purchased in such tiny numbers as to be insignificant militarily. Their fleet is tied up to the pier and very seldom gets underway - when they do it is for short periods of time.

It has been a very long time since the Russians have demonstrated the capability to project military power any distance from their borders.

[ben_meyers]

26. I'm sure they will handle them

Like every administration since Truman has.

[FarCenter]

27. "Launch on warning" will make a comeback

With short and intermediate range nuclear missiles the time of flight is so short that if your instruments warn you of an attack, you have no time to think. You must simply launch as soon as possible.

Missiles in Poland could hit western Russia in minutes after launch.

[Hardrada]

28. The Bushies didn't get the missiles in Poland. Luckily.

I think the Russians are making necessary noises so that the Obama folk take the right steps when they come into office. The Bushies can't get this sinister stuff in place in the short time they have left. And sane diplomacy will reverse it. Condi deserves a life sentence for her "diplomacy."