Europe reacts to Obama dropping missile defence shield

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/17/poland-czech-missile-defence-shield

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 13.14 BST

Senior officials from the US state department, the Pentagon and the national security council went to Warsaw and Prague today to tell the Polish and Czech governments that President Barack Obama has changed his mind about stationing elements of the Pentagon's missile shield in their countries.

The Americans have been pushing the two recent Nato and European Union members to take part in the controversial project since 2003. The central Europeans demonstrated loyalty, seeing the US as their indispensable security guarantor against a resurgent Russia.

Now they feel let down. For two of the most Atlanticist countries in Europe, the missile shield reversal could spell the end of their love affair with America. snip

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld famously split the EU into anti-American "old Europe" and pro-American, post-communist "new Europe", including the Poles and Czechs. Those days are over.

"The Americans only cared about their interests. They used everybody else," said Lech Walesa, the former Polish president and revolutionary leader. "It wasn't that the shield was that important, but it's about the way, the way of treating us."

[eShirl]

1. "The Americans only cared about their interests."

Damn, Lech, wake up.

[Selatius]

2. Lech Walesa has just had his first real lesson of American capitalism:

In America, you either own, or you are owned. Poland was just a pawn the entire time.

[malaise]

7. If he just discovered that

he's unbelievably naive.

[Selatius]

12. Possibly. Poland's government nowadays is notoriously authoritarian on social issues.

They are harsh when it comes to gays, much persecution, and they wish to reinstate the death penalty. Yeah. They're also seriously considering a flat tax in Poland.

[ThomWV]

17. How is this elimination of a useless "defense" system related to capitalism?

Your comment just doesn't make any sense at all. Removal of a foreign defense system from one's soil has no relationship to the economic system of either country. Your comment that one either owns or is owned isn't related to the subject of defense or missiles or the powers of the Commander in Chief to deploy forces in any way what so ever either. And then there is that final sentence, which is nice to know but not related to the other two subject that were also unrelated to one-another.

[Joanne98]

3. They need to spend some of THEIR money for a change!

[whathehell]

10. Yup.

[bluestateguy]

4. It's not our job to protect them

If they wish to build up their own militaries, our defense contractors could perhaps interest them in some new weaponry. We're having a sale.

[pampango]

9. This missile shield was meant to protect the US from long range ICBM's launched from Iran.

It was not meant as a short range defense of Europe, though that may be what they switch to now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260406.stm

"...on the military side, this heralds a shift of emphasis in the whole US anti-missile defence strategy. It is not an end to it but it is a change to it.

The emphasis will now be on regional and shorter-range defence."

"...the Polish and Czech governments might have mixed feelings. They had invested considerable capital in agreeing to the system. Some hardliners in Eastern Europe might feel let down.

"Others might be relieved. There will be debates about the long-term US commitment to Europe. That is why the president mentioned Nato's article 5 in his announcement - an attack on one will still be an attack on all."

[CJCRANE]

5. Edited.

I'll check the facts next time. Original deleted because I don't want some RW blog quoting me. Thanks for the info.

[Zywiec]

6. Why was Russia so upset about the deployment of this non-working idea? n/t

[CJCRANE]

8. Good point. Looks like I spoke too soon before checking the facts.

[quaker bill]

13. It was the principle

The ABM treaty had been a cornerstone of arms control for decades. Bush unilaterally abrogated the treaty. The Russians never got around to liking this.

The technology is worse than useless against a country with a military industrial base even if it works at some level. Because of the need for great speed and extremely high accuracy inherent in interceptors, they cost roughly 10 times more than the vehicle needed to put a bomb up there. Pinpoint accuracy is not needed with a nuke, just a calibrated shove in the right direction. It is vastly easier and cheaper to overwhelm missle defense by increasing the number of re-entry vehicles. Accordingly, ABM defenses only encourage the development a larger number of bombs and and mass production of cheaper 50's to 60's vintage tech to deliver them.

This is why both sides pitched the idea over the rails in the first place and signed the ABM treaty. Technological progress has perhaps made effective ABM possible at some modest level, but it has not revoked the laws of physics.

[masuki bance]

11. Tell Robert Gates and Obama that.

Three months ago-

"...On Wednesday, a military radar system _ shaped like a giant golf ball _ slowly disappeared from Hawaii's coast as it headed out to sea. The 28-story missile X-Band defense radar is designed to work with ground-based missile interceptors on the island of Kauai to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles during their final phase of flight.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system was returned to Hawaii after the mobile launcher recently was tested at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Since 2005, all six tests of the ground-based missile system have intercepted their targets, excluding tests when the targets malfunctioned, Missile Defense Agency spokeswoman Pam Rogers said.

It is one of two missile defense systems the military tests at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai. The other is the sea-based Aegis system, which has recorded 18 successful firings in 22 attempts.

"We're in a good position should it become necessary to protect American territory," Pacific Fleet Lt. Cmdr. Chuck Bell said..."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/planned-north-korea-missi_n_218533.html

More here- http://www.google.com/search?q=hawaii+missile+defense+north+korea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1DVFC_en___US345&client=firefox-a

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. Lech lost all respect in Poland when he tried to rule

single-handedly. His press releases and PR campaign went to his head. He had no administrative, organizational, or leadership talent. Was he a spark for a huge Solidarity movement? Yes, but others, more behind the scenes, did the real work.

Lech was rudely removed from the slightest hint of power, when it became painfully obvious that his best effort would only lead to disaster, regardless of the topic.

Americans forget that lesson. They still view his voice as important, as representative of Poland in general, and as part of the Polish government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Think of him as Poland's Tom DeLay.

[Obamanaut]

15. Close most, if not all of the bases in Europe, sell the equipment to

the host nations, bring home the troops, and let the host nations become their own "security guarantor against a resurgent Russia."

[Veruca Salt]

19. +a brazillion

:thumbsup:

We have no reason to have bases there.

[Happyhippychick]

16. "It wasn't that the shield was that important". Uh, it was billions of American dollars Lech, sorry

you feel mistreated but DEAL WITH IT!

[evenso]

18. So who was the threat - Iran or Russia?

"The central Europeans demonstrated loyalty, seeing the US as their indispensable security guarantor against a resurgent Russia."

Last year we were told that the reason for the missle shield was a possible threat from a nuclear Iran. Now it seems Russia was the real threat, in the eyes of the Bush administration. Glad the neo-conservatives aren't making our foreign policy anymore. So glad we have more sensible people in the White House.