Why The White House Is Revamping Missile Defense
A White House fact sheet offers two main reasons for changing missile defense policy in Eastern Europe. Before conservatives beat up on Obama, it’s important to note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was the policy maker on the same issue in the Bush administration.
· New Threat Assessment: The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated. In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.
· Advances in Capabilities and Technologies: Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly. We expect this trend to continue. Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.
Maybe before we spend billions of billions on more of this crap we should find out if the damn missiles can actually intercept missiles, or sea gulls, or anything. Because the track record here is not great.
And the fact that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates…was the policy maker on the same issue in the Bush administration…” only calls his competence into question.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
To avoid another Cuban crisis.
Or was it a provocation for USSR to place missiles in Cuba?
Stop the madness!!!
September 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This seems to me right in line with
“providing for the common defense”.
I do not have to like something to recognize its necessity
average james Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I notice the DEFENSE word and it fits with the whole pesky constitutional thingee.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
in other words…I didn’t know what I was talking about before…but now I see why it’s important…damn campaign promises…
average james Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
What campaign promise do you mean Guido ?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
it was just a general statement…most (all) politicians do it.
After thinking about it, my bigger problem is with Alan’s statement “Before conservatives beat up on Obama, it’s important to note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was the policy maker on the same issue in the Bush administration.”
I guess the buck stops with anybody but Obama (for things he doesn’t necessarily agree with)
EricG Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 10:42 am
More like the buck stops with anybody but Bush.
Wasn’t it Bush who ran on “no nation building” in 2000?
Wasn’t it Bush who promised we would out of Iraq in six months?
It’s funny how all politicians lies but no media hounds ever lie about Obama … I mean why would they?
All they have to gain is ratings & book sales.
average james Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I don’t get that read from Obama.
What I do hear from Obama is a reluctance to prosecute torturers and possible war criminals.
What I do hear is a desire to move things forward-militarily(with an emphasis on the terrorists home base, Afghanistan),
economically(with an emphasis on greener objectives),
and on the health care front.
Also I hear a continual call for civility and bipartisanship.
This missile defense shift is largely based in portability of systems, as I understand it.
This missile defense shift appears to have its roots in the former administration’s military strategy, a strategy that the conservative right has been consistently fond of.
It seems to me that, just as Obama’s time line for withdrawl from Iraq has changed after consulting with the commanders on the ground,
this decision is being met with derision.
Even though it is in line with the former administration’s advice and strategy, it seems that because Obama’s administration is implementing the plan, well……suddenly it is bad and some kind of breach of promise.
I just don’t see it.
I see partisan bullchit.
Dishonest, anything to discredit Obama, even if it is the right thing to do for the American people bullchit shenanigans.
That’s what I see.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Now that everyone brought it up, what campaign promise did Obama make on this topic Guido?Or for that matter, most topics?
The few he made, he’s tried to live up to, and those are under incomplete status.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I just heard a report where a bunch of Republicans are coming out against this move. They were for it when Bush was in office, they were against it when Obama stopped it, and now they are against him starting it up again? Seems extremely partisan to me. The Democrats are not any better; they have had pretty much the opposite reaction the entire process.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
politicians can’t live with them…and they won’t just move out and take their dumb dog with them.
placefield Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
We can replace them but keep seeming to get the same thing.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Maybe I’m cynical but the only US ally that Iran has ever realistically threatened is Israel. The missile shield in Europe only made sense as a show of strength against any Russian expansion or to a lesser extent an attack from North Korea (that Russia would have to allow anyway!).
The idea that technology has moved on is also dubious. If that is the case then why are Poland and the Czech Republic complaining that their national security plans are torpedoed by this when we would supposedly be providing the latest whizz-bang interceptors with satellite tracking etc, anyway? The only country they are nervous about is Russia!
In my opinion, this is just a foreign relations move but it will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of results.
OldLefty Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“Maybe I’m cynical but the only US ally that Iran has ever realistically threatened is Israel.”
…………………………
Someone, I don’t remember who, said, that Iran would never have the nerve to hit Israel because of the HUGE Palestinian population.
It would unleash a backlash from the whole Sunni Arab world.
libpatriot Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
It’s true, Lee, that Iran is no real threat to us, but a potential threat to Israel. (OldLefty’s post above makes an interesting point, and I hope it’s on the money.)
September 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.”
“These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture.”
–
Are there any conservatives against this?
They are fools, is so.
This is called ‘keeping up with the times’.
However, like everything else, I am going to ask how much it costs and how long we intend to maintain these defenses and how much that will cost.
Daddio Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 8:51 am
If my memory serves me, when Ronald Reagan proposed SDI the Democrats and liberals vehemently opposed it and have opposed missile defense for the past 25 years.
My question is why is there ANY opposition to a system that is totally defense oriented? This is not a missile system that is intended to be an offensive weapon.
Any missile defense system has my full support.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 9:53 am
there is a fine line between a defensive weapon and an offensive one.
EricG Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Guido has the right notion. Those missiles become offensive when they are near our shores but defensive when in another country.
Reagan’s proposal was a mad house of spending that only a fevered Republican would ever support. That’s no shocker that the Democrats didn’t want any part of that.
This is a sound policy without wild-eyed idealism involved.
The issue of the military budget was already covered and Obama gets, once again, zero credit from the left by not slashing the military spending like everyone on the left wanted him to.
EricG Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am
*from the right by not slashing
September 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I really don’t see a problem with this. If the current system is outdated and ineffective why continue with it. I hate to see the defence of the country foreign and domestic made political by either side. President Obama primary job is to protect the constitution of the United States although I don’t agree with him alot of the time I think he got this right.
average james Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Refreshing to hear Goliath.
However, I do not believe that the loud conservative right will agree with that sentiment.
Just a wild guess….he he he
September 18th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Allan, You had a caller that went on to correct ‘Fox’ by accepting his response that Poland was invaded by Germans on Sept 17th 1939.. In reality On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The Polish army was defeated within weeks of the invasion. From East Prussia and Germany in the north and Silesia and Slovakia in the south, German units, with more than 2,000 tanks and over 1,000 planes, broke through Polish defenses along the border and advanced on Warsaw in a massive encirclement attack. After heavy shelling and bombing, Warsaw surrendered to the Germans on September 28, 1939. Britain and France, standing by their guarantee of Poland’s border, had declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. The Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland on September 17, 1939. The demarcation line for the partition of German- and Soviet-occupied Poland was along the Bug River.
Sooo… half truths are a lie.. maintain your credibility by supporting the truth… Thanks!
September 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pm