Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As both you and rdean state that this system is provocative because the system is not a defensive one, I suggest you reexamine your premise. This system is a defensive system and there is ample supporting evidence in both this thread and the other for that.How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)
It's provocative because if it's not used for "defense", what is left? "Offense" obviously.
And if they feel their back is against the wall...
If a test fails one time (your link highlights one test failure, yet there are several tests) because of a failure in one area of the system, yet at least 10 other tests succeed, and that leads you to conclude that the entire system is a failure; it looks like we should all be thankful that Dems such as yourself have little to do with science.One test failure out of several tests, most of which succeeded, is just one datapoint in several. A bit of knowledge about scientific methods might be a good idea for you.
Perhaps those 'anti-science' Republicans you mentioned realized that one test failure out of several does not equate to "it doesn't work". Your input is inane..... It doesn't matter how much evidence you give to a Republican. Once their little mind is made up, it's made up. Period!
Actually, if one nuclear weapon get's through, then "yes" indeed, it didn't work.
Honestly, I don't understand why even the most simple things are such a challenge for Republicans?
Look, if the "target" has a "known" direction, velocity, location and is equipped with a homing device, AND IT IS STILL MISSED, then it is most definitely a failure. Can it be said in a more "simple" manner?
Not at all. Please explain how it threatened the Russians.You don't see how it threatened the Russians? ....How was it provocative? (After that clarification, I'll address your other claim.)
So, Wry Catcher, let us in on this secret and educate those less fortunate than you - how is the subject system provocative/threatening the Russians? Surely one of you are bright enough to articulate that in a clear and concise manner.Not at all. Please explain how it threatened the Russians.You don't see how it threatened the Russians? ....
Call it self evident or axiomatic, Emma; the neoconservative mind is willfully obtuse.
Emma by what logic does the defensive missle system threaten russia?
I'm just curious as to your line of thought on this. Not trying to "attack" you
I'm convinced that Russia wanted the splitting of Berlin. The others went along, likely against their better judgment in order to give Russia their share of the spoils. It was Russia's doing.How do you think we ended up with West Berlin, East Berlin and the Berlin Wall? Do you think the Americans came up with that stupid shit? Was Reagan talking to the wrong boss when he told Gorbachev to tear down the wall?the russians split berlin, huh?
What caused the Berlin Air Lift?
the United States, Great Britain and Soviet Russia decided to divide post-war germany, and berlin and vienna, btw. the french just hopped onto the bandwagon. let's see if you can process that information.
and check under your bed, there might me an evil russian hiding.
The BHO policy is to capitulate to irrationale paranoia. That's not good policy, IMHO.Emma by what logic does the defensive missle system threaten russia?
I'm just curious as to your line of thought on this. Not trying to "attack" you
First of all, my primary agreement with this lies in what I stated above, that the administration is being flexible enough to address the issues as they exist.
I think placing these systems in former Soviet satellite states, on the Russian's back step so to speak, IS provocative from their perspective. They tend to be a distrustful lot, if not outright paranoid at times; I can understand their concern (what would be our reaction if the Russians were to place similar systems in, for example, Mexico or Cuba?) and, given what Sec. Gates has said, why antagonize the Russians with systems that are not necessary for their stated purpose?
Beyond that, what was described to be put in its place makes more sense as it would be mobile and more adept at handling the threat that does exist.
The BHO policy is to capitulate to irrationale paranoia. That's not good policy, IMHO.Emma by what logic does the defensive missle system threaten russia?
I'm just curious as to your line of thought on this. Not trying to "attack" you
First of all, my primary agreement with this lies in what I stated above, that the administration is being flexible enough to address the issues as they exist.
I think placing these systems in former Soviet satellite states, on the Russian's back step so to speak, IS provocative from their perspective. They tend to be a distrustful lot, if not outright paranoid at times; I can understand their concern (what would be our reaction if the Russians were to place similar systems in, for example, Mexico or Cuba?) and, given what Sec. Gates has said, why antagonize the Russians with systems that are not necessary for their stated purpose?
Beyond that, what was described to be put in its place makes more sense as it would be mobile and more adept at handling the threat that does exist.
Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]
Actually, we got Russia to step up on pressuring the Iranians, further isolating them diplomatically. Also, notice that the shield wasn't scrapped. All he really did was move it further south.
"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program.
"Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve," he added.
Gates said the new system will allow for a "distributed sensor network" as opposed to a "single fixed site."
Speaking from the Pentagon, he said the interceptors can be deployed in northern and southern Europe as well as on ships. He said a second phase to begin in 2015 could result in missiles being placed on land in Eastern Europe.
But critics blasted the administration for the move.
As this has little to do with the Cold War, except for Russia's continued paranoia, whether one believes the Cold War is over or not seems rather irrelevant a point.Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]
Actually, we got Russia to step up on pressuring the Iranians, further isolating them diplomatically. Also, notice that the shield wasn't scrapped. All he really did was move it further south.
Well I guess as usual the devil is in the details.
From the original article itself:
"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program.
"Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve," he added.
Gates said the new system will allow for a "distributed sensor network" as opposed to a "single fixed site."
Speaking from the Pentagon, he said the interceptors can be deployed in northern and southern Europe as well as on ships. He said a second phase to begin in 2015 could result in missiles being placed on land in Eastern Europe.
But critics blasted the administration for the move.
This is actually a smart progressive (in the modern technical term) approach to the evolving modern threats, as they are unfolding.
Though official unconfirmed it seems that modern Russia is actually already willing to adapt & positively respond to the decisions of the Obama administration.
On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that such retaliatory measures would now be frozen and, possibly, fully canceled in response to Obama's decision to scrap the missile defense shield.
wwwDOTmsnbcDOTmsnDOTcom/id/32910142/ns/world_news-europe
The reality is that whether folks believe it or not the cold war is over.
The foolish illusion that an established Nation State is going to fling a nuke or two at our nation or allies & not expect a complete & swift annihilation of their entire nation is patently ludicrous.
No, it was a real world intelligent choice based in the current realities our ever smaller interconnected world is having to face. Not only that, it is is fiscally responsible choice.
russian mirvs are currently 3 warheads per missile treaty allows 8 though. we have means to defeat mirved warheads. why don't you read up on the ABM tech before spouting off that they are invulnerable. also in case you are wondering currently the russians are abiding by a treaty with the US that limits total warheads to under 3500 or thereabouts. and because they wish to retain second and even third strike capability they will not launch all missiles at once at any rate. and get this: Missile defense is not Meant to thwart a russian full strategic strike. with regards to Russia our only policy was to stop a rogue missile strike perhaps ten at most. however if you look up data on the KKV. it can handle mirved warheads and decoys easily. it has enough shots to kill everything that comes off a missile; warheads, decoys and all.So we are talking THOUSANDS of missiles with say a DOZEN mirvs per missile. How can you POSSIBLY make a case for a missile defense shield that could defend against that many reentry vehicles?
As few have fired ICBMs at us, you'll have to wait a while for "proof" that would be acceptable to you.russian mirvs are currently 3 warheads per missile treaty allows 8 though. we have means to defeat mirved warheads. why don't you read up on the ABM tech before spouting off that they are invulnerable. also in case you are wondering currently the russians are abiding by a treaty with the US that limits total warheads to under 3500 or thereabouts. and because they wish to retain second and even third strike capability they will not launch all missiles at once at any rate. and get this: Missile defense is not Meant to thwart a russian full strategic strike. with regards to Russia our only policy was to stop a rogue missile strike perhaps ten at most. however if you look up data on the KKV. it can handle mirved warheads and decoys easily. it has enough shots to kill everything that comes off a missile; warheads, decoys and all.So we are talking THOUSANDS of missiles with say a DOZEN mirvs per missile. How can you POSSIBLY make a case for a missile defense shield that could defend against that many reentry vehicles?
O.K. then I KNOW you will post of PROOF that we have SUCCESFULLY used interceptor missiles. And I DON'T mean pre planed events where they KNEW where it would be coming from. Missile defense systems have FAILED MISERABLY. Please tell me WHY a rogue nation would even use a missile delivery system.
Why would Iran commit national suicide by launching a nuclear weapon at us in first place?
