"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude wrote:

Michael wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...ssile-defence/


This is shameful!


Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

What a crock.
About anybody could make a bomb "Iran has "sufficient information" to
build a
bomb".
But first they have to both want to and have 95%+ enriched Uranium (or
a breeder reactor to start out with enriched Uranium & make Plutonium).
Nuclear reactor fuels are enriched to only about 5% and that seems
to be all that Iran is doing *as is their perfect right to do*.
And that is tough enough or it would be *easy*.
Getting from 5% enrichment to 95% is much, much worse.

That also have a perfect right to develop a "missile system."
And any that could carry a decent warhead of high explosive naturally
could lift a nuclear one. Not that it could go any farther.

Idiot wingers buying winger propaganda & lies again.
VERY slow learners. And massively ignorant (and proud of it).
--
Cliff

It isn't about "rights," Cliff. It's about the realities of proliferation.
If Iran has a bomb, the Arab Middle East will freak out. They'll all build
bombs, too. Israel will get trigger-happy along with them. And then it's
just a matter of time before one of them uses it. One big political
change -- say, Islamists taking over Pakistan -- and all bets for the future
of the world are off.

The rights of states end at the point where they threaten another state, and
have the means to carry out that threat. From that point forward, "rights"
have no meaning. It becomes a matter of realpolitik and how much the major
powers of the world want the world to keep spinning on its current axis.

You're aware, no doubt, that the vast number of centrifuges that Iran has
built is most likely aimed at making enough weapons-grade enriched uranium
to build some real bombs. They seem much more interested in building up a
large production capacity than in building the peaceful reactors to use it.

--
Ed Huntress

Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in message
...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the defenses
were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have never denied it.
We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend against
Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles with existing
technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered Russia's
ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on the ability to
launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not the issue. At least,
that's what I gather from Russian-policy people. It was less a defense than
a political chip, which the Obama Administration reads as something that's
actually hampering us in areas where Russia has us blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in message
...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the defenses
were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have never denied
it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend against
Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles with existing
technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered Russia's
ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on the ability to
launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not the issue. At least,
that's what I gather from Russian-policy people. It was less a defense
than a political chip, which the Obama Administration reads as something
that's actually hampering us in areas where Russia has us blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder why Obama
chose to play it now.

Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in
message ...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the
defenses were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have
never denied it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend
against Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles
with existing technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not
against Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these
missiles were directed against Iran, they would be placed where
Obama administration is saying they would place them -- next to
Iran and not between Russia and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable
explanation is that these sites could be used to install missiles
that could hit Russian command centers without giving the Russians
the time to react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles
could be launched from submarines, which could approach Russia from
about same distance as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered
Russia's ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on
the ability to launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not
the issue. At least, that's what I gather from Russian-policy
people. It was less a defense than a political chip, which the Obama
Administration reads as something that's actually hampering us in
areas where Russia has us blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech
republic, and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain
upper hand in the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder
why Obama chose to play it now.

We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to the
levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on the other
hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force structure in
Afghanistan.

We are also able to field a better solution almost immediately from existing
hardware Tom.
The SM3 Block I is already deployed in strength so we'll have a real defense
that actually works targeted against the actual threat sometime in 2011.

--
John R. Carroll

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in message
...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the defenses
were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have never denied
it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend
against Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles with
existing technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered Russia's
ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on the ability
to launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not the issue. At
least, that's what I gather from Russian-policy people. It was less a
defense than a political chip, which the Obama Administration reads as
something that's actually hampering us in areas where Russia has us
blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder why
Obama chose to play it now.

Diplomacy has two faces: the one we see and hear about, and the one we never
do.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in
message ...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the
defenses were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have
never denied it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend
against Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles
with existing technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not
against Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these
missiles were directed against Iran, they would be placed where
Obama administration is saying they would place them -- next to
Iran and not between Russia and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable
explanation is that these sites could be used to install missiles
that could hit Russian command centers without giving the Russians
the time to react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles
could be launched from submarines, which could approach Russia from
about same distance as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered
Russia's ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on
the ability to launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not
the issue. At least, that's what I gather from Russian-policy
people. It was less a defense than a political chip, which the Obama
Administration reads as something that's actually hampering us in
areas where Russia has us blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech
republic, and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain
upper hand in the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder
why Obama chose to play it now.

We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to the
levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on the other
hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force structure in
Afghanistan.

And we need their cooperation with Iran and North Korea.


We are also able to field a better solution almost immediately from
existing
hardware Tom.
The SM3 Block I is already deployed in strength so we'll have a real
defense
that actually works targeted against the actual threat sometime in 2011.

--
John R. Carroll

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:38:18 -0500, Ignoramus16571
wrote:

Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

The scenario is a massive first strike by the USofA on Russia, and the
ABMs (or some more capable installations to be installed later in the
same sites) would be used to "mop up" any few remaining Russian
land-based missiles launched in response*, thus neutralizing the
Russian deterrent. Submarines are presumably being tracked and could
be destroyed in place before they could launch a retaliatory strike in
such a scenario. That capability could allow coercion, obviously, and
could be destablilizing, so in fact it might not be in the interests
of the US because it could trigger a devastating conflict.

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

Well, perhaps that too, though the populations were overwhelmingly
against hosting the foreign bases (yeah, I know about the "fig leaf"
that they were only to be trainers..).

* see, for example, Lieber and Press 2006 in the offical organ of the
CFR, and Yarynich & Starr, and Blair & Yali. This is not whack-job
speculation. This applies pretty much entirely to Russia/US. Unlike
the US/Russia, China has taken an inherently defensive "no first use"
doctrine (no "launch on warning", for example), and plans to retain
enough capability after riding out a first strike to cause
unacceptable damage to the aggressor (in order to prevent blackmail)
rather than to make any attempt at domination.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to
the levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on
the other hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force
structure in Afghanistan.

And we need their cooperation with Iran and North Korea.

Wouldn't hurt but China has about had it with NK and Iran will be the
focus
of whatever is deployed. These are being offered to the Poles and Check's
you know and the Russian's know and approve.

This is actually good news for me Ed.
Those gizmo's you saw a while back are for the Block 2's, which will
initially be a land based system.

Three of the industry's big shots tried and failed to make that design,
and
I don't mean make it work, I mean make it at all.
I'll probably have to fight them off but I'll have history and tested
hardware behind my argument.
Trouble is, they'll have lobbyists in their corner. I can't compete with
that.


--
John R. Carroll

Good luck with it, John. I'm glad when somebody I know makes out from
defense spending. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
The scenario is a massive first strike by the USofA on Russia, and the
ABMs (or some more capable installations to be installed later in the
same sites) would be used to "mop up" any few remaining Russian
land-based missiles launched in response*, thus neutralizing the
Russian deterrent. Submarines are presumably being tracked and could
be destroyed in place before they could launch a retaliatory strike in
such a scenario. That capability could allow coercion, obviously, and
could be destablilizing, so in fact it might not be in the interests
of the US because it could trigger a devastating conflict.

That's at least plausible.

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

Well, perhaps that too, though the populations were overwhelmingly
against hosting the foreign bases (yeah, I know about the "fig leaf"
that they were only to be trainers..).

* see, for example, Lieber and Press 2006 in the offical organ of the
CFR, and Yarynich & Starr, and Blair & Yali. This is not whack-job
speculation.

Could you give me some better references, maybe URLs or something for
this.

This applies pretty much entirely to Russia/US. Unlike
the US/Russia, China has taken an inherently defensive "no first use"
doctrine (no "launch on warning", for example), and plans to retain
enough capability after riding out a first strike to cause
unacceptable damage to the aggressor (in order to prevent blackmail)
rather than to make any attempt at domination.

I know that the Russians have some sort of a "dead man's hand" system,
whereby they could decide to launch their missiles locally, if 1) they
detected nuclear detonations on their territory and 2) could not get a
hold of their command.

i

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:59:22 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus16571" wrote in message
...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.

'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the defenses
were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have never denied
it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend against
Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles with existing
technology.


The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.

My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered Russia's
ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on the ability to
launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not the issue. At least,
that's what I gather from Russian-policy people. It was less a defense
than a political chip, which the Obama Administration reads as something
that's actually hampering us in areas where Russia has us blocked.


I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder why Obama
chose to play it now.

Watch what happens with Iran this fall/early next year. It will
probably be subtle.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to
the levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on
the other hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force
structure in Afghanistan.

And we need their cooperation with Iran and North Korea.

Wouldn't hurt but China has about had it with NK and Iran will be the focus
of whatever is deployed. These are being offered to the Poles and Check's
you know and the Russian's know and approve.

This is actually good news for me Ed.
Those gizmo's you saw a while back are for the Block 2's, which will
initially be a land based system.

Three of the industry's big shots tried and failed to make that design, and
I don't mean make it work, I mean make it at all.
I'll probably have to fight them off but I'll have history and tested
hardware behind my argument.
Trouble is, they'll have lobbyists in their corner. I can't compete with
that.


--
John R. Carroll

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:49:10 -0500, Ignoramus6211
wrote:

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
The scenario is a massive first strike by the USofA on Russia, and the
ABMs (or some more capable installations to be installed later in the
same sites) would be used to "mop up" any few remaining Russian
land-based missiles launched in response*, thus neutralizing the
Russian deterrent. Submarines are presumably being tracked and could
be destroyed in place before they could launch a retaliatory strike in
such a scenario. That capability could allow coercion, obviously, and
could be destablilizing, so in fact it might not be in the interests
of the US because it could trigger a devastating conflict.

That's at least plausible.

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i

Well, perhaps that too, though the populations were overwhelmingly
against hosting the foreign bases (yeah, I know about the "fig leaf"
that they were only to be trainers..).

* see, for example, Lieber and Press 2006 in the offical organ of the
CFR, and Yarynich & Starr, and Blair & Yali. This is not whack-job
speculation.

Could you give me some better references, maybe URLs or something for
this.

Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf


I know that the Russians have some sort of a "dead man's hand" system,
whereby they could decide to launch their missiles locally, if 1) they
detected nuclear detonations on their territory and 2) could not get a
hold of their command.

i

Seems logical to have such a system (with reasonable precautions
against acting on false alarms) and to make sure the other side knows
of it.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Ignoramus16571" wrote in message
...
Something is strange here. All the while the Bush administration was
assuring us, as well as 80% of the population of the Czech republic
that opposed basing missiles there, that "the plan was not directed
against Russia".

But now, the same people who insisted on that, are complaining that
"we surrendered to Russia".

Why would this be a surrender, if Russia was not the object of these
missiles?

That makes no sense.
'Noticed that too, huh? g

Everyone in Europe, Russia, and the US government knows that the defenses
were directed against Russia. The Czechs and the Poles have never denied
it. We did, of course, which made us look ridiculous.

Iran had no such missiles and still doesn't. If you want to defend
against Iran, you defend against short-range to mid-range missiles with
existing technology.

The Russians, however, did not believe the Bush administration and
insisted that the missiles were directed against them and not against
Iran. On some level, it made sense, because if these missiles were
directed against Iran, they would be placed where Obama administration
is saying they would place them -- next to Iran and not between Russia
and Western Europe.

On the other hand, I could not understand what was the specific
incremental threat to the Russians from these missiles, that they
feared, and could not understand that. The most believable explanation
is that these sites could be used to install missiles that could hit
Russian command centers without giving the Russians the time to
react. Even that is not certain, since same missiles could be launched
from submarines, which could approach Russia from about same distance
as those Czech and Polish sites.
My read (which is not very deep, actually) is that it hampered Russia's
ability to coerce its neighbors because coercion depends on the ability
to launch a first strike effectively. Retaliation is not the issue. At
least, that's what I gather from Russian-policy people. It was less a
defense than a political chip, which the Obama Administration reads as
something that's actually hampering us in areas where Russia has us
blocked.

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the desire
of the Bush administration to give extra money to their friends in
defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and Czech republic,
and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians to gain upper hand in
the future negotiations, at a very expensive price.

i
That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress

The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder why
Obama chose to play it now.

Diplomacy has two faces: the one we see and hear about, and the one we never
do.

And with Hillary in charge, the face count is up to 3

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf



Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and
placed it he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

i

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:35:30 -0500, the renowned Ignoramus6211
wrote:

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf



Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and
placed it he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

i

Thanks, i. I subscribe to that journal and forgot that not everyone
can read the full text online.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 2009-09-19, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:35:30 -0500, the renowned Ignoramus6211
wrote:

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf



Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and
placed it he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

i

Thanks, i. I subscribe to that journal and forgot that not everyone
can read the full text online.

Is it worth a subscription? If all articles are of the sort that I
downloaded (insightful) then I am interested, let me know what you
think about it.

i

"Ignoramus6211" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf



Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and
placed it he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

i

Thanks, Ig. Good stuff.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:00:11 -0500, the renowned Ignoramus6211
wrote:

On 2009-09-19, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:35:30 -0500, the renowned Ignoramus6211
wrote:

On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think
this is reprinted from another publication)
http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf



Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and
placed it he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

i

Thanks, i. I subscribe to that journal and forgot that not everyone
can read the full text online.

Is it worth a subscription? If all articles are of the sort that I
downloaded (insightful) then I am interested, let me know what you
think about it.

i

They are generally quite insightful and edited to read in a similar
style (not too dry, at least nominally factual without being boring).
Not all are as provocative, of course, but often the articles do
provoke vigorous discussion. The publication itself is non-partisan
and has no discernable political or ideological bias. I would heartily
recommend it to anyone seriously interested in International Affairs
who wants to understand things from a US-centric point of view. I have
subscribed or bought it at the newstand for more than 20 years.
Subscription cards in the issues say $44 for 6 issues (1 year) in the
US, which is better than the 9.95/issue newstand price.

Online right now you can get it for $32/year or 2 years for $60
($5/issue including postage). Renewals are currently the same as the
online price.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/subscribe?ban=so09cover

Subscribing gives you access to the online archives dating back to the
late 1940s.

It reminds me of the old (pre-1975) Scientific American- difficult
subjects presented clearly in readable bite-size chunks by people who
know their stuff.

The books on Int'l relations which they review OTOH, are a bit more
hit and miss-- some of them are very opaque and only of sufficient
interest to specialists (and tend to be priced accordingly).

The May/June issue has a review essay of a book by Richard Hass. The
review essay is written by Zbigniew Brzezinski!


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:35:30 -0500, Ignoramus6211 wrote:
On 2009-09-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Su
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4991 (I think this
is reprinted from another publication) http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_4.pdf

Very interesting stuff. I bought the Foreign Affairs article and placed it
he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Public_Af...ar_Primacy.pdf

Makes for a easy and interesting reading

It scares me to the bone. All I could think of is "fire raining from the
sky" as in Revelations.

It's a good thing we didn't elect Hillary: "President H. Clinton got
her period today and felt icky, so she decided to blow up the world."

Thanks,
Rich

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:21:01 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the
desire of the Bush administration to give extra money to their
friends in defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and
Czech republic, and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians
to gain upper hand in the future negotiations, at a very
expensive price.

i

That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress


The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder
why Obama chose to play it now.

We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to
the levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on
the other hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force
structure in Afghanistan.

We are also able to field a better solution almost immediately from
existing hardware Tom.
The SM3 Block I is already deployed in strength so we'll have a real
defense that actually works targeted against the actual threat
sometime in 2011.

--
John R. Carroll
========
The one factor that no one wants to mention is summarized in the
folk wisdom "you must cut your cloak to fit your cloth."

Because of the current economic contraction the US now lacks the
required resources, mainly money, but also expertise and domestic
manufacturing infrastructure, to continue this grandiose
effort/gesture, and indeed never did possess the required
resources, other than by "zeroing" all the emergency/contengency
accounts and maxing out the national credit card.

For information on this point see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8256905.stm


Bush wanted his own version of "Star Wars" George. Big, bold - blah blah
blah.
We pulled the plug on that one too.
The reasons were identical - wouldn't work.
The big difference today is that there is something that does work, and Bush
knew it.

Every time someone came up with a new and creative way to fund a Block2
hardware build the administration team would find it out and kill it.
That's right, there actually was a group tasked with this.

In the end, most of the work was done for DARPA, NASA and the Air Force
using Intellectual Property Partnership money.
On a shoestring, IOW.

--
John R. Carroll

It worked. The tests were rigged and were part of the politics.

They expected the missile that was designed to fly into clusters
of ICBMs or a set of MIRVs and explode. A small fragment would
cause destruction of any re-entry body. Called Friction Burns
by the atmosphere.

The first ones were designed to take out hundreds of ICBMs as they
flew through the focus point in outer space. They, the 'nay sayers'
including members in congress (personally witnessed) gave false
witness. The ECO types didn't want the anti-missile missile to
have a low grade nuke for the massive blast it was to deliver.
I witnessed many strike and hit - and those they claimed missing
the targets and failed take the target and explode it across the sky.

We got LIFE magazine and were mad as could be. Political ploy by
the political types. And shameful making us look weak during the
cold war. They were not fooling the Russians, they had trawlers
and subs watching us watch our shots.

The big good was a percentage of disarmament that has not been followed but
ignored by

Martin


John R. Carroll wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:21:01 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

I think that the most likely explanation of the story was the
desire of the Bush administration to give extra money to their
friends in defense industries, and to their friends in Poland and
Czech republic, and to generally annoy and unnerve the Russians
to gain upper hand in the future negotiations, at a very
expensive price.

i
That's probably about it.

--
Ed Huntress

The whole thing was a political "chip" in the game. I just wonder
why Obama chose to play it now.
We don't need the leverage for START for one thing. The Russians have
reduced their fleet of missiles and launch vehicles nearly down to
the levels Obama would be negotiating to achieve already. We do, on
the other hand, need to reduce the cost of supplying our force
structure in Afghanistan.

We are also able to field a better solution almost immediately from
existing hardware Tom.
The SM3 Block I is already deployed in strength so we'll have a real
defense that actually works targeted against the actual threat
sometime in 2011.

--
John R. Carroll
========
The one factor that no one wants to mention is summarized in the
folk wisdom "you must cut your cloak to fit your cloth."

Because of the current economic contraction the US now lacks the
required resources, mainly money, but also expertise and domestic
manufacturing infrastructure, to continue this grandiose
effort/gesture, and indeed never did possess the required
resources, other than by "zeroing" all the emergency/contengency
accounts and maxing out the national credit card.

For information on this point see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8256905.stm


Bush wanted his own version of "Star Wars" George. Big, bold - blah blah
blah.
We pulled the plug on that one too.
The reasons were identical - wouldn't work.
The big difference today is that there is something that does work, and Bush
knew it.

Every time someone came up with a new and creative way to fund a Block2
hardware build the administration team would find it out and kill it.
That's right, there actually was a group tasked with this.

In the end, most of the work was done for DARPA, NASA and the Air Force
using Intellectual Property Partnership money.
On a shoestring, IOW.