Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

U.S. suspends missile defense shield plans


questionmark

Recommended Posts

(CNN) -- The United States has suspended Bush-administration plans for a missile defense shield in Poland, the Polish Ministry of Defense said Thursday, a move likely to appease Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the Polish Ministry of Defense spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.

A spokeswoman at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, however, said the decision had not been finalized.

"At this point, the review (of the decision) is still ongoing," said Jeanne Brigante, the embassy's press attache. "We don't have an announcement of a decision yet.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Well, what is it...lack of funds or the realization that it is near to impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MARAB0D

    7

  • acidhead

    6

  • Lt_Ripley

    4

  • CurlyQLink

    3

Top Posters In This Topic

Finally. some common sense. A massively expensive geopolitical toy we never could afford, and which wouldn't have worked anyway -- even if it did have a mission to begin with, which it didn't -- other than an attempt by Rumsfeld and Cheney and other neocons to restart the cold war for some inexplicable reason of their own ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally. some common sense. A massively expensive geopolitical toy we never could afford, and which wouldn't have worked anyway -- even if it did have a mission to begin with, which it didn't -- other than an attempt by Rumsfeld and Cheney and other neocons to restart the cold war for some inexplicable reason of their own ....

agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what is it...lack of funds or the realization that it is near to impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet?

It’s no secret they can do some seemingly impossible things this day and time. Cost of European Missile Shield – 4 billion dollars, cost of keeping good relations with Russia to add more pressure on Iran over its nuclear program – priceless (and at a savings of 4 billion dollars).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is in America's back pocket.... sister countries.... always have been.... give back your guns and accept whatever the Feds tell you... for your safety of your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we or the US should go a step further, not only should the USA give up on the shield but also decommission its nuclear weapons, along with every other nuclear nation, then we can all live in a nuclear free world. lets hear it, Hip Hip Hooray. Hip Hip Hooray. lets face it the soon this happens the sooner we can go back to having good old fashioned world wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just one question for the Messiah: Why? The Russians have already said they're not going to help with Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just one question for the Messiah: Why? The Russians have already said they're not going to help with Iran.

its all about change don't you know. what that change is no-one knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I never understood why Russia constantly felt "threatened" by our missile shield. Patriot Missile systems are purely defensive, designed to shoot down ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles). While they can be calibrated to be used as a general anti-air defense, they have no capability of attacking ground targets...at the very least, they are not designed for the task, and would be a poor choice for such. They could in no way be used offensively in any effective way against Russia.

It just seems they felt psychologically threatened, if anything it was paranoia. On top of that they responded by threatening to deploy actual ICBM systems on their borders, which CAN be used offensively, as they are specifically designed for that. So if anything Russia was being the more threatening nation in that regard. In addition the Polish government wanted it, so I dunno why people were complaining.

Though that's just my critique of the logic of the Russian government and by extant many conspiracy theorists. Overall I think it's a waste of money. We should be focusing our money on America and only America, not to protect other nations. We're spreading ourselves too thin.

In this sense I think it's good that we're suspending it, and I do hope we cancel it all together.

Russia was ticked off over the missle shield because it could also be used to shoot down there ICBM in case of a nuclear war. It was kinda like putting a bubble around Russia.

I to think this was a good call on Obama's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, he wants to change America back to the way it was during Carter's years. Or worse.

yes worse.. the Reagan years ! who made bin laden ! and sold weapons all over the world that are now pointed at us ! Or under whom chemical weapons were sold to Saddam as well as jets , bombs , ect ... he was Reagans and Rumsfelds buddy ! Don't forget those nuclear parts sold to Iran under Reagan !!

good times !!

Ronald Reagan understood that the far right wing doesn't always want to be satisfied. He understood that he could give them some things, but not everything. They don't want to be satisfied. They want to raise money on their discontent."

- Ken Duberstein, Former Ronald Reagan Chief of Staff

or he could leave it the way it was in ruin under Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all nukes and missiles should be scrapped.

and how to really over come differences ?

AAAAArutTOEAAAAAAHJaDA.jpg

I vaguely remember Saddam challenging Bush to a one on one and Bush nervously laughed it off.

I would have paid to see that .

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All it does is restart the arms race -- if the Russians feel threatened enough about a new missile system with better technology, they'll start developing even better, more destructive systems to counter it and beat it. When the new generation of antimissile defence missiles come on line, the other side will up the ante and develop an even more aggressive defense system, and then the circle continues.

Maybe if missile defense gets good enough, someone will decide biological warfare is the way to go, or computer warfare, or whatever ...

The Poland-based system would have just done more to destabalize the world.

Edited by IronGhost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'there is nothing to fear except fear itself'

There is nothing to fear but global thermonuclear war which will end all life on the planet because some neocons and greedy defense contractors want to make money in and endless cycle of building weapons systems and counter weapons systems -- until we all fry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes worse.. the Reagan years ! who made bin laden ! and sold weapons all over the world that are now pointed at us ! Or under whom chemical weapons were sold to Saddam as well as jets , bombs , ect ... he was Reagans and Rumsfelds buddy ! Don't forget those nuclear parts sold to Iran under Reagan !!

good times !!

Please, Ripley, take it to the Conspiracy section. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defensive weapons are not less dangerous for the power balance than offensive weapons. They do not allow the other side to use their offensive weapons, and thus the side which has them gets an advantage. The first "world war" we know, the war of more than 20 countries in two camps, was Peloponnese War - and it started because of one country, installing a defensive system. As soon as Athens erected the long walls, connecting their city to the port Pyraeus and occurred to be ready to man their ships at short notice and in any circumstances, even if the city was under siege from the land, Sparta was forced to attack, as otherwise Athens became capable to block Sparta's coast and ports, using their naval superiority.

We did not have a major nuclear war only because of the balance of forces between USA and Russia. Their nuclear parity continues to maintain peace on the planet, so no one dares to go farther than local conflicts. Now they both naturally lose their nuclear capabilities as they are unable to replace the aging stock of the available missiles, the skills required to build them have been lost, as the old generation of scientists and engineers retired but the new one was a product of modern educational system and cannot do this job in either country. Neither do they have finance available, as before nuclear weapons were the main national project for both. As a result USA tried to cheat and create superiority for its own deteriorating ICBMs by installing the interceptors, capable to prevent Russia's retaliating strike in case if US finds the moment for first strike; naturally Russia was p***ed off and threatened to wipe off the countries housing such installation. Now US considered the threat of possible response and backed off. Naturally US cannot expect some further friendly moves from Russia in exchange for them dropping the threat of NMD system, as what Russia achieved was not a progress in relationships, but simply removal of the factor, threatening to the balance of force. US started it on its own - and finished it on its own. Iran has nothing to do with this as they do not have a single nuclear warhead and a single ICBM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight.

The People: "The economy is in the crapper! What the hell Obama?!"

Obama: "Well, here's a 4 billion dollar expense that the last administration thought up that demonstrably wouldn't serve it's purpose and would only worsen global opinion of America and continue to be a money sink and tax payer burden. Let's chop that."

The People: "Oh my god NOO! BOOOOO!"

Unbelievable.

Please, Ripley, take it to the Conspiracy section. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Actually, she's correct. Reagan did help proliferate arms to our current enemies and sold nuclear production material to Iran, arms to Iraq, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally. some common sense. A massively expensive geopolitical toy we never could afford, and which wouldn't have worked anyway -- even if it did have a mission to begin with, which it didn't -- other than an attempt by Rumsfeld and Cheney and other neocons to restart the cold war for some inexplicable reason of their own ....

Well said it would take years to get this project done and we really don't know if it would work. I also think its important that we get a system up and running asap, since Iran will soon have nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What she says and many, many other people say is, in fact, true.

However I, personally, don't think it's enough to demonize Reagan. I think it's flawed logic. Reagan never gave those people weapons with the intent of them being used against us, no, he gave them the weapons to help them fight a common enemy that we both shared. There's no way he could have known later on they'd be used against us. Why? Well the logic used by the Taliban is...not logic. In a sense they bit the hand that fed them...with the food we gave them.

In essence this just makes our current enemies more wrong and hypocritical considering we literally helped them in the past. I don't know why people commonly use these points to demonize us and not further demonize them since the latter is more logical.

Might as well call Karl Marx an evil murderer for all the atrocities the Soviet Union committed despite never condoning such (Not that I respect the man or agree with his political ideologies, but he honestly never condoned those atrocities, that's pretty much a fact that I won't deny.)

the Taliban was never our friend but the lesser of 2 evils.It was about the transfer of oil. We funded and trained bin laden and the taliban/al queada who were all about holy war and not having infidels ( Russians ) on holy land ( infidels being anyone who isn't muslim) and then we wonder why we got bit when our foreign policy goes exactly what they were fighting against ! you can't be mad that the mad dog you were feeding bites you when you knew it was mad to begin with.

As was Saddam. We helped put Saddam in power and didn't mess with him as long as oil was cheap and he kept Iran busy. We didn't care he killed x amount of kurds really. heck we sold him the weapons to do so. It's only when he became a pest and didn't like our foreign self serving policy anymore and wanted to start trading Euros instead of Dollars for oil as is the tradition. Means gobs of money lost for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all nukes and missiles should be scrapped.

and how to really over come differences ?

AAAAArutTOEAAAAAAHJaDA.jpg

I vaguely remember Saddam challenging Bush to a one on one and Bush nervously laughed it off.

I would have paid to see that .

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE !

you mean more like Rocky versus Draco from ROCKY IV right? now that was a fight!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem-Reaction-Solution

Republicans?Public taxpayer?Democrats

Its the same system double-tonguing the taxpayer... the two-headed snake bites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, Ripley, take it to the Conspiracy section. You're just embarrassing yourself.

:blink:

The only one being embarrassed is you by your lack of understanding of recent history; all claims that were made can be verified with your best friend Google; the only caveat being that you have to be willing to believe that Reagan was not a perfect saint of a president who fixed the world...for some folks that is too much to ask though, they just can't see old Ronny any other way.

No one in this government gets out clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad it got scrapped

Edited by momentarylapseofreason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

The only one being embarrassed is you by your lack of understanding of recent history; all claims that were made can be verified with your best friend Google; the only caveat being that you have to be willing to believe that Reagan was not a perfect saint of a president who fixed the world...for some folks that is too much to ask though, they just can't see old Ronny any other way.

No one in this government gets out clean.

both parties are one and the same... i agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.