[tomder55]

Remember when Carter scrapped the B1 because of shifting priorities ? Thankfully Reagan brought it back on line and it has served us well since 1986 . It was retooled after the Cold War to have conventional capabilities just as most planes get upgraded .

Elliot is right . I think Gates would be happy with UAV being our only air cover .

The F-35 would not do as good a job penetrating advanced air defenses as the Raptor .A study published earlier this year by Air Power Australia (Australia is one of the F-35 partners ) concluded that the Joint Strike Fighter is "demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A, and F-22A."
Aussie air zealot savages prêt-à-porter stealth fighter ? The Register

The F-22 can also fly higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 and all while carrying twice as many air-to-air weapons in stealth mode.

Simularily the President and Gates have been promoting a cheaper and more mobile anti-missile system . They have exposed themselves . They are not concerned about effectiveness at all. They are concerned about how the Ruskies think about permanent installations in Eastern Europe.

[speechlesstx]

If I'm a leader in the Balkans ,Ukraine ,or even Taiwan .I'm having 2nd thoughts about my nations relations with the US. Frankly the NATO folks should be doing the same . Already Merkel led Germany is hedging it's bets.

You'd be right...

Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans - and on Thursday, they expressed dismay at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.

Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. "I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe," he said ruefully, adding: "The way we are being approached needs to change..."

Former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the radar system - and took a lot of heat from Czechs who feared it would make their country a terrorist target - went on Czech radio to vent his frustrations.

"The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before," he said. "It's bad news for the Czech Republic..."

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with the conservative Civic Democratic Party.

And on another note in a perfectly timed report, in a story published today, the same day Obama threw more of our allies under the bus, we find indeed that the morons at the UN know that "Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead."

[paraclete]

FINALLY!!! OBAMA IS MAKING BUDGET CUTS!!!

Of course it's to the military.

During a time of war.

Just at a time when we're worried about the possibility of attacks from Iran, North Korea and China with long-range missiles.

Perhaps cutting a long-range missile defense system was not the best strategic move he could have made right now.

But he's cutting the budget.

Remember what he called Kanye West? If the shoe fits, perhaps Obama should wear it.

Elliot

Hey, chicken little, you worry too much, Obama knows he can't afford to protect two continents. America has overspent its budget and it's time Europe paid for their own defense, they are big enough and have the money. Maybe if they had to pay for their own defense they wouldn't be able to afford outlandish subsidies to farmers. If Europe is really worried about Iran they can put pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear program and if they are worried about Russia they should remember without Europe, Russia is bankrupt.

If Iran attacks the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, if NK or China attack the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, so Obama has made the right decision, cut the cloth and make the suit fit

[tomder55]

Clete .that opinion is not foreign in this country . There are still those... not "chicken littles " but certainly "ostriches with their heads buried in the sand " ,who "parrot" similar "bird droppings" .

The fact is the attitude of retreat from world affairs and hide behind fortress America is a quaint 19th century notion that was discreditted at least twice in the last century . Sure we could leave the Europeans to their own devices ;and in fact I agree with you that they should put up more for their defense ,and less for the nanny states they've built,but in the end we again will be called on to pull them out of the fire.
Also ,we are not talking about the defense of old Western Europe here . We are talking about people who were enslaved by the Ruskies and still live under their shadow. They supported us when we called on them ,and we should do the same. Just like we would with the Aussies .

[tomder55]

the morons at the UN know that "Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead."

So now we find that not only are the Iranians further advanced in developing a nuclear bomb ,but that they have also made progress on miniaturization capable of putting it on a warhead .

The IAEA, the supposed watchdog organization for proliferation ,has been asleep at the wheel the whole tenure of Muhammad al-Baradi . They have been running cover for the Iranians the whole time. Thankfully his term is coming to a close November ,and perhaps (I have a dream) some integrity can come to one of the UN agencies that actually serves a purpose.

Further , AP reported that this information came out in a "secret annexe" to a report on the Iranian nuclear program which convinces me that al-Baradi is complicit in a coverup of their capabilities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ad-iaea-report

John Batchelor observes :

The Obama administration's decision to stand down from strategic defense in Europe is an admission of weakness. Will it also be seen as a resignation from the contest against Tehran's nukes? Yes. Will Tehran back off now that the US has drawn in its talons? No. Is NATO safer because there is no answer to rogue arrows? Let NATO decide. America has gone jaw-jaw. The Twelver regime in Tehran has gone war-war.

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/jb/2009...ssile-program/

[ETWolverine]

hey, chicken little, you worry too much, Obama knows he can't afford to protect two continents.

But every OTHER president mistakenly thought they could? Is that your argument?

The only reason we can't "afford" it is because this President has quadrupled the budget deficit, nearly doubled the national debt and is spending money that doesn't even exist yet. The missile defense system WAS affordable until Obama came to office.

America has overspent its budget

No, OBAMA overspent the budget.

and it's time Europe paid for their own defense, they are big enough and have the money. Maybe if they had to pay for their own defense they wouldn't be able to afford outlandish subsidies to farmers.

You mean the farmers that need subsidies because they are being paid NOT to grow the food that Europe needs to survive? Yeah, I agree, it's stupid to pay farmers NOT to farm. Especially when the food is NEEDED.

If Europe is really worried about Iran they can put pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear program

What are they doing now? Are they telling Iran to go forward with their nuclear program?

and if they are worried about Russia they should remember without Europe, Russia is bankrupt.

And without Russia, Europe has no oil. Europe and Russia are inextricably linked. That's what makes Russia such a dangerous player in the international economic community. The EU can't just simply tell Russia to off without significant economic and industrial consequences to themselves. Your position on this is naïve.

If Iran attacks the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, if NK or China attack the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, so Obama has made the right decision, cut the cloth and make the suit fit

Really?

And what if the target isn't the USA, but rather the EU?

Do you think we should just leave allies to fend for themselves?And once they are done with attacking the EU, do you think that it ends there?

That if the USA is a target, the EU is not, and if the EU is a target, the USA is not?

Iran, NK and China don't have one single target in mind. Their goals are world domination... that is the Communist goal and that is the Islamic Fundamentalist goal. That is part of the ideology of their respective systems. Which means that an attack on one of our allies is an attack on ALL of us.

Which means that the best strategy is a COMBINED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY that includes the USA and its European allies, as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Australia (you didn't think you'd be left out, did you Clete?). Each of these allies watches out for the others. Each has the most highly developed missile detection and defense system available so that they can have the earliest warning available for a combined defensive action. Each ally has a "zone" to cover. Each ally covers its own zone and each relies on the others to cover THEIR zones. THAT is how a successful defense is established.

The concept is the same as the concept of how fire-teams are set up during combat. Each soldier watches his assigned fire-zone. He relies on his teamate to watcch HIS fire-zone. The zones overlap so that there is no break in the defensive line. This is repeated by each fire team (three to a platoon), by each platoon (three to a company) and by each company... all the way up to the Brigade level. Each watches its assigned area and trusts the others to watch their assigned area.

This setup allows for the earliest detection of enemy action, the tightest defense against that enemy action, the best protection of your buddy's flanks so that he can worry about HIS zone and protect YOUR flanks, and relies completely on teamwork.

That is how an effective missile defense system works... everyone knows the area they are supposed to protect and watch, everyone knows that the other guy is going to do HIS job.

The mobile missile defense sysytem that Obama is proposing is idiotic. Because it is mobile it has several inherent disadvantages.

1) It is shorter ranged than the system that Obama is denying to the Pols and Chech, which means it has a less effective warning radius.

2) It is MOBILE, which means that our allies will never know where it is, which means that they cannot trust us to be in the proper position to protect their flanks while they cover their zone which protects OUR flanks.

3) The system is less effective at actually stopping missiles. The tracking systems are less effective. The anti-missile missiles themselves are shorter ranged, slower, and less able to track on an incoming missile.

In short, what Obama has planned isn't just something that hurts Europe. It hurts us as well, because we need the support Europe provides in order to an effective missile defense system to work to protect us. Cutting off Europe in order to save a few bucks is penny wise and pound foolish. He's cutting spending in EXACTLY the wrong place.

Elliot

[excon]

No, OBAMA overspent the budget....

In short, what Obama has planned isn't just something that hurts Europe. It hurts us as well, because we need the support Europe provides in order to an effective missile defense system to work to protect us. Cutting off Europe in order to save a few bucks is penny wise and pound foolish. He's cutting spending in EXACTLY the wrong place.

Hello clete:

THIS, brought to you by the same people who sponsored our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... Need I say more?

Probably not, but I will.

Anyone who WRONGLY classifies our economic woes as an OBAMA phenomenon, and excuses the excess's and horrific deficit spending of the previous administration, is NOT a person to be believed on ANY subject.

excon

[paraclete]

Clete .that opinion is not foreign in this country . There are still those ....not "chicken littles " but certainly "ostriches with their heads buried in the sand " ,who "parrot" simular "bird droppings" .

The fact is the attitude of retreat from world affairs and hide behind fortress America is a quaint 19th century notion that was discredited at least twice in the last century . Sure we could leave the Europeans to their own devices ;and in fact I agree with you that they should put up more for their defense ,and less for the nanny states they've built,but in the end we again will be called on to pull them out of the fire.
Also ,we are not talking about the defense of old Western Europe here . We are talking about people who were enslaved by the Ruskies and still live under their shadow. They supported us when we called on them ,and we should do the same. Just like we would with the Aussies .

Hey Tom I'm not against support, but Europe, and those new members of the EC are included, is an industrial powerhouse and quite capable of looking after themselves without American help. It is not for nothing they have the same sort of illegal alien problem as the US does. How did the poles and the chec's support the US, by sending a few troops to Iraq? The whole world knows the way to butter up the US is give token support to one of their little escapades. I expect we will be asked to invade Somalia next

[tomder55]

It isn't just about Poland . It's about our commitment . These handful of missiles were never going to be a threat to Ivan . But they represented a tripwire signalling our support for their democracies. They ;and all the former Soviet conquered states have now been effectively Finlandized.

What were the Ruskie concessions for this move ? Nada.. in fact we have been greeted with an escalation of Ruskie military muscle in our hemisphere instead. Chavez met with Dmitry Medvedev to complete their military pact.

Medvedev promised to keep on supplying weapons and military equipment to Venezuela. The technical-military cooperation is an important component in our relations; we do not hide it," the Russian president said, DPA quoted.

"Of course we will provide them with arms. Why not? We have good tanks and if our friends ask for them, we will give them," he added.

Chávez, Medvedev sign military and oil cooperation agreements - Daily News - EL UNIVERSAL

The Ruskies stick by their allies so good luck to our naiive President who thinks he can garner help from them with Iran.

And since we are going soft ,the Western Europeans are also hedging their bets.

One day after Washington scrapped a missile defense plan for Europe which Russia opposed, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Russia and the Western defense alliance should conduct a joint review of the security challenges they face.

"I would like Russia and NATO to agree to carry out a joint review of the new 21st century security challenges, to serve as a firm basis for our future cooperation," Rasmussen said in a speech in Brussels.

NATO wants to work with Russia on missile defense | Reuters

Add to that the German-Russian pact that Germany's Merkel and Putin began after our President's extremely clumsy summit in Moscow (Merkel called their hasty meeting immediately after our President's embarrassing performance the "Repair Summit." ),their meeting in Poland at the anniversary of WWII (oh the irony) which concluded in an deal signed last month ( the part that made the news was the Opal purchase by Germany using Russian money ).

These events show that with a weak POTUS ,Europe is more willing to cut ties with the US out of necessity. But ;unlike what you claim... they are hardly going to go it alone.
As Elliot pointed out they are dependent on Russian energy supplies ,and since we have show fecklessness in our commitments ;they may as well make their own deal with Moscow.

[paraclete]

So we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

[speechlesstx]

[tomder55]

so we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

yes we are back to MAD . The problem with it this time however is the people about to get their hands on nukes do not value life on earth as much as we do so the deterent value of MAD is diminished.

Look ; it is an almost certainty that Iran will get their nukes because the nations of the earth that could prevent it have lost their backbones and a significant percentage of their testosterone. That means there will be proliferation of nukes in the most volatile region of the earth . Does anyone really think the Islamic Bomb will end with Iran getting it ?

There needs to be a defense against them beyond the idea that they fear massivie retaliation.

[ETWolverine]

Hello clete:

THIS, brought to you by the same people who sponsored our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... Need I say more?

Probably not, but I will.

Anyone who WRONGLY classifies our economic woes as an OBAMA phenomenon, and excuses the excess's and horrific deficit spending of the previous administration, is NOT a person to be believed on ANY subject.

excon

Anyone who can excuse QUINTUPLING the budget deficit, DOUBLING the national debt, increasing taxes during a recession, and bringing real unemployment to 16.8% despite promissing that it would never rise above 8%, all within 9 months, by blaming it on the prior Republican administration who's worst mistake was allowing itself to go along with the DEMOCRAT economic agenda that a majority of Democrats made into law, has no credibility on any subject.

[ETWolverine]

so we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

Problem with MAD, clete, is that BOTH sides have to fear nuclear annihilation for it to work as a nuclear deterrent.

Ahmadinejad DOESN'T fear annihilation. He doesn't care if the peons in his country die by the millions. He KNOWS he's following the will of god, and that if it comes down to brass tacks, HE'LL be in a bunker somewhere well protected while the people of his country are killed quickly in a nuclear fireball or die slowly from radiation poisoning. And if worse comes to worse, he'll have died a martyr.

In other words, he has no fear of annihilation. Therefore, the threat of mutually assured destruction is no threat at all.

That's why it is so dangerous for a guy like Ahmadinejad to get nukes.

And please don't tell me that the Mullahs won't let such a nuclear war happen. They're the ones who rigged the most recent ellection to make sure that Ahmadinejad stayed in office. They WANT a nuclear incident.

And please don't try to argue that the people of Iran won't let it happen. Without the US support that was denied them by Obama, they have no power to affect anything in their country... they couldn't even keep the election honest.

So you have a potentially suicidal religious kook trying to get nukes, supported by a bunch of religious kooks with a similar agenda with military backing, with nobody either capable or willing to oppose them, who want to start a nuclear war with Israel and the USA. And they don't mind dying, as long as they get the first strike in.

MAD won't work.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

... who want to start a nuclear war with Israel and the USA.

Just Israel, what does the US have to do with it?

[paraclete]

Does anyone really think the Islamic Bomb will end with Iran getting it ?

There needs to be a defense against them beyond the idea that they fear massive retaliation.

In case you missed it, Tom, the Islamic bomb has been a reality for years now. It hasn't resulted in a war between two nuclear powers on the sub-continent, in fact, MAD could be said to have worked once again. However, the US has nothing to fear from Iran even if they have the bomb. Israel on the other hand does, and all of this is about Israeli fears, not a real threat to the US

[ETWolverine]

Just Israel, what does the US have to do with it?

NK,

Israel is the LITTLE Satan in Islamic Fundamentalist thinking. The USA is the GREAT Satan. WE... the USA... are the real target. Israel is just more convenient and easier to reach with their current missile technology.

Unless, of course, they DO manage to get the long-range missile capability and the nuclear capability they really want. Then that anti-missile defense system that Obama has now scrapped would become MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to our national defense, wouldn't it?

Elliot

[excon]

Then that anti-missile defense system that Obama has now scrapped would become MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to our national defense, wouldn't it?

Hello again, El:

Only if it works - but it don't.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Why do they hate you so much? Is it your freedoms?

[ETWolverine]

In case you missed it, Tom, the Islamic bomb has been a reality for years now. It hasn't resulted in a war between two nuclear powers on the sub-continent, in fact, MAD could be said to have worked once again. However, the US has nothing to fear from Iran even if they have the bomb. Israel on the other hand does, and all of this is about Israeli fears, not a real threat to the US

Ridiculous.

First of all, if Iran gets nukes, those nukes WILL proliferate. They will be obtained by terrorists who will use them on their enemies... Israel and the USA and the EU. Nobody doubts that fact. Even Obama doesn't deny it. He just thinks he has the ability to control Iran with his magical speeches and kind words. Obama doesn't realize that he isn't quite as dazzling a speaker as he thinks he is and isn't quite as messianic as he believes. He truly thinks that he has powers beyond those of mortal men and can stop Ahmadinejad from getting nukes by talking to him. But even he doesn't doubt the consequences if he fails... he just doesn't believe he can fail.

Second, even if Iran doesn't give nukes to terrorists, that won't stop them from using them themselves via their own agents.

Third, Israel would not be Iran's only target. Turkey is a secularist nation that Iran believes ought to be Islamist... they would have no problem taking out Turkey with nukes in order to "consecrate it to Allah". Ditto for Saudi Arabia. The Mullahs have a particular mad-on against the House of Saud. Then there's various parts of the EU... Georgia would be a nice target since they are fighting against the Chechnyans, their fellow Islamist-Fascists-in-Arms.

In short, it ain't just about Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel is an ally. Even if it was just about Israel, that SHOULD be enough of a reason to keep it from happening... that's what alliances are about. You protect your allies and they protect you.

Elliot