http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_el_pr/obama_missile_defense;_ylt=Au15Z_fKCuOpEBsHdOt2e7CyFz4D

ok maybe not the one thing but...
if he pussies out on this i will not like him

11/8/2008 1:21:53 PM

He's not even president yet. Bush needs to be dealing with this shit right now and I think Obama realizes that.

11/8/2008 2:09:37 PM

Quote :

"He's not even president yet. Bush needs to be dealing with this shit right now and I think Obama realizes that."

wtf are you talking about? Are you just stupid? I don't want to flame you, but come on.

....

To the OP

I don't think he will back out of the agreement, it would harm our relations with all of Eastern Europe, and a good chunk of Western Europe, and all most of of the old soviet bloc countries in central Asia.

Notice the Polish President said Obama told him the project would continue. Obama would have to listen to extreme doves to back out of it.

11/8/2008 2:49:59 PM

We don't need missiles in Poland to shoot down USSR missiles.

11/8/2008 2:52:31 PM

Quote :

"wtf are you talking about? Are you just stupid? I don't want to flame you, but come on."

dnl was worried that Obama might "pussy out" on the issue.

I was offering an explanation as to why Obama wasn't committing to anything... because he isn't president yet, and perhaps he realizes that the president-elect throwing out plans on this could interfere with diplomatic relations that the current administration should be working on, especially with regards to Russia.

11/8/2008 3:20:40 PM

The US economy is doing terrible, we don't need to be wasting money in Poland or Iraq. If they want our missiles why couldn't we just sell them instead of giving them away. Most Europeans hate the US (or don't now but will again when they find out Obama isn't what the media portrays him to be) so why waste money protecting people who hate you especially when the economy is bad?

11/8/2008 6:49:26 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_el_pr/obama_world_leaders


i bet he done told russia like "hey you chill out and we wont put the interceptor missiles there"

11/8/2008 8:46:53 PM

Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems.

11/8/2008 9:13:26 PM

better than the shoot-first-ask-questions-later policies of the last 8 years

11/9/2008 2:14:28 AM

As far as I can tell we should definitely back out of the Polish missile defense system. I haven't heard a good argument for it yet.

The trick is doing it without it the narrative becoming: the Russians made us do it.

I heard John McLaughlin suggest that we leave it up to Polish referendum, a referendum we know will fail. That way we can back out and save face.

11/9/2008 2:21:17 AM

Quote :

"the one thing that will make me turn on obama "

stfu. you were gonna vote for mccain on every odd-numbered day.

you've never had any credibility so go "turn on" whoever you want. no one will care.

11/9/2008 3:11:03 AM

^^^seriously


^get the fuck out, you fucking troll

11/9/2008 3:12:37 AM

11/9/2008 3:38:16 AM

^^are you saying that diplomacy is the answer? doesn't saying that contradict the idea of getting missile defense into poland?

11/9/2008 12:21:22 PM

Quote :

"Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems."

Quote :

"Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems."

Quote :

"Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems."

Quote :

"Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems."

Quote :

"Obama thinks all he has to do is sit down and chat over a cup of coffee to solve these types of problems."

11/9/2008 1:41:33 PM

It just says no commitment. My guess is he'll either pick USC or Notre Dame.

11/9/2008 1:46:20 PM

^^

it's at least worth A FUCKING SHOT

jesus

11/9/2008 1:58:50 PM

YOU DONT THINK THATS ALREADY BEEN TRIED AN MMMMBIO TIMES???


jesus, get out of your shell


BTW, Reagan was one the highest approved presidents in our history, and he stood up to the USSR.

not with tea cups , but with diplomacy and threats

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 2:03:06 PM

yeah, we're not dealing with the USSR, thank you

and no, it hasn't been tried a "whatever you said" times

and I don't even want to get into the fact that reagan almost got us killed because of his cowboy diplomacy

but, whatever

obama will be a MUCH better president than Bush

he's more capable and has a lot more respect from the international community

11/9/2008 4:07:42 PM

So a missile defense system would remove the whole mutually-assured destruction aspect of the international nuclear threat, right?

Spear and shield, biatch. What.

11/9/2008 4:17:39 PM

I have yet to see any civilized eye to eye discussion with the Russians. Its always been a game of poker with them and so far we've succeeded in calling their bluff.

All i know is that obama has the floor now. If he can get break down a different wall with the communist, then so be it. It would be nice to make friends instead of enemies for a change. That goes for China too.

^ in truth we already have the capability to defend ourselves, putting missles in poland is tantamount to a threat imo.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 4:23:47 PM

Quote :

"So a missile defense system would remove the whole mutually-assured destruction aspect of the international nuclear threat, right? "

a real useful missile defense system is near impossible

look at the statistics for sucessful shoot downs and then think about how many missiles a full salvo will have

the only real use of a system like this is to

a) potentially take out the threat from rouge states... but even this is a pretty unbelievable from a non-retarded advisary

b) intemidate other states (read Russia or China)

Quote :

"in truth we already have the capability to defend ourselves, putting missles in poland is tantamount to a threat imo."

from a seriously nuclear attack from Russia or even China?

no we don't, not even close

fuck, if one of the rouge states put a lot of time and effort into it they could probably take out a city or two before a response from us

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 4:31:21 PM

Yeah but you gotta admit two or three bombs getting through on our side isn't going to affect our capability to deliver our bombs. We still have better ballistics and we can mitigate the damage on our side. China and Russia cant.

11/9/2008 4:34:30 PM

two or three?

are you high?

do you have any idea how many weapons russia has?

a 50% knock down rate (and that's a HIGH estimate, i'm sure) isn't really enough against hundreds if not thousands of weapons)

it was called MAD for a reason

11/9/2008 4:36:00 PM

The strategy involve is to target launch site primarily. consider this first nastoute

11/9/2008 4:37:59 PM

whos strategy?

what strategy?

any serious nuclear attack is going to involve all compents of a oppenents infrastructure

this is why nuclear war sucks... it's not enough to take out "launch site"s or whatever

you attack everyting and anything of strategic value

I believe I saw one retarded USSR plan that put 50 weapons on DC alone

because they had that many and they wanted to be sure to get the job done

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 4:40:25 PM

but still i'll concede on the mutual destruction part. In no way am i'm trying to validate nuclear war. My whole point was to just say that interceptors in poland are more of a threat than a safeguard, i mean we are talking about mutual destruction here.

11/9/2008 4:41:47 PM

well

yeah

interceptors in poland ARE more of a threat than a safeguard

so... ok

...

ah, but the point I was arguing was

Quote :

"in truth we already have the capability to defend ourselves"

which is a ridiculous claim

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 4:42:40 PM

yes, ridiculous that we woudn't fuck ourselves too. yea sure.

but not ridiculous in that we couldn't totally decimate our oppenent first.

11/9/2008 4:46:23 PM

despite what the current administration wants the world to think

the united states will not commit a nuclear first strike

WILL NOT HAPPEN

so this

Quote :

"but not ridiculous in that we couldn't totally decimate our oppenent first. "

is right out

11/9/2008 4:47:41 PM

Quote :

"the united states will not commit a nuclear first strike"

After japan, I think its pretty much known to the rest of the world that these are not toys to be messed with. Thats why I think its important for someone like obama to go out there with his talented preacher's voice (as much as I concede I would have like mccain better) to talk things out. We obviously have more capability than Russia. We beat them in the first Cold War, we'll probably beat them in the second. But the point is that even with having the bigger stick we should find it within ourselves to pursue the peaceful path first, and pushing Russia to put its back against a wall with new interceptor launch sites is not the right step.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 5:02:19 PM

^Agreed. Winning a second Cold War would be vastly inferior to making sure a second Cold War doesn't happen at all.

11/9/2008 5:06:07 PM

For some reason, every time I see this thread title I read it as dnl saying, "the one thing that will make me turn on Obama." It's profoundly disturbing.

---

I have no opposition to telling Russia where to stick its complaints, but I'm having trouble seeing what this missile shield really gets us. Certainly not any safer from nuclear attacks -- even from nuclear missiles. Russia has nuclear submarines, too, even if they're better at sinking them in horrible accidents than they probably are at hiding them. A missile defense system in Poland is great if the nukes are coming on missiles and the missiles are coming from Russia. Not so much if they're coming from the middle of the Atlantic.

So it doesn't get us anything except a pain in our ass, but pulling out of Poland because of Russian pressure presents the possibility of an even bigger pain in the ass: a foreign policy retreat similar to what the Cuban missile crisis was for the Soviets. Possibly even worse in the long run: if we back down when the stakes are relatively low, what will the expect us to do in a more serious crisis?

So kwsmith2's idea seems like the winning ticket to me so far:

Quote :

"I heard John McLaughlin suggest that we leave it up to Polish referendum, a referendum we know will fail. That way we can back out and save face."

We get to walk away publicly disappointed with the Poles, still defiant of Putin's threats, and still confident in our technology (or at least, no less confident).

11/10/2008 1:21:41 AM

What you should know about missile defense:

1) It does not work.

2) It does not work.

3) It does not work.

4) It does not work.

5) See the above 4.

This is Russia posturing for the sake of posturing and from a pure national interest point of view, this is quite possibly the easiest thing for Obama to negotiate away. We know our missile defense doesnt work, the Russians know our missile defense doesn't work, and we both can be happy by 'negotiating' its non deployment.

Its typical brain dead neocon calculus to think that a missile defense shield, which actually is defeated for a fraction of the cost by adding more missiles, would actually make our country safer.

11/10/2008 4:42:22 AM

The purpose of missile defense is for negotiational purposes. Afterall, it worked quite well for Reagan.

As such, it does not matter whether it works or not. The Russians fear it, I have no idea why, but it gives us some leverage where previously no leverage existed. It is expensive, as things pertaining to foreign affairs tend to be.

11/10/2008 11:58:05 AM

I thinks its incredulous that we can't feed, house, educate or provide healthcare to our own people, yet we always have money for stupid bullshit like this.

11/10/2008 12:06:08 PM

Missile Defense does "work." Though I guess it just depends on your definition. Is it 100% effective? Not even close. But even if you obtain a 25% success rate, that is pretty darn high when you consider what you are shooting down.

The Russian's aren't our friends, I wish they were. They don't want to be our friends. It is to the advantage of those in power in Russia to make us their enemy, no matter what we do. Nothing will change this. Backing down would send the wrong message, and hurt our relations in the former soviet-bloc. Russia has been moving against our interest since the late 90's, even when we were still "friends."

11/10/2008 12:09:27 PM

Well if Europe doesn't think its such a great priority, why do we?

11/10/2008 12:17:08 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of missile defense is for negotiational purposes. Afterall, it worked quite well for Reagan. As such, it does not matter whether it works or not. The Russians fear it, I have no idea why, but it gives us some leverage where previously no leverage existed. It is expensive, as things pertaining to foreign affairs tend to be. "

Reagan actually believed the system worked but he wanted it deployed not because he thought it would make the Soviet Union cave, but because he seriously loathed nuclear weapons and feared what they might cause.

Its actually interesting, because Reagan was on the verge of signing away ALL American nuclear weapons in exchange for the Russians doing the same, and that deal fell apart because he absolutely would not give up on missile defense. In fact, the Russians almost walked way from disarmament completely until Gorbachev realized that Reagan wanted missile defense not for first strike, but because he genuinely believed in reducing the nuclear threat. That, and the fact that Russian planners realized the missile defense was easy to defeat, and in fact, did so with the deployment of Topol - M missiles which carry decoys.

Decoys for a system that already has a stellar <10% success rate (as of 2001, not 1985, mind you).

Quote :

"Missile Defense does "work." Though I guess it just depends on your definition. Is it 100% effective? Not even close. But even if you obtain a 25% success rate, that is pretty darn high when you consider what you are shooting down. "

25% of 5200 warheads (not counting MIRV) = the United States is still reduced to a arid wasteland. Learn math before making super basic assertions.

11/10/2008 12:17:51 PM

Quote :

"obama will be a MUCH better president than Bush"

this isn't a strike against Obama by any means BUT that isn't saying anything at all.

11/10/2008 12:27:33 PM

yeah, I know

11/10/2008 12:31:15 PM

(Drudge)

EXCLUSIVE: Agenda disappears from Obama Web site

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/11/exclusive-obama-deletes-agenda-from-transition-web/

Quote :

"Over the weekend President-elect Barack Obama scrubbed Change.gov, his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda copied directly from his campaign Web site. Gone are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 different agenda items - everything from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy - all items laid out on his campaign Web site, http://www.BarackObama.com."

Already changing stance on items? Does "retooling" the website mean coming up with new stances now that he is president elect? Maybe he realized he talked to much? Sounds a bit iffy...

11/10/2008 12:47:43 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of missile defense is for negotiational purposes. Afterall, it worked quite well for Reagan. "

It did work fine for Reagan, and I agree that it has generally been a bargaining chip, but the situation has changed quite a bit since then. Russia and the United States are no longer in a bipolar adversarial relationship. Furthermore, our superior military technology and power is no longer in serious question, because we have a much more accurate idea of Russian capabilities. Right up until the end of the Cold War, intelligence was dramatically inflating Soviet military strength.

If the shield is just for leverage, what exactly are we using that leverage for? Reagan had a pretty clear-cut goal: make the Soviet Union spend itself into the poor house. I don't see any similar purpose for us. Meanwhile, it's pissing off a lot of people. And let's not forget, Russia has had almost two decades to look back on the end of the Cold War. It would be wishful thinking to assume that they will respond the same way to stimuli first applied in the 80's.

So OK, it's a bargaining chip. An incredibly expensive bargaining chip that we don't know what to spend on and which is pissing off pretty much everybody.

Quote :

"Well if Europe doesn't think its such a great priority, why do we?"

Western Europe has this tendency to think like South Korea, which is to say, they assume that everything will be fine if they invite the bully next door to come play with them.

11/10/2008 12:56:01 PM

Wow christ do you guys not read history at all?

Quote :

"It did work fine for Reagan, and I agree that it has generally been a bargaining chip, but the situation has changed quite a bit since then. Russia and the United States are no longer in a bipolar adversarial relationship. Furthermore, our superior military technology and power is no longer in serious question, because we have a much more accurate idea of Russian capabilities. Right up until the end of the Cold War, intelligence was dramatically inflating Soviet military strength. "

No, dude. The soviet union was prepared to destroy all nuclear weapons if the United States had done the same. Reagan almost agreed, but demanded that the missile shield go forward. Gorbachav balked, and the rest is history: disarmament but nowhere near at the level it was about to be.

By the way, its not cold war intelligence that was inflating Russian strength. NIE's downplayed soviet might, but conservatives completely disagreed and formed a separate commission known as Team B to discredit CIA analysts and come up with alternate findings. Findings now thoroughly discredited and based not on fact, but assumption.

Quote :

" If the shield is just for leverage "

Absolutely not, see above. Reagan would not budge on the defense shield even while willing to completely dismantle the US nuclear arsenal.

Quote :

" what exactly are we using that leverage for? Reagan had a pretty clear-cut goal: make the Soviet Union spend itself into the poor house. I don't see any similar purpose for us. Meanwhile, it's pissing off a lot of people. And let's not forget, Russia has had almost two decades to look back on the end of the Cold War. It would be wishful thinking to assume that they will respond the same way to stimuli first applied in the 80's. "

Also incorrect. Containment as a strategy was absolutely loathed by conservatives who believed that the only way to destroy the soviet union was, and here's a shocker, by winning a nuclear war. None of Reagan's advisors believed the Soviet Union was about to collapse, in fact, the entire duration of his first time, they believed the Soviet Union was actively trying to lull the United States into a state of false security while building up their own forces.

Furthermore, we now know that the Soviet economy collapsed because the system itself was broken. Not because of increased spending to match the US as revisionist history would suggest. Why? Soviet military budgets remained static throughout the late 70's until its collapse. It never increased. This also throughly discredited Team B's 'findings' about the soviet threat.

A

11/10/2008 2:00:15 PM

don't forget their costly war in Afghanistan.

11/10/2008 6:20:42 PM

Quote :

"25% of 5200 warheads (not counting MIRV) = the United States is still reduced to a arid wasteland. Learn math before making super basic assertions."

That is all out nuclear war my friend. 25% of 10 warheads launched by a rogue general, China, Iran, etc. is a huge difference. Learn basic comprehension before making idiotic assertions.

11/10/2008 7:18:10 PM

Quote :

"I thinks its incredulous that we can't feed, house, educate or provide healthcare to our own people, yet we always have money for stupid bullshit like this. "

It's not the gov't's responsiblity to feed, house, educate or provide healthcare for us. It is the gov't's responsibility to protect us from attack and invasion.

That said, I too agree with kwsmith2's idea.

11/10/2008 11:40:44 PM

Quote :

"I thinks its incredulous that we can't feed, house, educate or provide healthcare to our own people"

Who said we can't? Please, bring me the individual we are incapable of providing these to and I will drive them to the nearest free shelter for food, housing, education, and meet some people that can hopefully get the ball rolling on providing whatever they need healthcare wise. If some are going without you only have yourself to blame for not doing your part for society.

11/11/2008 12:07:16 AM

Quote :

"Who said we can't?"

By the numbers, we definitely can. We don't. You may, if you wish, blame the people who lack these basics. That doesn't change anything.

11/11/2008 12:11:38 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/missile_defense_obama

didnt read it yet but i will soon

11/12/2008 6:26:59 PM