News & Politics

Rave

A Diplomatic Win

Posted 29 months ago|30 comments|517 views
Written by
Earlier this morning, Russia announced it has scrapped plans to deploy missiles near Poland.

Russia had intended to deploy Iskander missiles near the border, in the Kaliningrad region, as a direct response to former President George W. Bush's planned deployment of an experimental intercontinental ballistic missile defense system in Poland.

President Obama has canceled the planned system. Instead, Obama will proceed with a smaller, less expensive system that uses existing, proven technology to fight regional ballistic missile threats, and has the benefit of being mobile.

Clearly, cooler heads have prevailed. Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin described President Obama's reversal of U.S. policy as "victory of reason over ambitions."

This comes on the heels of news that a new U.S. intelligence assessment puts Iran three to five years further away from being able to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile than previously thought. Iran's missile plans had underpinned President Bush's reasoning that an intercontinental ballistics defensive system was needed, despite generating heightened tensions with Russia, and despite the costliness and unproven nature of the system.

With a new diplomatic feather in his cap, President Obama will meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit next week.

Republicans have spent the last few days deriding President Obama's decision to scrap the experimental system as a betrayal of Poland, and appeasement. Arizona Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain strongly condemned the move as "seriously misguided," despite being personally familiar with and supportive of components of the system President Obama will deploy.

How Republicans will respond to evidence that diplomacy actually works remains to be seen.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
29 months ago: Heynnnnn

You are a dear rantrave friend, but you are naive.
Obama is a foolish person playing into evil people's hands.
And he is.
Just like Neville Chamberlain.......all over again.
Watch.
29 months ago: It is hilarious and ironic to be called naive by someone who views the world with incredibly simplistic, black-and-white, comic book versions of good and evil. I'm going to blow your mind, redstateguy: Diplomacy does not equal appeasement.
29 months ago: heynnnnnn.

Respecting evil people, you're dead wrong.

Diplomacy does not equate with capitulation.
29 months ago: redstateguy, I really love you, man. (Don't worry, it's in a bro-mantic kind of way.) You can be relied upon for such helpful comments as "you're dead wrong" in nearly every thread. Without any logical argumentation or evidence of any kind, of course.

But here, I'll play along. Please explain how all evil people are no more complex than moustache-twirling movie villains. Then, if you're really feeling your Wheaties, go on to explain how a situation in which Russia doesn't implement a missile system we didn't want - while we implement a usable defensive system that will improve regional security - is a "capitulation." Cite your sources.
29 months ago: Bwahahah! I knew someone would cite those papers. They're two of the most extreme conservative right-wing papers in the area. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mlad%C3%A1_fronta_DNES

Of course they say that. They loved Bush when no one else did. They still do.
29 months ago: No, I just do my research. Please, just take a look for a moment at what the rest of the media is saying. Just for a moment, pretend that a "news" paper's historical love affair with all things Bush doesn't automatically grant that paper status as the voice of its country.
29 months ago: Oh, just in case anyone's curious? The photo is the U.S.S. John McCain, one of the ships that will be deployed as part of the regional ballistic missile defense system.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: I think that Obama is proving to be what conservatives fear the most. Successful. The triumph of reality based diplomacy is proving to be far more effective than the ideological bullying, might makes right, tactics of the Bush Administration.
The "Star Wars" anti missile defense system that conservatives have drooled over ever since Reagan first started pushing it, has enriched a lot of the defense industry higher ups but has done nothing to enhance our security. I still don't think any of these missile to long range missile tests were ever successful without the tests being cheated on.
Now we are going to cut the costs of the system in half, and rely on technologies that have been proven and which do work.
Obama is making us safer and saving us money.
29 months ago: Our precision guidance systems are great for taking out stationary targets, short-range missiles, most types of aircraft and land-based moving targets. Our ability to shoot a rapidly moving intercontinental ballistic missile? Not so hot... You see, ICBMs are fast. No, wait, they're not fast... They're oh-good-lord-I-didn't-know-anything-could-be-that-fast fast. We're talking California to Iran in 20 minutes fast - assuming you don't mind starting WWIII by flying it over Russia.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: First, as mentioned in a previous post on this subject, Bush claimed the purpose of the missiles was to defend against a potential attack by Iran not from Russa. See "Bush: Missile shield is meant to deter Iran"

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00833920071023

The neo-con response that I got is what I firmly believe to be the real reason that Moon Beam Bush went ahead with the program:

"But do you really think that if Bush was taking a global strategy of containing Russia he was going to advertise it?"

It's the essence of neo-conservatism; a deceitful in your face with the middle finger foreign policy. It's the same type of foreign policy that led us to trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Second, the idea of shooting down all the missiles is wishful thinking.

"Among the measures the attacker can take to confuse the defense and render it ineffective are reduction
or elimination of the radar reflections from the warhead by covering the warhead nose with a pointy metallic sleeve and by covering other parts of the warhead with radar absorbent material. Moreover, by scarring the surface of the warhead with wires, it would be possible to create additional reflections in order to confuse the radars. Decoys could also be deployed that would appear to the kill vehicle’s infrared homing sensor as credible targets, thereby making the task of target discrimination extremely difficult. Balloons or mock warheads could
serve as decoys."

We're not not talking Scuds here - we're talking nuclear missiles and if half get thru, that's half enough.

Quoted from: http://docs.ewi.info/JTA.pdf

By the way, the above report was a factor in the decision to scrap the program - it's a long read but quite illuminating if you're interested in more than simplistic political rhetoric
29 months ago: Mark, if 5% get through, it's more than enough. Can you imagine what even a single modern nuke falling on LA would do?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: ...But it is not just Iran it is North Korea as well...

Indeed, and it was noted in the cancellation of the program that:

"...he (Obama) plans to deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors by 2011, first aboard ships,.. and Mr. Gates said that the new system would put defenses in place seven years earlier than the Bush"

Ship based systems are far not only mobile and allow for coverage of multiple emerging threats (e.g. Korea, Iran) but they don't carry the gross cost inefficiencies, and of course the political liabilities of stationing missiles where the majority of citizens do NOT want them. Even in Poland and Czech Republic, less then 30% of the citizens were favorable to the missiles and the rest of Europe (never mind Russia) were vehemently opposed, thanks in great part to Moon Beam Bush who couldn't explain his way out of a paper bag and alienated nearly all of our allies by starting his trillion dollar war in Iraq.

That said as noted previous, a missile shield is a myth and the first order of business is to destroy the missiles before they can launch, and if one or two still get launched, pray to whatever gods you believe in that the ABM(s) will knock them out. As HNN noted, it only takes one nuke to get through and 9/11 will seem like a minor inconvenience.
29 months ago: The long range missile defense prompted Russia to a military response - plans to put missiles in place.

A "win" is a situation where you do not escalate the military situation. And that is what happened here. Instead of millions of dollars and rubles spent on military hardware that will sit there and do nothing but threaten, and requires upkeep and trained personal, those monies can be spent in other, better ways.

Look at reality, not the news. Reality is what you can see and touch, while the news is emotionally exciting -- and misleading.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,

The Military TV channel? That's great for information, entertainment and propaganda, but having been in the military, to include working in systems acquisitions, a system requirement to "shoot down 100% of all missiles under all circumstances" is fantasy for the reasons I already mentioned.

I'm quite aware that the US military employs high tech - high precision weapons technology, but if that was the 100% solution, we wouldn't have over 5000 war casualties since OIF and OEF began, including some by friendly fire. Even if the missile shield technology was 100% precise as you're dreaming about, there's still the human equation in operating and maintaining the systems; mistakes and errors in judgment can be minimized through training but not entirely eliminated.

As I said before, the primary tactic should be to destroy the missiles before they're launched and use an ABM as purely a secondary defense.

Instead of watching a show on TV, how about digesting a bit of this technical addendum on the Assessment on the Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Potential. Do search on the words decoys and countermeasures.

http://docs.ewi.info/JTA_TA_Defense.pdf

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: I have no doubt that missile technology has progressed rapidly, however the reason I suggested doubts about the tenability of the long range anti missile program is that there was considerable falsification of tests and cheating, like putting a homing beacon in the incoming missile or having a proximity sensor that would blow it up if anything came close. As Mark said there are many ways to fool the anti missile system.
It was an enormous waste of money and effort, that was very provocative and led to escalation of offensive and defensive forces that could easily have led to the destruction of mankind.
I am very glad that rationality has resurfaced in our foreign policy.
29 months ago: heynnnn and the rest of you liberals.

History.

History is my source.

29 months ago: @redstateguy

A particular part of history? Or just any old history you happen to find lying around?

If you're just going to cite "history" without specifically citing an actual event, that leaves the door pretty wide open. I mean, a lot of stuff has happened since the beginning of time. Are you citing all of it?
29 months ago: Hitler for 1.
29 months ago: No, redstateguy, that doesn't cut it. You can't say "Hitler for 1" as if there's an obvious comparison between Hitler's actions and Barack Obama's. Do you want to be taken seriously here, redstateguy?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.