Gates fails to mention one little fact … by killing the Missile Shield, he makes the US vulnerable

It was a thought. However, flashing weakness of any kind does not bring about good things. Especially as public as this was.

Spending billions of increasingly-scarce defense dollars to protect Europe is also not a good thing. Let's face it, Obama is going around saying that his health care plan will not add dollar one to the deficit. Why? Because in his world all the deficit spending will be from the defense department and not health care. The armed services will be scrambling for every penny, and we all know it. We're not going to have enough to properly defend us. Defending Europe is a distant second.

Did you ever stop to think that the Iranians can keep secrets ~ and they have allies ~ and they have the big bucks to buy what they can't do themselves.

The only countries with the technology to produce ICBMs that can reach the U.S. from Iran are the U.S., Russia, and China. And none are reckless enough to sell Tehran the missiles you're talking about.

I believe the reports of errant warhead debris in a remote area of Alaska, whoops. Part of the US last I saw. Big part of the world energy supply, too, for Japan if not us.

Gates’ positioning of missiles in Hawaii and aegis cruisers off the Hawaiian Islands this year before the KN missile tests = just for fun.

Meanwhile, if you want the Czechs and Poles to defend themselves, fine. Suggest we not call on them to be part of a future coalition of the willing against terrorism, against Russian aggression in the former republics, or to join in nonproliferation or sanctions against Iran- well hey, after all, there's no terror attacks on them and those Iran missiles do have the range... so please understand the Poles and Czechs helping Ahmadinejad with his technical industry and advisors. Consider it a strategic defensive move to reconsider alliances and foreign policies.

and please don't expect Eastern Europe to put a big target on their heads by agreeing to allow our forces basing or overflight rights or logistics support such as fuel, repair, or ammo depots. To get people and supplies in and out of the Middle East, we can always fly our people and our stuff over England France or Germany airspace, right? Or maybe Spain. That has worked so well in the past when the europeans disagreed with what we did, like Reagan smacking Qa-Daffy for killing a US solider (black, no less).

If an intimidated eastern Europe again becomes just an extension of the USSR for its foreign policy, we will do just fine unless we want to do something the Russians do not want us to do. But hey, that is what the new cooperation is about.

And if the Russians “break” their agreement with obama and put missiles near Eastern Europe, who will be laughing at who.

I believe the reports of errant warhead debris in a remote area of Alaska, whoops.

Where? I must have missed that part. Regardless, I'm not advocating removing missile defense from Alaska and which aid in protecting the U.S. I'm questioning the placing of missiles in Europe which does nothing to defend the U.S. Or did you just not read the entire post?

and of course, no one in the USA would be “reckless” enough to “sell” China our most modern MIRV warhead design and sell them supercomputers for simulation testing to assure nuc reliability and sell them the technolgoy to improve their missile guidance system to an feasible confidence level of successful first strike attack, would they?

Go back and read about Clinton, Loral, Ron Brown, Chinese military intelligence penetration of the US, etc etc
Ann Coulter’s book “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” should be required reading for high school and above

My orginal point, using the current situation to deny the need to build systems for a threat 10-20 years out that will “never happen”- is already discounted by modern history

I don't think you read past my first paragraph yourself, to discount the profound geopolitical effects on our present and possible future strategic policies and options, by weakening western ties with eastern europe because the threat to them is not large and is not “our problem”

obama's Harvard academic strategists have made careers discrediting every US policy since the Cold War - now they get their chance to see if the Russian and Iranians become "reasonable" state and world actors in the vacuum we leave. Gee hope they are right.

This is not just about missile defense. It is a watershed in demonstrating the US willingness (now lack) to provide a strategic defense of eastern europe (perhaps all of europe) and to trust the Russians and Iran not to continue to intimidate them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.