Posted on 01/28/2009 5:53:02 AM PST by Islander7
Russia held out an olive branch to President Barack Obama today by suspending plans to deploy missiles in Europe, according to a report in Moscow.
An official from Russia's General Staff in Moscow told Interfax news that the move had been made because the new United States leadership was reconsidering plans to establish a missile defence shield in eastern Europe.
Deployment of Iskander short-range missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads, was being suspended in Russia's Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad in response, the unidentified official said.
The news emerged ahead of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's appearance later today at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
---------- Snip
Russia delivered 82 tonnes of low-enriched uranium fuel for the plant in southern Iran last year. Atomstroiexport, the Russian state company building the project, announced recently that operation of the plant would become "irreversible" once scheduled work was completed next month.
They’re playing each other. The danger of obama is that he’ll start to believe his press. It’s a real risk.
Two Communists working together.
What do you mean by “start to beleive”? The dunce already believes his own press.
NATO became obsolete after the fall of the USSR.
Clinton’s expansion of NATO was a bad idea. Bush continuing the same policy was equally as bad.
Why should Americans risk their own blood and treasure for a Czech, German, Ukrainian or Georgian?
Nice out for Russia.
Due to the price of oil now, they can’t afford it anyway lol.
Within,6-9 months, when oil is back up they will whine and cry about something and stage the threat again. They are so ColdWar passe lol.
I think he has you fooled on that one.
“You can’t trust the Russians.” - Jean Kirkpatrick
If we weren't before, we are now. No way politically Bammy can undercut this "Peacemaking gesture" by disagreeing. Pootie just plucked a card right out of Bammy's hand. Welcome to the Big Leagues, boy wonder.
carrot and stick
if Obama is a “naughty” boy, and honors commitments to provide a defensive shield allies in europe, the missiles go forward again. wwrd? (what would reagan do?)
will the chicago president blink?
will he bring a knife to a gun fight?
First, note that suspended is not canceled. They can still go ahead any time they want.
Second, the real reason they're slowing deployment probably has more to do with money (or lack thereof). Rather than admit they are a little short on funds they'll spin this in a positive light, something they can use against our naive leader.
Finally, those missiles have always been a simple bargaining chip. The Russians know that a handful of interceptor missiles in eastern Europe pose zero threat to Russian deterrence. Anyone who has worked out the intercept geometry can see the interceptors are in the wrong place to hit anything coming out of Asia headed to North America. Forget geometry and orbital mechanics, how about simple math. Call it 20 interceptors, and what 700+ ICBMs? The Russians know in an all-out strike they'd lose more ICBMs to poor quality control than we could ever knock down.
beleive = believe
Note to self - do not type without your reading glasses.
good question
and why should any democracy risk its blood and treausre for the USA? Are our values and goals independent of theirs?
(If NATO became “obsolete” why are the former russian republics in europe clamoring to join it?)
“These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic,” the General Staff official told Interfax.
***************
I had not heard this. I am not surprised.
We should not ask anyone else to risk their blood and treasure on our behalf, we can take care of ourselves, thank you.
Russia has literally lost tens of millions from aggressors originating from the West (check Napoleon and Hitler, for starters). Why antagonize them? What American interest does that serve?
February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________________
Next, an expert analysis of Obama's proposals...
_____________________________________________________________
Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces
by Robert Maginnis
Posted 04/10/2008 ET
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.
YouTube has an undated 52-second clip [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE October, 2007 -ETL] of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left.
Watch Obama’s message and consider some inconvenient facts about his national security promises.
“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.” No one likes war: especially those who have to do the fighting and dying. Yet, our military leaders make clear that the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq as Obama seeks would be disastrous not only for American interests in the region but for Iraq itself. It would provide a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and Iran because they will be able to claim they defeated America. Further, it could worsen the Iraqi civil war, create an unstable Mideast and further spike oil prices.
“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Anyone who has worked with the military for any length of time knows there is waste, often in weapons systems. Recently, the Government Accountability Office found that 95 major weapons systems -- including the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship -- have exceeded their original budgets. These cost overruns could be the result of waste or mismanagement or, perhaps, the development and fielding of sophisticated new weapons with constantly changing requirements is difficult and inefficient.
The senator should understand there is a difference between waste and defense spending. But does he? There is no reason to think so in any of his speeches or position papers. Obama’s employer, the US Congress, indulges in pork barrel earmarks contributing to wasteful Pentagon spending. Earmarks circumvent merit-based systems to create jobs in favored congressional districts and saddle the military with unwanted -- wasteful -- programs.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Recently, both our sea-based and ground-based missile systems proved to be successful. On Feb 20, the USS Lake Erie armed with an SM-3 missile destroyed a wayward satellite traveling at more than 17,000 MPH more than 100 miles high. In September, 2007, our ground-based midcourse defense system killed a dummy missile over the Pacific using an interceptor stationed in Alaska. The US Bureau of Arms Control warns, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”
“I will not weaponize space.” America’s current policy is not to weaponize space. However, it’s important for policy makers to recognize the US’s dependence on space. Our banking, communications and navigation systems almost entirely depend on satellites. Space lines of communication are as essential for commerce today as sea lines of communication were two centuries ago. Does Obama mean he wouldn’t provide defensive systems for our satellites? Apparently so.
Surrendering space to rogue nations and pirates places our economy and military at risk. Anti-satellite weaponry will proliferate and must be countered.
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.” Our combat systems are becoming ancient. Our air force is flying aircraft which are based on 1940s and 1950s technology and our army is driving 1960s and 1970s vintage vehicles. Older equipment is expensive, time consuming to maintain and potentially dangerous.
The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the first full-spectrum modernization effort in nearly 40 years. It will replace Cold War-era relics with “full-spectrum” operations capable modular systems designed to operate in complex terrain. It can also be adapted to civil support, such as disaster relief.
Failing to develop future combat systems puts American warriors at risk and unnecessarily jeopardizes our security.
"...and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.” Congress created the QDR as an every four-year analysis intended to balance defense strategy and programs with resources.
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, an “independent defense priorities board” in its own right, published its analysis of the most recent QDR. It lauded the Bush administration for sustained involvement of senior officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and creating a database to track implementation of initiatives. The GAO faulted Congress for failing to clarify its expectations regarding what budget information the Pentagon should provide.
To make matters worse, Congress’ 2008 Defense Authorization Act created two new and redundant every four year analyses. One is an independent military assessment of roles and missions and the other identifies core mission areas, competenceis and capabilities.
Obama is right to criticize the QDR because it has become an exercise in fantasy but his Congressional colleagues keep piling on new requirements. The senator can help the Pentagon by scaling back on the analyses requirements. Just tell the military what the country can afford and then have the services explain what they will buy and how much risk we will have to accept.
“To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” That’s dangerous. Our present nuclear arsenal will atrophy if it isn’t modernized. According to the head of the military’s Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, our warheads are aging and weren’t designed to last forever, making him nervous. “I liken it to approaching a cliff -- and I don’t know how far away from that cliff I am,” Chilton said.
Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the US’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said we have a new program that will potentially reduce the number of warheads and make them safer. It’s called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and “contemplates designing new components for previously tested nuclear packages.” The RRW would create, Brooks said, a "reduced chance we will ever need to resort to nuclear testing" again.
“I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material...” Nations capable of producing nuclear weapons produce fissile material for their atomic arsenals. Many of these same nations produce fissile material to fuel their nuclear power plants which light millions of homes and are a cheap, clean energy source in a world concerned about hydrocarbon pollution.
Efforts to control the production of fissile material date back to the 1946 Baruch Plan but that attempt was abandoned during the Cold War. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush announced that the US no longer produced fissile material for nuclear weapons and in 1993 President Bill Clinton called for Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations. While this is a worthy goal it is not achievable in an energy hungry world.
“...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert...”
The US nuclear forces are not on “hair trigger” alert. Only a portion of America’s deployed nuclear forces maintain a ready alert status.
Besides, our policy does not rely on a “launch on warning” strategy. Rather, our forces are postured to provide flexibility by raising the readiness status of the force and by putting weapons systems on alert when necessary.
“...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.” Our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent against enemies with similar systems. Deep cuts without verifiable reciprocal cuts would be dangerous. However, we are making progress via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which proposes a reduction of the overall threathold of up to 1,500 warheads. Russia has approximately 4,162 and the US has 5,866 strategic warheads and both nations possess thousands of tactical weapons and reserve stocks as well.
Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong.
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.
Article: Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces
by Robert Maginnis, 04/10/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25942
Here's the video. It's from the Obama camp itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
excerpt:
The hunt for Obama’s senior “thesis” began with a throwaway line in a newspaper article last October. The New York Times story, on Obama’s early New York years, mentioned in passing that the presidential contender had majored in political science at Columbia and had spent his time “writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament.”
Journalists began hounding Columbia University for copies of the musty document. Conservative bloggers began wondering if the young Obama had written a no-nukes screed that he might come to regret. And David Bossie, the former congressional investigator and “right-wing hit man,” as one newspaper described him, took out classified newspaper ads in Columbia University’s newspaper and the Chicago Tribune in March searching for the term paper.
Bossie came up dry, but said the effort was well worth it:
“A thesis entitled Soviet Nuclear Disarmament, written at the height of The Cold War in 1983, might shed some light upon what Barack Obama thought about our most pressing foreign policy issue for 40-plus years (U.S.-Soviet Relations),” he wrote in an e-mail to NBC News.
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx
__________________________________________________________________________
Here is the passage from the New York Times that the above article refers to:
"He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as 'a star performer.'"
Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say
By JANNY SCOTT, October 30, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1351396800&en=631bf83f428647f9&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
____________________________________________________________
From "45 Communist Goals":
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
'Goals' 4-45 can be found here or at many other sites through a web search for "45 goals":
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
____________________________________________________________
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
____________________________________________________________
Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
Reuters: Aug 17, 2007
CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.
"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.
Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.
The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.
Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
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.