White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield

Slimes ^ | 9/17/2009 | PETER BAKER and NICHOLAS KULISH

[Renderofveils]

* Oops. Meant to say Gates, not Shinseki. It’s too early in the morning.

[Thermalseeker]

Just as an FYI, the Army is consolodating their requisition locations down near Fayetteville, NC.

They sure pick an odd way to go to Fayetteville. What I saw was traveling south on I-75 and I-81 in Tennessee and SW Virginia. IOW, going more or less away from NC. I suppose they could swing through Atlanta, but I don't know why they would when I-40/I-26 goes towards Charlotte from that area. I did see quite a few trucks carrying damaged Humvee's north. Most appeared to have had their wheels and undercarriage removed.

[Huck]

Just reading Poland's reaction on drudge. I have tremendous sympathy for the Poles. I root for them. And yes, they've been our friend. It's possible that the system there would have been better for our own safety. That's my first concern/question. Much as I admire Poland, protecting them is not top of my agenda, especially considering we're broke.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but don't the Russians have a point? What if they wanted to put missiles next door to us, say, in Cuba? Oh wait...

Don't misunderstand. I'm for a great national defense. But that means defending the USA. Not Europe, or Asia, or Australia. We'll help when we can, but first things first. But what do you think? Does Russia have a point that the US placing missiles in their backyard is not a good thing for Russia? Wouldn't we react the same way?

[Resolute]

I wouldn’t personally object if the Russians put a purely defensive system in place to defend against limited strike capability, such as was being planned for Poland. Admittedly probably a lot of Americans would object as you suggest. I would feel differently if the missiles were offensive in nature. It has always perplexed me that anyone would object to a nation (whether USA or Russia or whomever) investing in the missile equivalent of body armor. To me there is a big difference between that and perfecting and accumulating the means of mass killing.

[londonfog]

How much of your grandchild’s lives do you want to impact on European defense? Who gives a crap? I sure don’t. Let us protect OUR BORDERS!!! OUR PEOPLE!!! If any nation threatens us — BLOW THEM UP. But do you love the french or what is left of the muslim infected British islands? They shot themselves— FORGET THEM. And I will not spend any more American blood or wasted money on isreal in another Iraq fiasco. You grow up!!

[Huck]

I was thinking about that point in the car yesterday; I’m just now reading your post. Theoretically what you say makes sense, but this defense system isn’t armor. It’s actually missiles, missile launchers, and a guidance system, no? If someone wanted, they could use them offensively, yes?

[ExiledChicagoan]

President Obama, a former cocaine user, yesterday announced that he would scrap the Bush approach to a European missle shield.

There, that’s better. And I would suggest that anytime anyone use Obama’s name, that they add “a former cocaine user” before completing the sentence.

[Resolute]

Missiles and missile systems are fairly design specific. As well, modern missiles and missile systems are highly software dependent. In theory one could moderately reconfigure and reprogram defensive systems to perform limited offensive missions, but the result would be highly suboptimal. Restated in slangy terms, would suck. It would almost certainly be not worth the time and expense to reconfigure such defensive systems for offense, in comparison to just adapting offensive systems that are already intended by-design to be offensive.