Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: balls

I’m just curious why we’d be spending money we don’t have to defend the Czechs and the Poles? No offense to them, just wondering how that can be a priority? Shouldn’t we have a shield here in the US first? I don’t get it.


3 posted on 09/17/2009 7:13:57 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Huck

“Shouldn’t we have a shield here in the US first?”

It’s not like a force-field. You can prevent missiles from hitting the US by intercepting them anywhere along the trajectory. Advanced deployment makes sense to me as a building block of integrated missile defense.


14 posted on 09/17/2009 7:24:42 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

Yes we should have one here, and there is technology avaialable. Since Reagan, congress has never had the will to do it.


24 posted on 09/17/2009 7:35:45 AM PDT by Rennes Templar (All Hail the Community Organizer -in -Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

It isnt defending Czechs and Poles. Get out a globe, look at Iran,,,trace your way to New York and DC by the direct route. A missile in its early boost phase passes over Czech republic, where the radar plots it. Then missiles are fired from poland for the intercept.

This never had anything to do with Russia. It was a mere handful of missiles, like 10 or so. Russia could easily overwhelm that. Also any russian launch tracks wouldnt pass over europe, they would fly over the polar region.

Russia knew the missiles had nothing to do with them, and had an ulterior diplomatic motive. Obama the amateur got owned by them. This was a minor thing he could easily have won.


25 posted on 09/17/2009 7:36:01 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
We are not defending "them" we are defending the West. They are on the eastern frontier of the west, hence it makes sense to put a missile shield there.

You wouldn't think you'd have to explain this kind of thing to a sentient being.

34 posted on 09/17/2009 7:40:46 AM PDT by Publius Maximus (God, please let 2010 and 2012 come quickly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

The best time to intercept is close to launch. A CONUS-based shield would be best suited to defend against Hugo.


56 posted on 09/17/2009 7:51:17 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("The President has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet. " Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

At this time “to defend the Czechs and the Poles” isn’t the question. The United States felt that this was the best defense against Iran......until Russia entered into the discussion. Russia didn’t want missle defence in those countries so our President went along with there wishes. That is what is important here.


58 posted on 09/17/2009 7:52:48 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

The shield never had anything to do with defending those two countries. It would have defended all of Europe.


99 posted on 09/17/2009 8:59:25 AM PDT by NavVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
Re: I don’t get it

Truer words were never spoken considering your post on this thread.

If you don't understand the concept of standing up for what is right in defending our allies and ourselves in these troubled time, then no amount of explanations can get it through to you.

To steal from John Wayne, "You might be walking around, but you are as brain-dead as a beaver hat."


112 posted on 09/17/2009 9:44:28 AM PDT by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck; balls
OB had me confused for a while - until I heard John Bolton explain it on Fox News. Here's the gist:

The cancelled program was for the defence of America against ICBMs - long range missiles. Such a system is now in place in Alaska to defend against the NORKs.

The new system is to defend Europe against medium and short range missiles. OB says we will revisit the former question later, when Iran's rocket development program is more advanced.

According to Bolton, OB is making a bad bet, that Iran won't have any functional ICBMs any time soon. Bad bet because Iran's successful satellite launch indicates their program is already quite far along.


123 posted on 09/17/2009 12:41:53 PM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson