Missle Defense System? Eh, why bother- right Barry?

Quote :

Report: Obama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia's aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev but "we won't comment on the specifics."

Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/02/report-obama-offers-scrap-missile-shield-russia-cooperates-iran/

Wow, I mean...wow... I'm actually speechless...

Quote :

Missle Defense System? Eh, why bother- right Barry?

You bet.
If there's no need for it, why throw away billions on a halfass system that hasn't been proved yet.

Quote :

Pentagon Tester Lacks ‘High Confidence’ in U.S. Missile Defense


By Tony Capaccio

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon’s weapons tester says he doesn’t have “high confidence” that the Boeing Co.-managed U.S. missile defense would be effective against even a rudimentary North Korean missile.

Testing against the possible trajectories and altitudes of a North Korean missile has been limited and hasn’t generated enough data to run the thousands of computer simulations needed to predict performance, Charles McQueary wrote in his annual report to Congress.

“Additional test data collected under realistic conditions is necessary to increase confidence,” he wrote... Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington who tracks North Korean military developments, said the U.S. has “the upper hand overall” against the threat of a missile attack, although “it’s always possible” that North Korea “could build countermeasures that would fool our system.”

Defense analysts presume that any missile fired successfully by North Korea would carry decoys intended to fool interceptor warheads. According to McQueary, the U.S. defense probably wouldn’t be effective even without the distraction of decoys...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afc4fyAJl1Tg&refer=home

Hey Schnookums-
it's YOU BETCHA! keep up!

From the same story you posted-

Quote :

Richard Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, and Jessica Carlton, spokeswoman for Boeing, offered assessments of the system that were more upbeat than McQueary’s.

The interceptors are designed “to combat a simple threat from North Korea and Iran, and that’s a capability the nation has never had, and now we do,” Lehner said. “We continue to incorporate ground tests into our modeling and simulation with very good results.”

Carlton said Boeing believes its track record of eight successful intercepts in 13 attempts, including a test on Dec. 5, indicates a system “ready to defend the U.S. homeland.”

Barry shouldn't just scrap a defense system willy-nilly just to appease a terrorist nation like Iran.

Ohhmama wrote:

Hey Schnookums-
it's YOU BETCHA! keep up!

From the same story you posted-

Quote :

Richard Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, and Jessica Carlton, spokeswoman for Boeing, offered assessments of the system that were more upbeat than McQueary’s.

The interceptors are designed “to combat a simple threat from North Korea and Iran, and that’s a capability the nation has never had, and now we do,” Lehner said. “We continue to incorporate ground tests into our modeling and simulation with very good results.”

Carlton said Boeing believes its track record of eight successful intercepts in 13 attempts, including a test on Dec. 5, indicates a system “ready to defend the U.S. homeland.”

Barry shouldn't just scrap a defense system willy-nilly just to appease a terrorist nation like Iran.

That's just BS. This story is about the basing of an anti-missile system virtually on Russia's border. Russia has made it clear that it feels threatened by the move. If this initative results in Russia helping to remove the potential threat from Iran, then that's a really good thing. It sure as hell isn't a "willy-nilly" move and it has absolutely nothing to do with "appeasing" Iran.

Quote :

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

Hey Sweetiepie,(no not you Scorpion )
Before you post any more on this subject you might want to "brush up" & gain at least some knowledge.
You can find out why the missile defense program is essentially a 100 billion, make work, pork project, Military Industrial Complex boondoggle here:


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/missile_defense/technical_issues/

You bet.
If there's no need for it, why throw away billions on a halfass system that hasn't been proved yet.

Funny how you don't say that about some of these $800 bil spending bills.

BTW if it's so worthless then why is Russia raising such a fit over it anyway?

Because like Scorpion mentioned it's virtually on Russia's border.

The US system would be close enough to their ICBM launch sites that they would be susceptible to getting shot down during the Boost Phase.
from wiki:

Quote :

Boost phase: intercepting the missile while its rocket motors are firing, usually over the launch territory. Advantages: bright, hot rocket exhaust makes detection, discrimination and targeting easier. Decoys cannot be used during boost phase. Disadvantages: difficult to geographically position interceptors to intercept missiles in boost phase (not always possible without flying over hostile territory), short time for intercept (typically about 180 seconds).

That's like shooting down an aircraft during takeoff-- very 'doable.'
The warhead/missile is not going 18,000 mph like would later on it's way to the target.

The Russians don't like having a missile defense system in their back yard anymore than we would like a Russian system based in Canada.

The Russians don't like having a missile defense system in their back yard anymore than we would like a Russian system based in Canada.

They already do, as we do the same to them. Ever hear of submarines with nukes?

Again, if it doesn't work what's the big deal? Personally I think there's more to the story but it's all moot if Obama kills the program anyway.

Quote :

They already do, as we do the same to them. Ever hear of submarines with nukes?

Yes, that's true but we still woudn't like a Russian system in Canada.

Having the capability to shoot down warheads during the Boost Phase is a real threat to them as it would be to us.

Quote :

Again, if it doesn't work what's the big deal?

Like I said, if the system is close enough to the launch site, it DOES work.

Quote :

Personally I think there's more to the story but it's all moot if Obama kills the program anyway.

He never said he's going to "kill the program."

He's on record saying that he supports further R&D.

Keep in mind that he is also on record as opposing sandy oil reclamation but so far nobody told BP to stop the Whiting expansion plans.

Looking at it another way we see he has no problem finding ways to spend other people's money. 9,000 unrelated earmarks in 1 bill? Naw, he don't mind spending. :drink:

Mirage wrote:

Looking at it another way we see he has no problem finding ways to spend other people's money. 9,000 unrelated earmarks in 1 bill? Naw, he don't mind spending. :drink:

That's not Obama's bill. It's left over from Bush and 40% of those earmarks come from repubs.

That's what the veto is for. Duh!

Very interesting

Defensible Missile Defense

Mirage wrote:

Keep in mind that he is also on record as opposing sandy oil reclamation but so far nobody told BP to stop the Whiting expansion plans.

Looking at it another way we see he has no problem finding ways to spend other people's money. 9,000 unrelated earmarks in 1 bill? Naw, he don't mind spending. :drink:

One of the biggest environmental impacts of the Canadian Oil Sands project is that the mining is very energy intensive and contributes to global warming. However, Canada is unlikely to halt mining because those oil sands contain the second largest petroleum reserve in the world.The development of the oil sands has resulted in the strongest period of economic growth ever recorded by a Canadian province. Presently in the US, we are refining Canadian crude at half a dozen refineries, with several more under construction, including Whiting and another plant in Toledo,Ohio. I believe your contention that Obama ever said that he was opposed to the Canadians mining their own oil is untrue. I did find this Quote from him,What we know is that oil sands create a big carbon footprint," Obama said in the CBC interview. He added that ways had to be found "to grow our economies in a way that is not rapidly accelerating climate change." If you can post a link where Obama has promised to stop BP or other oil companies from constructing new facilities in the US, I would love to see it.
I would much rather the Canadians receive the economic benefits that come from exporting oil than sending those dollars to the Middle East.

edge540 wrote:

Very interesting

Defensible Missile Defense

Yes indeed. Thanks for the link.

Quote :

Fortunately, there is a “designer” missile defense that would answer President Obama’s hesitations and allay Russia’s fears. And unlike the Bush missile defense, it would actually be able to deal with the threat of ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran if such a threat ever emerged.

This is a proposal I’ve developed and analyzed with a variety of American and Russian experts and the idea itself is simple. The defense system would shoot down Iranian or North Korean long-range missiles as they slowly accelerate from their launching sites. It would take advantage of the fact that long-range missiles built by Iran or North Korea would be large and cumbersome, have long powered flight times and could take off only from well-known launching sites.

I'll look around for more on this proposal when I have some time. If you happen to run across anything else on it, please post it.

Thanks!

It's an op ed piece...

I thought you guys didn't like to post those as reliable sources of info?

Ohhmama wrote:

It's an op ed piece...

I thought you guys didn't like to post those as reliable sources of info?

I don't. I simply agree with Edge that it's interesting. The Council on Foreign Relations seemed to find it noteworthy as well...

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18751/

It's the first I've heard about it, and it seems to be something that may hold some promise. I realize that it's on OP-Ed piece, which is why I'm suggesting that it would be cool if we had some additional info on it. If the proposal is real and workable, then I'm sure that we'll hear more about it.

I'd like to read more about it also...