Obama Withdraws From Anti-Missile Shield Along Russian Border

[darkjedi]

The Witcher has good sex!

[molbjerg]

I know some Europeans might not like this, but I do. It was a waste of our tax payer dollars. And the key thing here is:

"The Obama administration seeks to "reset" battered ties with Russia so that the two former Cold War foes can cooperate on Iran".

I almost think Russia was trying to sell Iran arms just to spite us for that missile defense shield.

Relic, I didn't think you were that naive. Nobody in Europe wanted the missile shield, it's just more of a republican America rattling their sabre and damaging diplomatic relations.

[darkjedi]

Come to think of it, I think China is a greater threat to Europe than Iran. Their missile shield would have been a more effective deterrence guarantee against China's more limited (compared to Russia) ICBM nuclear arsenal.

[relic2279]

Come to think of it, I think China is a greater threat to Europe than Iran. Their missile shield would have been a more effective deterrence guarantee against China's more limited (compared to Russia) ICBM nuclear arsenal.

Your definition of threat and mine differ.

China would never attack Europe because it would lead to a world war and thus, ruin their economy and country.

Iran on the other hand, they can do whatever they please. They have very little risk compared to China. Thus, more of a threat.

[darkjedi]

Iran on the other hand, they can do whatever they please. They have very little risk compared to China. Thus, more of a threat.

Completely wrong. Iran faces total annihilation if it chooses to attack Europe. With regards to China we still do not know just how powerful it's going to become in the future. It's still important to prepare for extreme contingencies.

[relic2279]

Completely wrong. Iran faces total annihilation if it chooses to attack Europe. With regards to China we still do not know just how powerful it's going to become in the future. It's still important to prepare for extreme contingencies.

No, you're missing the point. Of course it would be annihilated, that's a given. As I said, China has "more" to lose. You know, having the second largest GDP PPP and third largest nominal GDP.

They're doing quite well. They wouldn't risk it.  Iran on the other hand, they risk much, much less.

[darkjedi]

No, you're missing the point. Of course it would be annihilated, that's a given. As I said, China has "more" to lose. You know, having the second largest GDP PPP and third largest nominal GDP.

That's irrelevant. Do you think if China had less GDP they'll be more willing to annihilate themselves?

Or maybe you attribute North Korea's belligerent behavior to its poor economy.  Poor you.


another note:

We all know that Russia will dare not attack Europe, but we still don't abolish our strategic nuclear deterrence. It's because there's a possibility that the future can render our current knowledge outdated. We do not know what China will become in the future; either our staunchest ally or our most deadly adversary. China has a greater strategic importance to the West than Iran because it has more potential for becoming a defiant superpower.

[relic2279]

That's irrelevant. Do you think if China had less GDP they'll be more willing to annihilate themselves?

Your missing the point or refusing to acknowledge it. The better off a country is, in today's world, they less likely they are to risk a world war. Especially countries on the brink of becoming a super power.

Iran is nothing in comparison. Other countries don't rely on them for their very survival. Now don't get me wrong, I don't see Iran attack Europe either, but they have very little to lose in comparison with China. China also has nukes. A couple countries in Europe have nukes. Another reason why China is less of a threat to Europe.

[darkjedi]

Your missing the point or refusing to acknowledge it. The better off a country is, in today's world, they less likely they are to risk a world war.  Especially countries on the brink of becoming a super power.

This is where you are wrong.

A country's tendency to think the 'I have nothing else to lose' way is not universal. On the other hand more affluent countries tend to risk friction with other countries more. What is shared between all countries is that they consider the survival of the nation as their top priority. At the very moment both Iran and China are as unlikely as the other to commit to a war with Europe because both faces annihilation if they did so. In the future I believe China will be in a better position than Iran to threaten Europe because it is on the brink of becoming a superpower. Both Iran and China has equal willingness and intention to threaten Europe. But it's only China who can ever hope to take any action about it.

Iran is nothing in comparison. Other countries don't rely on them for their very survival.

And how does this equate to Iran being less willing to keep preserving themselves?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't see Iran attack Europe either, but they have very little to lose in comparison with China.

They have everything to lose. They face annihilation. They stand to lose their very existence.

China also has nukes. A couple countries in Europe have nukes. Another reason why China is less of a threat to Europe.

Yeah, tell me why.

[relic2279]

I believe China will be in a better position than Iran to threaten Europe because it is on the brink of becoming a superpower.

You contradict yourself. By threatening Europe and risking annihilation, they would lose their super power status.

Hopefully this will be more clear for you,
China wants to get bigger and stronger. The only way they can do that is through their own brand of neo(new)-imperialism which is influence not by colonization or military, but through economics. That's why they aren't a military threat to Europe.

They have everything to lose. They face annihilation. They stand to lose their very existence.

So does China if it provokes a world war. But China has more to lose in terms of dollars, humans, military, investments.

Yeah, tell me why.

Mutually Assured Destruction. No country with nukes has ever attacked another country with nukes. Doesn't mean they won't, or can't. But it's pretty much a safe bet. So full circle back to my original point. China is less of a threat.

[darkjedi]

You contradict yourself. By threatening Europe and risking annihilation, they would lose their super power status.

Not if China becomes stronger than the U.S. and Europe combined many years later. It might happen to China. But it will never happen to Iran. (I think)

Hopefully this will be more clear for you,
China wants to get bigger and stronger. The only way they can do that is through their own brand of neo(new)-imperialism which is influence not by colonization or military, but through economics. That's why they aren't a military threat to Europe.

Not now. But maybe later. Again, I'm saying that China can potentially become an existential threat to Europe, any time in the future. (and we don't always get our predictions of the future right) But not Iran.

So does China if it provokes a world war. But China has more to lose in terms of dollars, humans, military, investments.

It doesn't. They stand to lose just the same. Both lose everything, that's it. For now. To me, it's the future that matters here; Iran will never be able to tip the world's military balance against their favor, ever. But China can. It's not a definite prediction; it's a possibility.

Mutually Assured Destruction. No country with nukes has ever attacked another country with nukes. Doesn't mean they won't, or can't. But it's pretty much a safe bet. So full circle back to my original point. China is less of a threat.

Yeah, then, why don't we just get rid of all the anti-ballistic missile systems in the world, because no one will ever attack the other guy anyway because they are afraid of MAD. 

[molbjerg]

Come on DarkJedi, it's obvious.

China will not be a military threat for the next 50-100 years, and that's somehow assuming that they can make the worlds nuclear arsenal redundant through technological progress. Which isn't going to happen anyway.

As for the 'nothing to lose' argument... Have you never heard the phrase before? Someone with a rubbish life is more likely to conduct a high school massacre, because they don't really have anything positive in their lives, someone who is fulfilled both mentally and physically simply has more world investments to lose and will be less likely to proceed. If you understand that, then you must also understand that your argument: "They both have the same to lose as they both lose everything" is fundamentally flawed. Your assumption that they are losing the same implies that they had the same quality of life in the first place. Also, the chinese aren't happy to run to their deaths in persuit of 72 virgins. Lets not forget that China is not religiously motivated, and they haven't made threats to glass Israel. Then there's the fun of once Iran has nuclear weapons they are far more likely to crop up in other extreme religious environments....

[darkjedi]

China will not be a military threat for the next 50-100 years, and that's somehow assuming that they can make the worlds nuclear arsenal redundant through technological progress. Which isn't going to happen anyway.

Ok. Let's remove all our nuclear defenses because China will never use their nukes anyway

Oh and remove the U.S. Navy from the Pacific because we know China's no threat lol

......

That way of thinking doesn't work.

10 missiles is a start. The missile shield is important for cementing the way for a permanent establishment of a U.S. presence in Eastern Europe. It can keep the West's strategic adversaries in check for many generations to come. The succeeding generations will improve upon what we have already built.

Someone with a rubbish life is more likely to conduct a high school massacre, because they don't really have anything positive in their lives, someone who is fulfilled both mentally and physically simply has more world investments to lose and will be less likely to proceed. If you understand that, then you must also understand that your argument: "They both have the same to lose as they both lose everything" is fundamentally flawed.

I told you this case isn't universal.

My parents for example led a shitty childhood life also because of poverty but they never gave up and produced me. Iran has hope and confidence in its ability to better itself and understands its obligation to the future generations; they are not going to throw away their faith and opportunity merely because their ability is more miniature compared to China's.

I have a reverse example also. Rich kids who'll never know physical hardship ever in their life fuck their lives over 'world is so boring' kind of issues.

Suicidal urge is not exclusive to the quality of life or amount of power; it has more to do with the person's (or in this case, the nation's) perception of death.

Iran inherently opposes national disintegration. Therefore, Iran is not likely to start a war which they know they are definitely going to lose.

My line of reasoning seems more plausible than yours.

[molbjerg]

I told you this case isn't universal.

But it does apply to Iran.


A ballistic missile shield such as what we're talking about would be utterly ineffective against a full strike from a properly armed nation. Pretending that maybe being able to shoot down 2 ICBMs before the rest land on your cities doesn't change the MAD situation in the least.

Ok. Let's remove all our nuclear defenses because China will never use their nukes anyway

If China invades us, we launch our nukes. Seeing our birds in the sky, they'd certainly launch theirs too. That is what MAD is. There is a stable situation here, not a desirable one, but it has been tested by time.

There is so much nuclear material floating about, that trying to one-up each other at this point is a waste of time. As even if they thought they could preemptively strike and stop a counterstrike, a bunch of submarines are going to rain radiation on all of the major cities of the offending country.

So anyway, you're saying that China is more of a threat than Iran - fair enough, it's a big country full of nutters. However, relating to the discussion of this thread, and this missile shield - china is simply not relevent.

Also, tell me why America should have a permanent established presence in Eastern Europe? America should keep its shit in its own back yard.

My line of reasoning seems more plausible than yours.

A nice soundbyte to end a post with, but saying that you're right does not make you right.

[darkjedi]

But it does apply to Iran.

No, it does not. You think Iran is an extremely desperate impoverished country who's looking for the most dramatic way to kill itself, don't you? Well, I'll tell you one thing, Iran is not North Korea. Iran is not a single person. Iran is a conglomerate of both rational and stupid people just like any other sovereign countries. Iran is as sane as you are when it comes to ensuring its continued survival.

A ballistic missile shield such as what we're talking about would be utterly ineffective against a full strike from a properly armed nation. Pretending that maybe being able to shoot down 2 ICBMs before the rest land on your cities doesn't change the MAD situation in the least.

Then why are we bothering to develop all these ABM in the first place...?

Aegis system, THAAD, S-400, Patriot PAC; their very purpose is to increase the chance of the defending country surviving an attack by an offensive country therefore ensuring the opportunity to strike back. Right now, it's only the nukes themselves that are keeping countries from each other. But later when countries like the U.S. and Russia keep decommissioning their nuclear weapons and countries like China keep increasing theirs, and when potent ABM systems become mass produced,  it will be the ABM arsenal of the U.S. and Russia who will keep China's ambition in check. (along with the still-existing nuclear arsenal of course)

And there is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear attack', so using these aforementioned tactical defense systems as limited defense against a limited nuclear attack or a conventional IRBM/ICBM is a poor argument; they'll all escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. If that was the case it's better to drop ABM altogether and just keep increasing the stockpile of second-strike nuclear weapons instead to serve as a better deterrence.

I reiterate, ABM will serve as a substitute deterrence against China. (and a means of survival) The ABM will be one of the ultimate reasons why China will be afraid of MAD; it increases the chance of China being mutually destroyed, and it also slightly increases the chance of China not being able to mutually destroy its Western adversaries.

If China invades us, we launch our nukes.

Fat chance. Do you think U.S.'s conventional military exists as a joke?

There is so much nuclear material floating about, that trying to one-up each other at this point is a waste of time.

No, it's not. You still need to increase the chance of the European country's survival so that they can retaliate and reconsolidate themselves more easily. The ABM will also serve as strategic deterrence themselves, aside from nuclear missiles alone. It will reduce useless destruction. 10 missiles won't help much very much right now, but we can increase them without difficulty in the future if the foundation is set now.

As even if they thought they could preemptively strike and stop a counterstrike, a bunch of submarines are going to rain radiation on all of the major cities of the offending country.

That still won't stop China from committing second-strikes if its nuclear/ballistic missile force becomes strong enough. You'll still want the ABM in place to increase the chance of surviving a Chinese second strike. It doesn't mean it will be ensured. But it can help.

So anyway, you're saying that China is more of a threat than Iran - fair enough, it's a big country full of nutters. However, relating to the discussion of this thread, and this missile shield - china is simply not relevent.

Why not?

American missile shields are inherently there to defy not-very-friendly nuclear powers like China.

Also, tell me why America should have a permanent established presence in Eastern Europe? America should keep its shit in its own back yard.

That's not the question that I should be answering. But I'm sure America definitely wants to establish a heavy presence in Europe. It also helps them gain allies. The missile shield was useful for closing the gap between the U.S. and Eastern Europe countries who were afraid of Russia.

Now that the missile shield is gone, some of them will begin to think that Russia is more important to the U.S. than them. That will of course affect U.S.'s foreign relations and potentially reduce their strategic influence. And the U.S. doesn't want that.

A nice soundbyte to end a post with, but saying that you're right does not make you right.

You using a subjective opinion based on random experience to say that I'm 'fundamentally flawed' also sounds, eh, pretty nice.

[molbjerg]

No, it does not. You think Iran is an extremely desperate impoverished country who's looking for the most dramatic way to kill itself, don't you? Well, I'll tell you one thing, Iran is not North Korea. Iran is not a single person. Iran is a conglomerate of both rational and stupid people just like any other sovereign countries. Iran is as sane as you are when it comes to ensuring its continued survival.

No I don't. Although we have a country which re-elected a politician who expressed desires to wipe another country from the face of the earth, whilst trying to attain nuclear weapons. This is also a country which has a "supreme leader"... SUPREME. Sure there are sensible people in Iran, but there is also cause for concern. Iran as sane as I am when it comes to ensuring survival? Uh, how many white athiests are willing to blow themselves up to hurt someone else?

A ballistic missile shield such as what we're talking about would be utterly ineffective against a full strike from a properly armed nation. Pretending that maybe being able to shoot down 2 ICBMs before the rest land on your cities doesn't change the MAD situation in the least.

Then why are we bothering to develop all these ABM in the first place...?

Aegis system, THAAD, S-400, Patriot PAC; their very purpose is to increase the chance of the defending country surviving an attack by an offensive country therefore ensuring the opportunity to strike back. Right now, it's only the nukes themselves that are keeping countries from each other. But later when countries like the U.S. and Russia keep decommissioning their nuclear weapons and countries like China keep increasing theirs, and when potent ABM systems become mass produced,  it will be the ABM arsenal of the U.S. and Russia who will keep China's ambition in check. (along with the still-existing nuclear arsenal of course)

I don't really know why we're developing ABM... Do we need to increase the chance that we'll survive to be able to launch a counterattack? No, we will be able to counter attack to the point of destruction even if the first we hear of an attack is radar telling us so.

And do you really think that Russia and the USA will disarm most of their warheads and allow China to stockpile the most? I don't. We have reached a point of technology where - you fuck with us - you're dead, we're all dead. And now we're talking about WHEN ABM systems are actually useful - in the future - what's the point in making ones which aren't useful today. I'll stake my life on it that it will never be a few ABM systems which "keep China's ambition in check".

I reiterate, ABM will serve as a substitute deterrence against China. (and a means of survival) The ABM will be one of the ultimate reasons why China will be afraid of MAD; it increases the chance of China being mutually destroyed, and it also slightly increases the chance of China not being able to mutually destroy its Western adversaries.

Are you implying that china isn't afraid of MAD at the moment? They need a 0.1% effective missile shield to actually be worried? Bullshit. 

If China invades us, we launch our nukes.

Fat chance. Do you think U.S.'s conventional military exists as a joke?

Well, it's all escalation as I'm sure you understand. One of their soldies shoots one of ours, we blow up a jeep of theirs, they blow up a patrol, we blow up a base, they blow up a battleship, and when everyone is stressed to fuck things will be evaluated, and it's MAD time. The reason no nuclear powers have ever had a conventional war? Fear of escalation.

There is so much nuclear material floating about, that trying to one-up each other at this point is a waste of time.

No, it's not. You still need to increase the chance of the European country's survival so that they can retaliate and reconsolidate themselves more easily. The ABM will also serve as strategic deterrence themselves, aside from nuclear missiles alone. It will reduce useless destruction. 10 missiles won't help much very much right now, but we can increase them without difficulty in the future if the foundation is set now.

Like I say. In a war with a properly armed nuclear nation, a missile shield is, given current technology, useless. Everybody knows that if you launch a nuke, everyone dies. That's why nobody has done it. We don't need a shield for that to remain true, even if you do like the idea of the latest toys. ABM is a strategic deterrent? No - 2000 nukes pointed at your country is.

As even if they thought they could preemptively strike and stop a counterstrike, a bunch of submarines are going to rain radiation on all of the major cities of the offending country.

So anyway, you're saying that China is more of a threat than Iran - fair enough, it's a big country full of nutters. However, relating to the discussion of this thread, and this missile shield - china is simply not relevent.

Why not?

American missile shields are inherently there to defy not-very-friendly nuclear powers like China.

My understanding is that it's more of a back up plan for rogue states, such as Iran. There is no shield that can thwart an attack from China/Russia.

Also, tell me why America should have a permanent established presence in Eastern Europe? America should keep its shit in its own back yard.

That's not the question that I should be answering. But I'm sure America definitely wants to establish a heavy presence in Europe. It also helps them gain allies. The missile shield was useful for closing the gap between the U.S. and Eastern Europe countries who were afraid of Russia.

Now that the missile shield is gone, some of them will begin to think that Russia is more important to the U.S. than them. That will of course affect U.S.'s foreign relations and potentially reduce their strategic influence. And the U.S. doesn't want that.

That's a load of rubbish. Missile shields only INCREASE tensions as it is restarting the cold war. The european view of America and it's missile shield is a general GTFO from what I've experienced.

[darkjedi]

Iran as sane as I am when it comes to ensuring survival?

Yes, it is. However I don't know of a correct way to persuade of this fact.

And do you really think that Russia and the USA will disarm most of their warheads and allow China to stockpile the most? I don't.

Nah, I don't think so either, but since their own nuclear arsenal is decreasing in quantity and China's own ABM defense is getting better, U.S. and Russia's own ABM defenses should keep up to maintain the strategic balance.

This is what you need to know.

ABM defense = protects you.

It's the most fundamental definition of an anti-missile shield.

I want this protection to proliferate.

We have reached a point of technology where - you fuck with us - you're dead, we're all dead. And now we're talking about WHEN ABM systems are actually useful - in the future - what's the point in making ones which aren't useful today.

For establishing the foundation that the future generation can inherit and improve upon.

I'll stake my life on it that it will never be a few ABM systems which "keep China's ambition in check".

What if it's not a 'few' ABM?

Maybe your and my strategic interest is different. My interest lies in replacing nuclear weapons with ABM defenses to a certain degree so that there will be less risk of causing irreparable damage to the world. A heavy ABM arsenal is as likely to deter a nuclear attack as a second-strike nuclear arsenal. It's more expensive, yes. But it does improve the chance of survival better than a nuclear arsenal, and it reduces escalation. ABM simply is a much safer method of defying nuclear power.

Well, it's all escalation as I'm sure you understand. One of their soldies shoots one of ours, we blow up a jeep of theirs, they blow up a patrol, we blow up a base, they blow up a battleship, and when everyone is stressed to fuck things will be evaluated, and it's MAD time. The reason no nuclear powers have ever had a conventional war? Fear of escalation.

Indeed. A strong ABM defense can also keep escalation in check. What China is really afraid of the U.S. is not really its force projection capacity endowed by its large amphibious and carrier groups; it's actually the second-strike-capable nuclear submarines and their 80+ aegis cruisers and destroyers. Improving U.S.'s ABM defense can help maintain the strategic deterrence without necessarily resorting to ramping up second-strike capability. And that's what I want.

You don't know just how powerful America's ABM defense is, do you?



Just put more Aegis ships in there, (invest in more ABM obviously) and no Chinese missiles will get through the Pacific - and China will know this. And you don't need to use your own nuclear missiles, and the whole world stays safe.

Like I say. In a war with a properly armed nuclear nation, a missile shield is, given current technology, useless.

Which is essentially why we should keep improving it and establishing it, not ditching it.

Everybody knows that if you launch a nuke, everyone dies.

No, you don't. Right now China's nuclear force is not enough to completely destroy Europe or the U.S. However inevitably their nuclear arsenal is going to get stronger to suit their strategic needs. In this case you have 3 choices; upgrade your own nuclear arsenal; upgrade your ABM; upgrade your preemptive strike capability.

The one that I will put most faith in will eventually be the ABM. It's simply because it's the least aggressive form of defense which therefore reduces escalation and collateral casualties. (deja vu lol)

That's why nobody has done it.

Nobody has done it yet.

We don't need a shield for that to remain true, even if you do like the idea of the latest toys. ABM is a strategic deterrent? No - 2000 nukes pointed at your country is.

Bah. My point is, ABM can become a strategic deterrence also, if you only payed more attention to it. 2000 nukes can serve as strategic deterrence, yes. 2000 ABM can do just the same. Right now the U.S. has at least 3000 strategic ABM missiles, but many of them are spread all over the place right now, so it's even more important that the U.S. keep producing more ABM so that it can consolidate its defensive hold better, especially because China's nuclear arsenal is still growing.

My understanding is that it's more of a back up plan for rogue states, such as Iran. There is no shield that can thwart an attack from China/Russia.

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. There is a way to produce a shield that can thwart an attack from China or Russia aside from nuclear deterrence, and that's a fact. It's technologically, logistically, scientifically, economically, politically, and religiously possible. You just aren't doing it.

That's a load of rubbish. Missile shields only INCREASE tensions as it is restarting the cold war. The european view of America and it's missile shield is a general GTFO from what I've experienced.

Yeah, well, as if it's the average people's perception which determine international politics lol

What matters is the Polish and Czech government's perception, not it's average citizens. If the U.S. wants more support from these countries (which is they actually want) they want to give more concern to their strategic interests. Their strategic interest lies in protection from more powerful players like Russia and China, not small countries like Iran. Eastern European countries feel more threatened by Russia, and will feel more threatened by China in the future as it grows up, than they'll ever feel threatened by Iran, because their perception of Iran already rules Iran as a fundamentally weak country compared to Russia or China.

[lx4]

There is a lot of talk about there being a state of mutually assured destruction between America and China here. Im not so sure that is the case. From what I have read about this it seems the US has a large enough lead that nothing like a state of MAD exists. I dug up one of the articles i read on this a few years ago, but it seems you have to pay to read the whole thing online.

In a state of mutually assured destruction where hundreds of missiles would be fired at Europe in retaliation for a nuclear attack the missile shield would be useless. But in a situation where only a handful of missiles survive an American first strike it can be a life saver.

[Borror0]

I know some Europeans might not like this, but I do. It was a waste of our tax payer dollars.

To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of America liked the idea (talking about nations, not individuals).

It was obvious the project would be a failure. Most scientific agreed on that (but Bush ignored them) and on a philosophical standpoint, it's highly questionable. The only reasons that many nations sided with the US on this is that it represented huge economic gain for them and also helped to maintain a good relationship with one of the most powerful nations in the world.