Putin Wants Missile Defense Data (Again)

[ltstanfo]

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Vladimir Putin wants the US to share its missile defense data. Do what?! :shock:

Once again the bear is fishing for free handouts. How long will it be before the eagle drops the fish? We've already given Putin the old Bush era European plan by canceling it and replacing it with a "less threatening one". Let's see how long Obama holds out on this one and what his excuse will be when he caves in.

For anyone who thinks I am simply picking on the president (and yes, I am.. to an extent) please consider the following:

Missile defense vs missile offense is a simple numbers game. There is no way the present system can hope to stop a full on exchange. When you consider that the average ICBM has a minimum of 6 re-entry vehicles (RVs), each independently targeted, it would take a missile "shield" larger than the old Safeguard system to even consider stopping a first wave. Missile defense today is designed to stop small numbers of incoming RVs at various stages of flight (read China, North Korea, Iran, etc...) by launching one booster / interceptor at one RV and using the kinetic energy of two high speed objects hitting each other to destroy both objects - the so called "bullet hitting bullet". If the Russians were to decide it was time for a full out launch, it would simply be the end for both sides (witness the MAD doctrine). So, once again I believe that Putin is doing nothing more than fishing for a better political posture and I worry that our politically inexperienced president will once again give in. Putin knows what our system is capable of (they built their own derivative Safeguard type system in the 50's thru early 00s, look up ABM-1 Galosh) so it is not like they have no understanding. Ahh.. politics...

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

I predict Obama will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

 

[Glaucus]

Once again we see Putin over stepping his constitutional bounds. Problem is, he's good at it foreign policy. Very good. Probably way better then Obama (and leaps and bounds better then Bush). I think Putin reads Obama's decision to pull missiles and radars out of Eastern Europe as weakness and it seems he's trying to exploit it. I don't agree with Red however, I don't think Obama will fold so easily. Obama's olive branch can be easily turned back into a sword. The last time the Russians tried to bully an inexperienced US President they ended up retreating their missiles out of Cuba. Luckily the stakes are lower but I don't think Obama will make any huge mistake here. Unfortunately, any negotiations will be done behind closed doors so don't expect to know all the details, at least not any time soon.

 

[Robert]

I predict Obama will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

Too right. He's Putin's biiiaatch. He's much more commie than Putin too. Do you know he's even got a commie solstice decoration (commies don't celebrate Christmas) on his commie tree?
And after he's finished killing your Mom and Grannie and making your little kids have sex he's going to let the red menace march right into your living room and pour itself a nice vodka, using your back as a table, while the rest of your family are sent to the salt mines.

Damn you, Obama and your patricidal, paedophilic, commie ways!

 

[ltstanfo]

Once again we see Putin over stepping his constitutional bounds. Problem is, he's good at it foreign policy. Very good. Probably way better then Obama (and leaps and bounds better then Bush). I think Putin reads Obama's decision to pull missiles and radars out of Eastern Europe as weakness and it seems he's trying to exploit it. I don't agree with Red however, I don't think Obama will fold so easily. Obama's olive branch can be easily turned back into a sword. The last time the Russians tried to bully an inexperienced US President they ended up retreating their missiles out of Cuba. Luckily the stakes are lower but I don't think Obama will make any huge mistake here. Unfortunately, any negotiations will be done behind closed doors so don't expect to know all the details, at least not any time soon.

You bring up an interesting comparison of Obama vs Kennedy. It's one I am glad you brought up as (IMO) JFK was far more experienced going into his first term than Obama was. To begin with, in 1940, Kennedy wrote his Harvard thesis, "Appeasement in Munich," about British participation in the Munich Agreement. He graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in international affairs in June 1940, and his thesis was published in July 1940 as a book entitled Why England Slept, and became a bestseller. In 1941 was accepted by the US Navy giving JFK military experience, including seeing combat. So he had an understanding (limited as it was) of the "bad outcome" when diplomacy fails. Kennedy then successfully ran for office and represented Massachusetts's 11th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and served in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1960. So, more than one term at the national level of politics. Add to that (insignificant as it may be) that he came from American foreign service "royalty" and had an entire family of politicians to consult.

Now, about the current president. Let's see... he is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review (no small feat I admit). He subsequently became the much touted "community organizer" then earned a law degree and practiced in Chicago. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. President Obama went on to serve three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He won a seat to the US Senate in late 2004 and served from 2005 till late 2008 when he won election to the presidency (slightly less than 1 term).

So, on the surface, they seem (IMO) mostly matched on the domestic front but on the international front I see a very big difference. Yep, I do agree that Putin perceives weakness in Obama and is trying to exploit it for his gain. I do not see the Russians risking the loss of anything here. Obama is the one with (potentially) everything to lose (or give away as some may see it).

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

Damn you, Obama and your patricidal, paedophilic, commie ways!

Good characterization of the Obama Red Menace... :roflmao:

 

[redrumloa]

I predict Obama will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

Too right. He's Putin's biiiaatch. He's much more commie than Putin too. Do you know he's even got a commie solstice decoration (commies don't celebrate Christmas) on his commie tree?
And after he's finished killing your Mom and Grannie and making your little kids have sex he's going to let the red menace march right into your living room and pour itself a nice vodka, using your back as a table, while the rest of your family are sent to the salt mines.

Damn you, Obama and your patricidal, paedophilic, commie ways!

While humorous, I must be concerned for your mental state. Have you been feeling well Robert

 

[ltstanfo]

Even thought I could have started a new thread, the below relates to older discussions so I just revived one of them...

Once again, Putin shows who is in charge (sadly)...

Russia reserves right to back out of new arms deal with the US if the missile defense system becomes a threat to them. WHAT?!!!!!!! :shock:

Let's see how long it takes for Obama to further erode the missile defense capability to appease the Russians... :roll:

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Fade]

ltstanfo said
"Let's see how long it takes for Obama to further erode the missile defense capability to appease the Russians."
-----------------------------------

About 30 minutes!

 

[faethor]

"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. "
Ronald Reagan

 

[Fade]

But they haven't. They are just too busy jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

 

[faethor]

But they haven't. They are just too busy jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

Fade you're onto something. The physicts left to become climatologists to get us that way instead.

 

[Fade]

Here is what a real Climate Scientist has had to say on that very subject for years. Google is your friend; try it sometime Faethor.

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"While the International Panel on Climate Change's reports were in preparation, the National Research Council in the United States was commissioned to prepare a synthesis of the current state of the global change situation. The panel chosen was hardly promising. It had no members of the academy expert in climate. Indeed, it had only one scientist directly involved in climate, Stephen Schneider, who is an ardent environmental advocate. It also included three professional environmental advocates, and it was headed by a former senator, Dan Evans. The panel did include distinguished scientists and economists outside the area of climate"

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do"

"Major agencies in the United States, hitherto closely involved with traditional approaches to national security, have appropriated the issue of climate change to support existing efforts. Notable among those agencies are NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy"

 

[faethor]

?SNIP?
All - sorry for allowing myself to be suckd into an off topic post...

 

[ltstanfo]

"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. "
Ronald Reagan

I must not understand what you are trying to say... I agree with Reagan's statement which is partly why I work missile defense.

I am trying to imply that Obama will likely further reduce missile defense capability / responsiveness for "fear" of having the Russians back out of the new arms agreement. What are you trying to say?

Thanks,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

What are you trying to say?

Obama's dream of a nuclear free world was also a dream of Republican Reagan.

 

[ltstanfo]

What are you trying to say?

Obama's dream of a nuclear free world was also a dream of Republican Reagan.

I have to disagree. Reagan (IMO) wanted to give more options to get out of a nuclear conflict by making it more difficult for a (limited) nuclear assault to be effective. While his original vision of "Star Wars / SDI" may have called for full out protection via space based and air / land / sea based systems, the reality quickly set in that such a system was a pipe dream. Unless you (as the nuclear aggressor) are prepared for a full out exchange (with its consequences), your assault will be limited. As you and I have discussed in previous conversations, missile defense / (nuclear) missile attack is a pure numbers game. Even the best missile defense can be overcome by sheer numbers but the cost of building and maintaining such overwhelming delivery systems is (almost) prohibitively expensive, even if your country enjoys superpower status. Also, given the nature of MAD, which all the nuclear superpowers use to varying degrees, the use of nuclear weapons is and (IMO) always will be a last resort because of the mutually assured destruction. The risk comes more from start up or "rogue" nuclear powers (like Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc..) whose limited arsenal is far more likely to be used than either the US or Russian inventories.

Reagan's vision might have been intended for a greatly reduced nuclear (weapons) world but I doubt a nuclear free world. Sadly, as long as we build weapons, nuclear weapons will be the "mother of all weapons" and someone will always possess that "big stick". In that case, I still believe that MAD has to exist and to further deter use, establish an effective missile shield.

Keep in mind that the former Soviets were quite nervous at US missile defense efforts and the Russians still pay close attention. I can assure you that they pay very close attention to every test we conduct.

So, using nuclear weapons among the super powers has likely been reduced (at least in part) as a consequence of missile defense. Reagan may have understood this but I don't see Obama "getting it".

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

What are you trying to say?

I wonder if this is a question of what the ultimate ideal was versus what was possible given the technology at a time.

For other evidence I cite the time that Russia had proposed eliminating nuclear weapons by 2000. Reagan's first comment was questioning why it had to take so long.

Reagan's vision was indeed eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons and war.


As for MAD, I'm not sure what superpower you're talking about. We are the lone superduper power. China might be on a rise. With our economies so intertwined the MAD might well be economic in nature. (Plus they make our cruise missiles so...)

 

[ltstanfo]

I wonder if this is a question of what the ultimate ideal was versus what was possible given the technology at a time.

For other evidence I cite the time that Russia had proposed eliminating nuclear weapons by 2000. Reagan's first comment was questioning why it had to take so long.

Reagan's vision was indeed eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons and war.


As for MAD, I'm not sure what superpower you're talking about. We are the lone superduper power. China might be on a rise. With our economies so intertwined the MAD might well be economic in nature. (Plus they make our cruise missiles so...)

I suspect you are on to something. I can see both Reagan and Gorbe being interested in reducing / eliminating nuclear weapons but given the realities of technology (at the time as well as today) and most certainly geo politics, I suspect their vision was rapidly overcome by events. Completely eliminating nuclear weapons while admirable in concept just isn't a workable solution. Certainly not in our lifetime (IMO).

As for "super power" status, I still count Russia because of their very large nuclear stockpile. I also include China (yes, they are on the rise and their stockpile is respectable as well).

I would also consider France, UK, and Israel as "senior members" of the nuclear club. Their warheads and delivery systems are evolved and mature. Other nations like India and Pakistan are 1st generation (of useful technology) members. There is still speculation about whether or not South Africa has truly eliminated their stockpile or just rendered it inactive by disassembly.

Still, thanks for the interesting discussion!

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

Is Russia a "super power". If so it's definitely not the power it was. As oil prices increase it will gain wealth and therefore will gain more power. Russia scares me because they have nukes which are worth money and they need money. Letting a couple scientists go to North Korea or the middle-east is scary enough. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they dismantled a nuke or two and sold off the pieces.

And thank you for the interesting discussion!