(September 18, 2009) Opinion: "Good choice by Obama on missile defense" (Thomas Barnett Blog)

[Ikasu]

Suitably handled by Obama, with the right timing.

We have VERY important friends much closer in than Eastern Europe. If we cannot stop Iran from getting nukes, then we need to demonstrate--close-in--that we are willing and able to provide defense options and retaliation capabilities.

This is how we do it.


His comment replying to the criticisms:


Please, the 70th anniversary?

Obama announces a week before and we hear, "And he announced only a week before the 70th ...." Ditto for any other date you can name.

Please, let's elevate the discussion some to actual strategy vice this in-the-weeds griping.

The timing point argument I made was about Obama dragging out the decision suitably. I guess neither he nor I checked our "Aggrieved Nations Calendar 2009."

Now we'll get proven technology faster and more appropriately and flexibly placed. No Maginot Lines, if you require a historical reference.

As for now casting this whole thing as a "betrayal" of Poland or the CR, that's too rich. Sold as a measure to defend against Iran and nowhere near enough to stop the Russians from doing anything heavy with nukes, we now brand Obama the betrayer of the Poles?

It was a dumb decision from the beginning. There was no good military rationale. We knew and so did the Russians, so big surprise, they didn't care to trade anything for it.

Seriously people, this is emotion speaking instead of strategic thinking.

Closer-in friends are oil producers and Israel. My preferred missile defense would be parked in the PG itself. You want your containment effort to be visible, signaling commitment where it matters.

And no, Poland and the CR don't matter on this one. Saudi Arabia and the GCC matter, as does Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, etc.


Source (http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2009/09/good_choice_by_obama_on_missil.html#comments)

[Eminence]

Thanks for posting. Can this thread have "Opinion" be added to the beginning of the title, like the thread on the corporate welfare aspect of the European missile shield U-turn thread was?

Just trying to be consistent.

[Ikasu]

Thanks for posting. Can this thread have "Opinion" be added to the beginning of the title, like the thread on the corporate welfare aspect of the European missile shield U-turn thread was?

Just trying to be consistent.

Okay.

Added

[Eminence]

Okay.

Added

Thanks! BTW, how do you edit the thread title after posting a thread? Am trying to do that for a thread in the off-topic zone but it doesn't seem to be giving me any option to do. I don't see where it is anyway.

Input on how to do so would be appreciated. :)

[Ikasu]

Thanks! BTW, how do you edit the thread title after posting a thread? Am trying to do that for a thread in the off-topic zone but it doesn't seem to be giving me any option to do. I don't see where it is anyway.

Input on how to do so would be appreciated. :)

Click edit then "go advanced" and you can change the title. Or on the main page, you can double click by the title and you can edit it there.

[tracker]

Thanks! BTW, how do you edit the thread title after posting a thread? Am trying to do that for a thread in the off-topic zone but it doesn't seem to be giving me any option to do. I don't see where it is anyway.

Input on how to do so would be appreciated. :)

After a certain length of time, you no longer have the option to edit. I think you have a few hours only.

[Ikasu]

bump

[CGP]

Thanks! BTW, how do you edit the thread title after posting a thread? Am trying to do that for a thread in the off-topic zone but it doesn't seem to be giving me any option to do. I don't see where it is anyway.

Input on how to do so would be appreciated. :)

There is a time limit on editing thread titles - I think it's one day (will have to check).

[Ikasu]

There is a time limit on editing thread titles - I think it's one day (will have to check).

I think it's only 3 or 4 hours actually.

[CGP]

I think it's only 3 or 4 hours actually.

I checked the current settings just now:

* For individual posts: 3 hours (180 minutes)

* For thread titles: 12 hours (720 minutes)

[VotingHillary]

a good choice if you are Russia, Iran or Venezula...bad choice if you think our nation should honor it's committments to our allies.

[Ikasu]

a good choice if you are Russia, Iran or Venezula...bad choice if you think our nation should honor it's committments to our allies.

We're moving the defense system out of Eastern Europe to defend the middle east nations from Iran with proven technology in a more efficient system. The old system may or may not have worked! There was no way of knowing. This is actually bad for Iran. The US will protect Saudi Arabia and Israel from Iran with the new system. The old system was not good enough to protect from Russia anyways. It was intended to protect that region from Iran. It was simply an Eastern European pork barrel project. Think of it that way. Some technical points from a commenter on TalkLeft that you might find useful.


As probably the only person here who has worked on this system, I can say it doesn't work, and would never be tested realistically unless the bad guys launched nukes.

Bullheaded defense of vaporware is hardly a substitute for strength.

There have been a number of successful intercepts, some, like the Navy's which have been impressive. Allegations of rigged tests did surface in the late '80s and early '90s, and they were allegations of blatant cheating. Now, the cheating is a lot more sophisticated. Early allegations were that the USAF placed explosives in the target vehicle to fake the explosion of an intercept, and that a beacon was placed in a target RV. Now that systems can more reliably actually hit targets, a "bullet with a bullet," the problem has shifted to the real scenario in which we don't know what the enemy RV looks like to the missile seeker, and even if we had a solution to countermeasures (we don't apparently) like chaff and cheap fake RVs, we can't predict what they would like like either. If the enemy launches a long range nuke and a cloud of various fakes and chaff, we'd have to launch say three interceptors for each potential target to be certain that a nuke did not get through. You have to be 100% effective, since you can never, ever, allow successful nuclear attack to occur. So we'd have to launch dozens of interceptors for each rouge missile, 100% certainty that our system worked. The budget becomes impossible, in the face of futility from knowing that weapons systems never work a high percentage of the time until they have been exhaustively tested and improved. But we will never have the chance to simulate nuclear exchanges unless the bad guys are kind enough to give us stockpiles of accurate replicas of their hardware.

As we knew before the incompetents in the GOP regained control of the DoD in 2000, nuclear missiles are not the real threat, conventional terrorism and loose nukes with no return address are. Those of us who paid attention to the topic know all of this well before the Bush administration dropped the ball 8 years ago this month.

The phrase "tuned to the exact frequency," is incorrect. The issue is, exoatmospheric vehicles radiate light in the form of heat. Just how much, and what "color" it is is unknown until you see it. In the US's case, we are able to program test interceptors to look for exactly the right target, we knew what to look for, with nice reliable "I'm here" signatures. One report mentioned that junk from North Korea might actually defeat our system because it wobbled rather than stayed steady as our higher technology test dummies do. Our missile defense systems are highly complex multilayer hardware and software networks, and if a target has the wrong twinkle, we'll miss it.

[foxyladi]

we need defenses everywhere

[Spang]

(No Nudity)

[Valin]

While I consider myself nowhere near being an Isolationist, I cannot see the justification of this country providing ANY missile defense for any part of Europe . . Unless Europe asks for and PAYS for it!

We protected Europe from Russia and Eastern Europe for over 40 years at an unbelievable cost, with little or no monetary assistance from them . . and now we were going to protect them from the very people they have helped get Nuclear bomb and delivery technology?

While I'm no Obama fan . . Thank you, Barack . .

Posted by large | September 18, 2009 12:03 PM


This is an interesting point.
A small question: What happens if Iran drops a nuclear warhead on....(say) Rotterdam? What happens to the world economy? What happens to the US economy (given how interconneted the world economy is)?

They wouldn't even have to launch just threaten to launch. A private phone call saying "We want you to do...(incert demand here) or we launch"

[NativeSun]

This guy approaches the subject from all the wrong angles that I can only laugh at it. :rotfl:

[Ikasu]

This guy approaches the subject from all the wrong angles that I can only laugh at it. :rotfl:

You can read his bio here (http://thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm).

[tracker]

Nonsense!:-bd[-X

[Ikasu]

Nonsense!:-bd[-X

Explain.