The Bluegrass Boondoggle

[SassyLady]

Do you mind if I call you Ilene?

Yes.

[SassyLady]

The New Start Treaty signed on Feb 5, 2010 is about cutting our strategic missle launchers by half.

[logroller]

Exactly. That was in the llnk. That's a far cry from the claims made by Missile/Sassy.

I'll not speculate on what mm and SL think, but it's reasonable to assume our strategic interest in missile defense is defined by where an attack might commence, and thus where we place the defense systems at the optimal location. I don't think we'd place them in eastern Europe by chance. Were we to abandon those locations, it's reasonable to assume it would weaken our ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. Though not abandoned in whole, the location of defense sites bears a direct impact on their efficacy, and thus, our national security.

[Howard Roark]

I'll not speculate on what mm and SL think, but it's reasonable to assume our strategic interest in missile defense is defined by where an attack might commence, and thus where we place the defense systems at the optimal location. I don't think we'd place them in eastern Europe by chance. Were we to abandon those locations, it's reasonable to assume it would weaken our ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. Though not abandoned in whole, the location of defense sites bears a direct impact on their efficacy, and thus, our national security.

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

[Missileman]

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

The Russians are bitching because they believe our eastern European sites might be able to thwart a Russian attack on the US.

[logroller]

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

Of course were bound by geopolitical limitations. But I, nor you, are experts in strategic missile defense. Where they are placed are determined by those who do know. For all you or I know, Russia is still a threat. They have nukes, right? We also have missile defense systems onboard ships, but what if they fail to disable an airborne threat? We have redundancy for that reason. If you want to talk about the efficacy of our systems, and whether they increase our security; that's an entirely different argument than where and why they are placed in one place or another. I don't have all the answers here; but I think it's safe to assume Russia doesn't have the American national security at the top of its list of concerns and when our CIC is heard suggesting he will take a different route later, but can't for political election reasons...I can understand why his electorate may be concerned his interests and ours may be odds.

[Mr. P]

Of course were bound by geopolitical limitations. But I, nor you, are experts in strategic missile defense. Where they are placed are determined by those who do know. For all you or I know, Russia is still a threat. They have nukes, right? We also have missile defense systems onboard ships, but what if they fail to disable an airborne threat? We have redundancy for that reason. If you want to talk about the efficacy of our systems, and whether they increase our security; that's an entirely different argument than where and why they are placed in one place or another. I don't have all the answers here; but I think it's safe to assume Russia doesn't have the American national security at the top of its list of concerns and when our CIC is heard suggesting he will take a different route later, but can't for political election reasons...I can understand why his electorate may be concerned his interests and ours may be odds.

No, it's really not a different story IMO. Long flight paths are not straight lines. They are more of an arc because: 1. it's the shortest distance and 2. You must compensate for the earths rotation during the time in flight 3. the optimum altitude to intercept etc. So, effective launch sites could be located in areas one would scratch their head at without considering these factors. Just my 2cents.

[logroller]

No, it's really not a different story IMO. Long flight paths are not straight lines. They are more of an arc because: 1. it's the shortest distance and 2. You must compensate for the earths rotation during the time in flight 3. the optimum altitude to intercept etc. So, effective launch sites could be located in areas one would scratch their head at without considering these factors. Just my 2cents.

like I said, I'm no expert. The point I was trying to make was that the politics of missile defense is different than the efficacy of such systems' locations regarding threats. For example, were a missile launched from Iran, northwestward over Russia, and our eastern European defense shield intercepts and destroys that missile, perhaps over or near Russian airspace; the fallout from that is absolutely a Russian concern; not really an American one though. But he'll, I don't know. For all I know Iran doesn't have any nuke capability, right? And this is just a ruse to infuse American interests into Iranian policy. ...maybe that's like three cents, but what's a penny?

[ConHog]

NO for life! We are already supporting them for the rest of their lives they DO NOT need the lobby money. it should be illegal for any federal govt employee to act as a lobbiest!!!!

No!! Lobbies themselves should be illegal. PERIOD

[logroller]

No!! Lobbies themselves should be illegal. PERIOD

Not saying I disagree, but that would need to include political parties too. I just don't see how that's feasible.