No missile shield in Poland?

...I think it appropriate that German nationals are REMINDED that Jews have not forgotten what Nazis did (not Walter), since the problems in Israel are a direct result of that Nazi regime.....

If I judge by your example, I'm not sure that every Jew leaving France is a loss nor do I think that it's Quebec gain.

But I tend to think that you are one of those few black sheep that makes me ashamed to be part of the same humankind as you...

Foofie wrote:

...I think it appropriate that German nationals are REMINDED that Jews have not forgotten what Nazis did (not Walter), since the problems in Israel are a direct result of that Nazi regime.....

if that's really what you believe, then be a man and say it directly, not this "oh i hate goose stepping soldiers" sideways, cracking from the corner of your mouth bullshit. if you are going to insult someone, say it straight up.

and another thing. if the germans i know are any indication, you don't have to remind them about anything regarding Die Dritten Reich. they are more than keenly aware of germany's not so distant past.

but then if you go back far enough, you will find blood on the hands of any nation or people, won't you?

Czech Foreign Minister: New NATO missile plan for Europe

Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Prague - Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout has reacted to the announcement that the US is cancelling its planned missile defence shield in eastern Europe by saying a new defence system for Europe under NATO is being planned. "The outcome of the review in no way means a retreat from a project of anti-missile defence. On the contrary, it will strengthen and streamline protection of the whole of Europe, especially against short- and medium-range missiles," Kohout said following talks with US Under Secretary of Defence Policy Michele Flournoy and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher.

Kohout said that the US had confirmed that the future development of missile defence in Europe would take place within the framework of NATO, rather than through bilateral deals as had been the approach of the Bush administration.

On Thursday US President Barack Obama confirmed earlier statements from Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer that the former missile shield, involving missiles stationed in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic, was being scrapped.

The Wrong Defense and the Wrong Target
by
Richard L. Garwin and Theodore A. Postol
July 8, 2009

Trey Obering and Eric Edelman misrepresent the findings of an East-West Institute study done by a team of Russian and US experts on Iran's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs and then use these misrepresentations to make arguments that are without merit. They claim that a recently tested Iranian solid propellant ballistic missile represents a threat to Europe ("putting much of Europe within range") and imply that the Czech radar and Polish interceptors can counter it when in fact the missile is of too short a range to reach most European capitals and even to be engaged by the European missile defense system they advocate.

They also claim that our report incorrectly identifies and discusses serious limitations of the European Midcourse Radar that Gen. Obering was involved in advocating for the Czech Republic when he was director of the Missile Defense Agency. Our study found that the range of this radar against warheads is so short that it cannot provide even rudimentary discrimination capabilities against warheads and decoys launched from Iran to the eastern two thirds of the continental United States and Northern and Western Europe.

Obering and Edelman state that the radar "has been operated in flight tests in the South Pacific for more than eight years." What they do not say is that the radar was of such short range that it could only be tested against realistic mock warheads at ranges of a few hundred kilometers, where the actual intercept attempts occurred after long-range missiles had already flown thousands of miles to arrive near the radar.

We have recommended to the National Security Adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, that the real capabilities of this radar get high-level technical attention in the president's Missile Defense Review. If this radar does not have the range to discriminate between warheads and decoys, it will mean that the Missile Defense Agency has committed to a radar that would leave two thirds of the eastern part of the continental United States, as well as Northern and Western Europe, with a defense that cannot tell the difference between warheads and countermeasures so simple that it is impossible to believe they would not, and could not, be used.

The other findings of the East-West Institute Study are also relevant to Obering's and Edelman's claims of a dire threat from Iran that requires the immediate adoption of a flawed and untested missile defense system. They are:

# A ballistic missile can only be a nuclear threat if the adversary has a nuclear weapon that the missile can carry.

# The time it would take Iran to have a roughly 2000 km range ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead is determined by the time it would take Iran to build a nuclear warhead that is sufficiently light and compact to fly on a ballistic missile. Assuming Iran does not have clandestine enrichment capabilities, it would take Iran about six years to produce such a weapon"starting from the time they expel the International Atomic Energy Agency from their currently monitored nuclear enrichment facilities.

# In the event that Iran could build longer-range missiles that could reach Northern and Western Europe or the United States, they would be very large and cumbersome, and would have to be launched from well-known specialized launch locations. Such missiles would be highly vulnerable to preemption and, as described in our report, to small interceptor missiles based on stealthy drone aircraft to shoot down the lumbering missiles as they are launched.

Unlike the European missile defense, this defense is not subject to countermeasures. We like it, because we like weapons that work!

Richard L. Garwin is a long-time contributor to U.S. military technology.

Theodore A. Postol is Professor of Science, Technology, and national Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The timing of the announcement is poor, coming on September 17th, the anniversary of the Soviet attack on Poland in 1939. In a country highly tuned to symbolic snubs, it matters that nobody in Washington seemed to know or care about that.

Locally, is this program considered vital to Polish and Czech defense or just a foreign investment program? I'm traveling to Poland in a couple of weeks, so maybe I can find out for myself.

They don't want Russia to be able to re-invade them like they did in Georgia, so the more NATO troops stationed on their soil the better.

I'm impressed. I didn't think Obama had the balls to cancel this enormous boondoggle.

Walter - nobody with the least grasp of ballistic calculations believed that protecting Europe from (imaginary) Iranian or North Korean missiles involved building an underpowered old-technology interceptor station in Poland.

Professor Theodore Postol has an excellent analysis of why that idea was ridiculous to begin with - I'll see if I can find a link to his presentation to the US Congress sometime in 2007, but meanwhile am posting a letter of his from only last month:

Quote:

The Wrong Defense and the Wrong Target
by
Richard L. Garwin and Theodore A. Postol
July 8, 2009

Trey Obering and Eric Edelman misrepresent the findings of an East-West Institute study done by a team of Russian and US experts on Iran's Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs and then use these misrepresentations to make arguments that are without merit. They claim that a recently tested Iranian solid propellant ballistic missile represents a threat to Europe ("putting much of Europe within range") and imply that the Czech radar and Polish interceptors can counter it when in fact the missile is of too short a range to reach most European capitals and even to be engaged by the European missile defense system they advocate.

Quote:

They also claim that our report incorrectly identifies and discusses serious limitations of the European Midcourse Radar that Gen. Obering was involved in advocating for the Czech Republic when he was director of the Missile Defense Agency. Our study found that the range of this radar against warheads is so short that it cannot provide even rudimentary discrimination capabilities against warheads and decoys launched from Iran to the eastern two thirds of the continental United States and Northern and Western Europe.

Quote:

The other findings of the East-West Institute Study are also relevant to Obering's and Edelman's claims of a dire threat from Iran that requires the immediate adoption of a flawed and untested missile defense system. They are:

# A ballistic missile can only be a nuclear threat if the adversary has a nuclear weapon that the missile can carry.

Quote:

# The time it would take Iran to have a roughly 2000 km range ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead is determined by the time it would take Iran to build a nuclear warhead that is sufficiently light and compact to fly on a ballistic missile. Assuming Iran does not have clandestine enrichment capabilities, it would take Iran about six years to produce such a weapon"starting from the time they expel the International Atomic Energy Agency from their currently monitored nuclear enrichment facilities.

Quote:

# In the event that Iran could build longer-range missiles that could reach Northern and Western Europe or the United States, they would be very large and cumbersome, and would have to be launched from well-known specialized launch locations. Such missiles would be highly vulnerable to preemption and, as described in our report, to small interceptor missiles based on stealthy drone aircraft to shoot down the lumbering missiles as they are launched.

Unlike the European missile defense, this defense is not subject to countermeasures.

oralloy wrote:

They don't want Russia to be able to re-invade them like they did in Georgia, so the more NATO troops stationed on their soil the better.

Well, but you don't believe Poland or the Czechs would start a war with Russia like Georgia did before they were "invaded", do you?

Quote:

Czech Foreign Minister: New NATO missile plan for Europe

Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Prague - Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout has reacted to the announcement that the US is cancelling its planned missile defence shield in eastern Europe by saying a new defence system for Europe under NATO is being planned. "The outcome of the review in no way means a retreat from a project of anti-missile defence. On the contrary, it will strengthen and streamline protection of the whole of Europe, especially against short- and medium-range missiles," Kohout said following talks with US Under Secretary of Defence Policy Michele Flournoy and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher.

Kohout said that the US had confirmed that the future development of missile defence in Europe would take place within the framework of NATO, rather than through bilateral deals as had been the approach of the Bush administration.

On Thursday US President Barack Obama confirmed earlier statements from Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer that the former missile shield, involving missiles stationed in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic, was being scrapped.

Source: dpa via EarthTimes

No reason we can't base them in both Eastern and Western Europe though I guess.

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm impressed. I didn't think Obama had the balls to cancel this enormous boondoggle.

I don't think you'd find missile defense a boondoggle if Iran had just fired a nuclear warhead at you.

.......the Sejjil ballistic missile has range and payload characteristics that are rather
similar to the Safir satellite launch vehicle if the Safir were modified to be a ballistic missile.
The level of solid rocket propellant technology demonstrated in the Sejjil does not indicate that
this technology can be easily used to construct a larger long-range solid propellant missile that
could threaten Northern or Western Europe. The technology is even less suitable for building a
long-range ICBM.

Oralloy - your post is so replete with elementary mistakes that I'm not going to waste time correcting each one.

Before you post nonsense on decoys again, though, consider that each incoming warhead can contain thousands of decoys;

Btw, if the good professor really is senile, as you claim, we're in deep trouble - he's our top expert in the field.

from what I gather Secretary Gates was keen on cancelling the boondoggle in question. At this point the defense budget is at best a zero-sum game and such money as is available must be put to good use.