DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 10:17 am
@Foofie,
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?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 08:09 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

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...


Your posts likely would sound nicer to my ears with a French accent.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 08:30 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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?


You are telling me how to post? Who annointed you as my adviser? If you never had my set of experiences, I can only find it audacious to advise me.

Notice your last paragraph. Physician, heal thyself. Say what is on your mind, rather than make innuendos.

And, notice the illogic of alluding to the far past, when I am only referencing sixty-five years ago.

And again, I am only reminding someone; I am making no personal attacks.

What is your problem with my concerns? As a Jew I have every right to babble about the Holocaust 24/7. What gives you the ethical right to question my Never Forgetting? Do you not like my presence on this forum? Do you prefer "timid" Jews that are careful to pander to Gentile sensitivities?

Mind you, as an American and a veteran, I do not like to listen to foreigners that do not appreciate the U.S. presence in Europe (i.e., missiles), since it was our presence that allowed them to be democracies today. The complaining, about U.S. military presence, in my opinion, reflects ingratitude.

Perhaps, you can accept that in addition to being a Jew, with feelings about the Final Solution, I am also a U.S. citizen, with feelings towards this country, it having been a safe haven from European anti-Semitism. I choose not to be an ingrate.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:04 am
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
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
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.

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.
That new NATO defensive station is just a political fig leaf, as you know, and as Czechs and Poles realize only too well. And The Economist makes another good point:
Quote:
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.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14480416&source=features_box_main
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:21 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
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.


The reason they wanted the interceptors there was because it would be an increased NATO presence in their country. 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.

The missiles themselves were intended more to protect against cities in Western Europe. Were Iran to fire nuclear warheads at Poland though, the missiles would have provided protection in that case as well.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:30 am
@oralloy,
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?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:37 am
@joefromchicago,
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.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:48 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
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.


The missiles are hardly "underpowered". Nor are they old technology. Nor is it "imagination" that Iran is developing both nuclear warheads and the missiles to carry them.

And yes, the sites in Eastern Europe were designed to intercept missiles fired at Western Europe.



High Seas wrote:
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.


Trouble is, Iran continues to work on improving their missiles.

The defense was designed for the day Iran does have missiles that can hit Western Europe.



High Seas wrote:
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.


If you can't tell what is a warhead and what is a decoy, take out both the warheads and the decoys.



High Seas wrote:
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.


I note the fact that Iran is developing such a warhead and the world is standing around wringing their hands instead of bombing their nuclear program.



High Seas wrote:
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.


Iran already has the designs for such a warhead. All they need is the fissile material to place within it.



High Seas wrote:
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.


That is goofy and delusional. Postol must be getting senile. Stealth drones lurking close enough to the launch site to fire short range missiles at launching missiles? Not subject to countermeasures?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 06:09 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

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?


I find the notion that Georgia started the war preposterous.

The EU report yesterday said that Russia continuously provoked Georgia until they finally attacked. I don't really see how the provocation does not count as starting the war, while the response to the provocation does count.

Also, the report did not categorically deny Georgia's claim that Russia was already invading them when they attacked. Rather it says it can't be proven either way.

At any rate, I'm sure that Eastern Europe would not like to be "continuously provoked by Russia" either, even if they never responded to the provocation.

And the stronger the defenses are in any of these countries, the less likely Russia will be to mess with them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 06:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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


Those missiles have a much shorter range. They would have to be based in Western Europe in order to defend Western Europe.

Basing those missiles in Eastern Europe will satisfy their desire for a greater NATO presence, but it won't do much to defend Western Europe.

No reason we can't base them in both Eastern and Western Europe though I guess.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 08:03 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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


I've lived about 40 years close to US-missile bases, which were both official and 'unofficial' [that's some were pure US-American, other were co-'owned' by Canadian/Belgian/British troops, the largest station "didn't exist"].

I don't feel insecure now but I quite a bit calmer about "enemy" attacks.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 08:17 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

I'll issue a contrite apology just as soon as that happens.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 04:55 pm
@oralloy,
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; if your idea is to launch missiles against each decoy, by definition you need thousands of land-based missiles per incoming warhead - and you may have dozens of those at any one time. As to those alleged dangers to Northern Europe from Iran, read the technical addendum of the expert I quoted previously:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:y0K4CpYdwKIJ:docs.ewi.info/JTA_TA_Sejjil.pdf+ballistic+trajectories+postol+mit&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Quote:
.......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.


Btw, if the good professor really is senile, as you claim, we're in deep trouble - he's our top expert in the field.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:04 pm
@joefromchicago,
Joe - 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.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:10 pm
@High Seas,
What's a "zero sum game" HS. Do you not do quality at all?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:14 pm
@spendius,
Bombed again, eh Spendius? Zero-sum means that if you wish to increase one part of your budget you must cut back from another part. If all else fails you hold a garage sale - last we heard from your PM Brown that's exactly what the UK is doing to repair its finances.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:22 pm
@High Seas,
That's just a fanciful tale HS. We have assets to burn.

I did know that a "zero sum game" was as technically esoteric as you define it. A lady once explained it to me in the pub.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 08:25 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Oralloy - your post is so replete with elementary mistakes that I'm not going to waste time correcting each one.


Your failure to point out any mistakes is due to a combination of the fact that there are none to point out and the fact that you lack the knowledge to point any out if they existed in the first place.



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


Nope. A couple dozen at most.



High Seas wrote:

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


Not really.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 08:26 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
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.


Protecting Europe from Iranian missiles is hardly a boondoggle.

Gates is keen on canceling many vital weapons systems though (for instance, he's practically eradicated the US Air Force's ability to conduct strategic bombing, at least when it comes to non-nuclear bombs), so he may well have wanted to cancel this.

You do realize that we are still putting ABM systems in Poland -- just not ones with enough range to protect Paris and London??
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 12:14:05