Reason Morning Links: Missile Defense Shield Scrapped, Feds Prop Up Unused Airports, Here's Tooth in Your Eye

- Obama administration to drop Bush plans for missile defense shield in Europe.

- Barely used airports kept running by federal funding.

- Massachusetts likely to pass bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to name interim replacement for Ted Kennedy.

- States changing police lineup procedures in wake of wrongful convictions.

- Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Comments

[John]

Good to see Obama reaching out to Venezuala and Iran while selling out the Czechs and Poles. Missile defense is such a threat to Putin's Russia. I mean patriot missiles could rain down on Moscow any day without warning. And God forbid, Putin and Amhedinijad not be able to play local bad boy and threaten eastern europe with nuclear holocaust. And if some stray missile ever gets accidentally launched, oh well the Obamasiah said killing missile defense was needed for peace.

[John-David]

Missile defense is racist.

[Janeane Garofalo]

Missile defense is such a threat to Putin's Russia.

That's racism, straight up.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

John,

How are we selling out the Czechs & Poles? Why do we have to pay for their defense?

[SugarFree]

Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Eyegina dentata! I'd like to see some dumbass try to rape her eye now. Crunch!

[Xeones]

I'd like to see some dumbass try to rape her eye now. Crunch!

You may have noticed that Warty has not posted yet today...

[SugarFree]

And if some stray missile ever gets accidentally launched

Can't Obama just ride after on his magical unicorn and use his powers to turn it into a whale and a pot of petunias?

[T-Bag]

? Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Amazing!

[ed]

Massachusetts likely to pass bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to name
interim replacement for Ted Kennedy.

We are "a nation of laws, not of men."
Silly, naive John Adams. Your state is shitting on your grave.

[James Ard]

If one needs to know when Obama will keep his word, just look for the promises that would weaken America. Missile defense has always been the issue that told me Democrats aren't really Americans.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Good to see Obama reaching out to Venezuala and Iran while selling out the Czechs and Poles."

Apeasement and surrender have always been the hallmark of liberals ideas on foreign policy.

[FrBunny]

Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Venkmann: Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head. Remember that?
Egon: That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

[chuggles]

Obama administration to drop Bush plans for missile defense shield in Europe.

Oh boy . . . rush, beck, hannity et al. are gonna have a field day with this. At least we don't have to hear about health care for a day or two.

[John Adams]

Silly, naive John Adams. Your state is shitting on your grave.

That's what happens when your state gets inundated by Papist liberals. I tried to warn people, but they dismissed me as a nativist know-nothing.

[Naga Sadow]

Hmmmmmm. That whole eyegina thing would be a great addition to your blog, SugarFree.

[SugarFree]

That whole eyegina thing would be a great addition to your blog, SugarFree.

Gives the notion "I'm so wet for you" a whole new spin.

[Naga Sadow]

Indeed. I would sugget a strong, masculine character . . . me. That is all. Get to work.

[Xeones]

I would sugget a strong, masculine character . . . me.

The ellipsis contains an "or."

[SugarFree]

I would suggest a strong, masculine character . . . me. That is all. Get to work.

You want me to write a story where you have an eyegina? Ew, dude. You really have some issues you need to work out.

[John]

"John,

How are we selling out the Czechs & Poles? Why do we have to pay for their defense?"

It is a partnership. They would pay for some of it. Of course we own the technology and the knowhow so we have to be a part of it. Further, it is in our best interest for Eastern Europe to remain independent and not back under the Soviet sphere. Beyond that missile defense is a good thing for everyone. If some country were to accidently or just go crazy and launch a single or a few missiles, it would be nice if there was an option on the table besides turning said country into a parking lot. Missile defense gives us the ability to defuse nuclear wars. That is most certainly in our interest and worth the price.

[John Tagliaferro]

Eyegina dentata! I'd like to see some dumbass try to rape her eye now. Crunch!

Am I imagening the Snowcrash ref or was that intended?

[Naga Sadow]

I have issues? Dude! Have you even seen the stuff on your blog? 😉

[John Tagliaferro]

How are we selling out the Czechs & Poles? Why do we have to pay for their defense?

Way to step up in support of slavery!

[John Tagliaferro]

I have issues? Dude! Have you even seen the stuff on your blog? 😉

Um, where is his blog? I would write him but he never answers my email 🙁

[SugarFree]

Intended, but the notion of the vagina dentata existed long before Snow Crash. And they have designed a real one too.

[Ska]

Eyegina dentata!

Oddly enough this has triggered an altered version of the Lion King....and it won't stop, dammit!!

[Naga Sadow]

John T,

Apparently the nude photos Epi kept sending caused him to start posting a fake e-mail. Dude, you gotta have a strong stomach for the stuff he writes.

[SugarFree]

Wiki on the dentata

Recent horror movie about it.

[P Brooks]

If you have an eyegina, does that mean you can't say, "I never saw it coming"?

[SugarFree]

Um, where is his blog? I would write him but he never answers my email 🙁

I don't have you filtered. I wonder what's up.

[John Tagliaferro]

Dude, you gotta have a strong stomach for the stuff he writes.

A man of the same cloth as I? Linkie please? I was just warming up with the lesbian rape and shotgun marriage in Suki II.

[Naga Sadow]

Oh god, SugarFree. Apparently there is an actual definition for eyegina but no entry yet for eyegina dentata.

[FrBunny]

John, I love ya, but this is how I read your post. (And I know you've been consistent on this position, so I'm not saying you probably don't already see this.)

It Universal healthcare is a partnership. They would pay for some of it. Of course we own the technology and the knowhow so we have to be a part of it. Further, it is in our best interest for Eastern Europe to remain independent and not back under the Soviet sphere our citizens to be healthy. Beyond that missile defense universal healthcare is a good thing for everyone. ... That is most certainly in our interest and worth the price.

[John Tagliaferro]

I don't have you filtered. I wonder what's up.

Jus sended ya sumtin.

[John Tagliaferro]

FrBunny,

Um, global thermonuclear war isn't like healthcare. It is about life and death.

[Naga Sadow]

Well . . . sorry John but I don't link to his page. I hate linking to blogs. I always feel like a shill. Well, later now. Gotta get to class.

[John]

Fr Bunny,

The problem with your rewrite is the missile defense is not government run healthcare. Missile defense actually has a chance of working and potentially saving millions of lives. Government healthcare, in contrast, has been tried all over the world and has not resulted in citizens being any healthier. Missile defense improves the status quo. Government healthcare makes it worse.

Just because government spending in one area is a good idea, doesn't mean it is always a good idea. That is why they say consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[SugarFree]

Apparently there is an actual definition for eyegina but no entry yet for eyegina dentata.

And one definition is racist. Therefore every word defined on Urban Dictionary is racist.

Blog-whoring

[Citizen Nothing]

The problem with your rewrite is the missile defense is not government run healthcare. Missile defense actually has a chance of working and potentially saving millions of lives.

See, this is exactly why I don't like hangin' with liberals or conservatives.

[Citizen Nothing]

And why John pretty much = Janeane Garofalo, not that I would welcome either inside the big libertarian tent (especially Janeane, about 15 years ago.)

[FrBunny]

Um, global thermonuclear war isn't like healthcare. It is about life and death.

Ah, so this one really is for our own good. Thanks.

I get your position, surnameless John. And I think both UHC and a missile shield are boondoggles, in case it came across as if I approve of UHC. I'm going to read up some more on the missile shield though, because I just can't decide if it is interventionism or not.

[John Tagliaferro]

SF,

Thank you. Sent it to my reliable blogger buddy for inclusion.

Why don't you have the follow thing activated?

[Citizen Nothing]

Why don't you have the follow thing activated?

I don't think SF wants to be followed by anyone sick enough to desire to follow him.

[John Tagliaferro]

At least Defense is an enumerated power of the federal government. Socialised healthcare is not.

Plus, if the Iranians actually do get intercontental missile capability, shooting them down over Europe or the Arctic during boost phase is better than shooting them down over here in reentry phase.

[TrickyVic]

The right loves personal responsiblity, but a foreign state's own responsibility to defend its citizens is a different story, I guess. If Eastern Europe needs missile defense, they can pay for it.

Yeah, yeah, it's amazing what you can get republicans to spend money on if you yell defense. If obama repacked health care and called it the Strengthing America Through National Defense Act, the republicans would be onboard. They won't even need to read it.

[John Thacker]

How are we selling out the Czechs & Poles?

Well, agree or disagree with the overall policy, we had an agreement with the Czechs and Poles, and then unilaterally decided to abandon it and inform them of our decision. This is being done to placate Russia. Yes, Presidents do have the right to overturn their predecessor's policies, but it's also understandable that some people in other countries might feel betrayed.

The nice part is that the Obama team, being schooled in history, decided to declare this on September 17, 2009, the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

The whole thing is also further evidence that nobody really cares about being unilateral, just like nobody really cares about deficits, and nobody really cares about ethics. Or, at least, people care about the policies involved a lot more than the care about the forms.

[FrBunny]

At least Defense is an enumerated power of the federal government.

Definitely. Just not defense of Europe. I'll learn some more, then wow you all with my insights later.*

*this part will not actually happen

[John Thacker]

The right loves personal responsiblity, but a foreign state's own responsibility to defend its citizens is a different story, I guess.

And libertarians love the sanctity of contracts, but agreements between countries are a different story, I guess.

[FrBunny]

This board is like the Bunny Ranch at 4am.

Too many Johns! [rimshot]

[TrickyVic]

"""Plus, if the Iranians actually do get intercontental missile capability, shooting them down over Europe or the Arctic during boost phase is better than shooting them down over here in reentry phase."""

You want to shoot them down over an ocean or the Arctic, and we can already do that.

[John]

"And why John pretty much = Janeane Garofalo, not that I would welcome either inside the big libertarian tent (especially Janeane, about 15 years ago.)"

That is completely ignorant and why people don't take Libertarians seriously. If national defense is not a legitimate government expense, then Libertarians are anarchists. It is a perfectly principled and reasonable position to say that government should be responsible for a few things, national defense, minimal law enforcement, the courts, border control, and leave everything else up to its citizens.

Missile defense is a legit and very desirable national defense. If anything, it should be the kind of expense even the most peacenik Libertarian supports. It is truly defensive and cannot be used offensively. It allows the world to prevent nuclear destruction. That seems like a pretty good thing to me. Further, whatever rights I have in a Libertarian country, if one ever exists, won't be worth much if someone comes along and nukes it out of existence.

Yes, you can say, we shouldn't be paying for the Czechs to have it. But, isn't it in our interest for the rest of the world to be free from nuclear extortion? Are you Pat Buchanan and just want to build a big fortress America and tell the rest of the world to fend for themselves? I don't see how that makes us any freer. Of course, there is a limit to everything. We don't owe the Czechs war with Russia. But it is a good idea to help them keep from being threatened with nuclear annihilation.

You make not like that position. But tough shit. Sometimes life is like that. If you can't accept it as at least reasonable, you are more like Ms. Garafalo than you care to admit.

[John Thacker]

The other hilarious thing about the original missile shield is that public opinion in Poland was rather split until Russia started complaining about it so much. This had the (unintended?) effect of convincing Poles that it must be a good idea.

[John Tagliaferro]

If Eastern Europe needs missile defense, they can pay for it.

Oh, so you want them buying missile defense from Israel and Japan instead of Boeing! I see where this is going, Mr. Destructor of American Industry.

[Seward]

Obama administration to drop Bush plans for missile defense shield in Europe.

Awesome!

[rubber ducky]

"It is a partnership."

It still is; its called NATO. The Russians aren't suicidal and they aren't going to do anything to start a nuclear war with the US. Same goes for Iran - Ahmadinejad likes to play up the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel issue, but its only to gin up internal support for his own political purposes. And ultimately he has no power over their nuclear program anyway - its Khamenei (who isn't suicidal either - its fun to be the supreme leader)

The Russians, however, have serious problems with missles on their border. Seems we had the same fears when they put missles in Cuba. Of course, this whole thing was most likely a buyoff of Russia to avoid another Cuban missle crisis - with Poland standing in for Turkey and Venezuela for Cuba. A day or so ago, it also came out Russia had extended $2.2bn credit to Chavez to buy Russian weapons systems (and aren't there still several Russian strategic bombers in Venezuela?) My guess is that we gave up missles in Poland for Russia to back away from Venezuela. Additionally, with respect to Iran, the Russians now have a greater incentive (keeping missles out of Poland) to help the US crack down on Iran's nuclear activities.

[John Tagliaferro]

The role of Noam Chomsky is being played by rubber ducky in this thread.

[TrickyVic]

"""If national defense is not a legitimate government expense, then Libertarians are anarchists.""

National defense means just that. It's not about the defense of other nations.

John I support missile shield technology when it is for national defense. I have no problem selling that technology to Eastern Europe. I have a problem with build other countries' defenses on the U.S. taxpayer's tab.

[Free Universal Defense For All]

Clearly the constitution has a provision for building missile bases in counties around the world. We should go one further and have drones flying 24/7 around the world to preemptively strike all enemies of America.

Good thing we wouldn't need to steal the citizens money to get this done either, unlike dirty health care!

[FrBunny]

Oh, so you want them buying missile defense from Israel and Japan instead of Boeing! I see where this is going, Mr. Destructor of American Industry.

My kingdom for a sarcasm tag!

[Seward]

John,

It is a perfectly principled and reasonable position to say that government should be responsible for a few things, national defense, minimal law enforcement, the courts, border control, and leave everything else up to its citizens.

Well, law enforcement and courts even in our society are not things which are exclusively the function of the state.

As for national defense, we overconsume that by a number of factors. That's in large part due to the monopoly the state has on the matter.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

"Way to step up in support of slavery!"

WTF are you talking about? It is not America's job to police & defend the rest of the world. We make our allies weaker & more likely to be invaded by claiming we'll defend them. We may not be able to live up all the promises to defend our allies in the future. This is exactly what happened to Poland in the 30's. Poland expected their allies to defend them & their allies let them down. Every country needs to defend it's own territory & not expect other countries to do it for them. I would expect that on a libertarian blog(drink) people would understand that. Isn't that the first & most important reason for a government to exist.

[John Thacker]

On the other stories, yeah, general aviation is subsidized way more than airlines with passengers (per passenger-mile), just ask the

[John Tagliaferro]

This board is like the Bunny Ranch at 4am.

hehe

[John]

"The Russians, however, have serious problems with missles on their border. Seems we had the same fears when they put missles in Cuba."

If we were putting Persian Missiles there, you would have a point. We are not doing that. We are putting up a missile shield. That is no threat to Russia. The only reason they object is that Putin wants to threaten Eastern Europe with aniliation and bring it back within the Russian Sphere.

And Obama is pissing in the wind if he thinks the Russians are going to help with Iran. They couldn't care less if Iran builds nukes. Their goal is to take back their empire. If Iran causes trouble, it will only drive up oil prices making them richer and further distract us from Europe making Eastern Europe easy pickings.

[TrickyVic]

""Oh, so you want them buying missile defense from Israel and Japan instead of Boeing!""

Certainly, I would prefer they buy from us. But I want them to BUY from us.

[jtuf]

The Czechs went out on a limb to allow the US to set up a missile defense system in their county. Now Obama pulled the rug out from under them in the hopes that Russia will back us on Iran. The more America makes promises and then backs out of them, the less credibility we have on the global stage.

[Citizen Nothing]

Persian Missiles.
Excellent.

[John Thacker]

Poland expected their allies to defend them & their allies let them down. Every country needs to defend it's own territory & not expect other countries to do it for them.

So it's better to go ahead and let them done by abrogating an agreement? In the long term, maybe.

But as we see, no one actually cares about unilateralism or upholding contracts and agreements, just about the underlying policy.

[John]

"John I support missile shield technology when it is for national defense. I have no problem selling that technology to Eastern Europe. I have a problem with build other countries' defenses on the U.S. taxpayer's tab."

Then you and Pat Buchanan go build fortress America. Have fun and please do your best to keep Pat from putting all of the Jews in ovens. I think that is a very naive way to look at things. The fact is a lot of the rest of the world can't defend itself against big, shithead countries like Russia, China and Iran. Without our help, they end up under those countries' thumb and the world gets a whole lot less free and a whole lot less safe. Now, maybe we can live in fortress America and not care or be effected, but I doubt it.

[John Tagliaferro]

WTF are you talking about?

Islamofascism and Communism. They have been threats for a hile and they are not going to go away with appeasment.

[rubber ducky]

"If we were putting Persian Missiles there, you would have a point. We are not doing that. We are putting up a missile shield. That is no threat to Russia. "

Well apparently the Russians didn't see it that way - they perceived it as a threat. Maybe its because we had the keys and all the control. Maybe the Russians would have felt more secure with it if we gave them full access to everything that goes on in those missle sites in Poland so they could see it was purely defensive, but we weren't going to do that.

[John Tagliaferro]

If we were putting Persian Missiles there, you would have a point.

Exactly! And it is the Iranian Persian missiles that are the problem, not out friendly defensive missiles.

[John]

"Well apparently the Russians didn't see it that way - they perceived it as a threat. Maybe its because we had the keys and all the control. Maybe the Russians would have felt more secure with it if we gave them full access to everything that goes on in those missle sites in Poland so they could see it was purely defensive, but we weren't going to do that."

Or maybe Putin is an ex KGB gangster who is pissed at the fact that with US missile defense he won't be able to bully Poland? I think that seems a bit more likly than them being paranoids convinced that the missile defense posts really contain short range offensive missiles.

[Janeane Garofalo]

Oh, so you want them buying missile defense from Israel and Japan instead of Boeing!

That's racism, straight up.

[John Tagliaferro]

threats for a hile

Thank you stupid fingers for adding a hitler salute to the set 🙂

[TrickyVic]

"""Then you and Pat Buchanan go build fortress America. """

What, now your going soft on national defense?

[Seward]

I have fulsome praise today for Obama for abandoning this ABM program.

[John Tagliaferro]

Or maybe Putin is an ex KGB gangster who is pissed at the fact that with US missile defense he won't be able to bully Poland? I think that seems a bit more likly than them being paranoids convinced that the missile defense posts really contain short range offensive missiles.

On the Obama front, it helps him and Jimmy Carter erase Israel from the map. Just the Jewish part.

[T-Bag]

I've got a question for Matt Welch, who I saw on the News Hour last night:

Why didn't you call Gwen Ifill out when, while asking YOU a question, referred to the protesters as "teabaggers"?

[John Tagliaferro]

Well . . . sorry John but I don't link to his page. I hate linking to blogs. I always feel like a shill.

Shilling for SF ain't so bad. But if you really hate it don't click on my name!

[rubber ducky]

"Or maybe Putin is an ex KGB gangster who is pissed at the fact that with US missile defense he won't be able to bully Poland? I think that seems a bit more likly than them being paranoids convinced that the missile defense posts really contain short range offensive missiles."

Maybe, but if they wanted to roll on Poland those missles wouldn't have stopped them. Its the ICBMs in the US and on US subs that keep them in check, not any system in Poland.

Now how about Venezuela? Feeling comfortable with Russian strategic bombers there, and Russia's support of Chavez?

[The Angry Optimist]

Conservative hawks like John & John here do nothing more than invoke scary bogeymen abroad to favor their own big government programs.

In this day and age, installing a missile shield in Eastern European countries is an aggressive act. Furthermore, yes, NATO is a relic and a dinosaur and we have no business being in it. You can attribute nationalism in Russia as a direct result of constant saber-rattling from the United States.

The Cold War is over. Enough is enough.

[American Conservative Union]

Fellow conservatives. Tired of reading about ACORN in the news? The ACU has been leading the battle against ACORN over the past two years. We must keep the pressure on now more than ever - Sign the ACU Petition to stop all public Funding of ACORN.

http://conservative.org/

Join the ACU and keep the pressure on ACORN - Sign the petition now.

http://conservative.org/

We at the American Conservative Union thank you for all you do.

[John]

"Maybe, but if they wanted to roll on Poland those missles wouldn't have stopped them. Its the ICBMs in the US and on US subs that keep them in check, not any system in Poland."

I am not so sure about that. Their conventional forces are pretty shitty. It is one thing to roll Georgia, but they couldn't roll over Poland. They can use the threat of nukes to extort the hell out of them though. Beyond that, yes our ICBMs do deter Russian. But that is a pretty shitty option. I would much rather shoot down a nuke and avoid nuclear war altogether than watch one hit and have nuclear annilhilation be the only option.

"Now how about Venezuela? Feeling comfortable with Russian strategic bombers there, and Russia's support of Chavez?"

Not at all. But how does abandoning Poland do anything but make us look like an easy mark and embolden Russia? I think you are kidding yourself if you believe the Russians will stop supporting Chavez in return for us not providing Poland with a missile shield. Why would they? They will just say thank your for abandoning Poland and continue on as they were. WTF is McHopey going to do about it?

[russian roulette]

"The Cold War is over. Enough is enough."

Oh come on...the Cuban missle crisis was fun - lets play again!

[Russ 2000]

Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Brings new meaning to "eyeteeth".

[Hugh Akston]

I think somebody's lost.

[Art-P.O.G.]

You can attribute nationalism in Russia as a direct result of constant saber-rattling from the United States.

I'm not so sure about this. And before Putin points out the speck in the US' eye, he'd be well-served to pluck out the tooth in his own.

[John]

"In this day and age, installing a missile shield in Eastern European countries is an aggressive act. Furthermore, yes, NATO is a relic and a dinosaur and we have no business being in it. You can attribute nationalism in Russia as a direct result of constant saber-rattling from the United States."

How is building a defense shield an aggressive act? The missiles can't be used offensively. It is only an "aggressive act" if you think that Putin has a right to do whatever he wants in Eastern Europe. That is fucked up logic. Missile defense is only a problem if you plan to use your missiles or the threat thereof against the guy who has it. The fact that Putin is so angry about it, proves how aggresive he is.

[rubber ducky]

"But how does abandoning Poland do anything but make us look like an easy mark and embolden Russia?"

John, I'm sure the Soviets said the same thing during the Cuban missle crisis, but we quietly moved our missles out of Turkey for them while they publicly pulled out of Cuba and lost face.

[John]

AO,

Maybe if we just throw all of our weapons in the sea, Russia won't feel threatened and everything will be great. We should get Poland and Eastern Europe to do the same thing. I mean it is not like the Russians have ever invaded and enslaved them before.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

"Islamofascism and Communism. They have been threats for a hile and they are not going to go away with appeasment."

I'm not in favor of appeasing anyone. That is why I believe that every country needs to be able to defend itself. Otherwise, the weak country will have to appease its enemies if its allies it depends on won't back them up 100% of the time.

[John]

"John, I'm sure the Soviets said the same thing during the Cuban missle crisis, but we quietly moved our missles out of Turkey for them while they publicly pulled out of Cuba and lost face."

But they always knew we could put them back if we wanted. They know Obama will never commit to a missile shield. So they have no reason to abide by any agreement, assuming one has been made. It is not at all clear one has. It appears that BO did this unilaterally.

[The Angry Optimist]

How is building a defense shield an aggressive act?

Oh, right. And you wouldn't bat an eye if Russia built a shield in Cuba, Canada or Mexico.

You are full of it.

[Naga Sadow]

Art-POG,

It's a bit early for you to be posting isn't it?

[The Angry Optimist]

Maybe if we just throw all of our weapons in the sea, Russia won't feel threatened and everything will be great.

Yes, because that is what I said.

Eastern Europe is not entitled to our umbrella. Russia is not the threat that it was in the 70s and 80s. It is transparent (to me) that you favor Big Government in this arena, and are continuing to harp on irrational fears of nuclear war (!) to justify programs you favor.

[John]

"How is building a defense shield an aggressive act?
Oh, right. And you wouldn't bat an eye if Russia built a shield in Cuba, Canada or Mexico.

You are full of it."

If it was truely a shield why would I? I don't care that Cuba has a shield. The whole world should have a shield. The harder it is to nuke someone the better off the world is. I don't care if you give a nuke shield to Russia. Really I don't.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Actually, it's a bit late. I'm technically off work. I'm just busy most days, otherwise I'd be posting at 2-3 in the morning over Eastern Standard Way.

[John]

"Russia is not the threat that it was in the 70s and 80s. It is transparent (to me) that you favor Big Government in this arena, and are continuing to harp on irrational fears of nuclear war (!) to justify programs you favor."

Irrational fears of nuclear war? First, nuke war would only be the biggest tragedy in human history. Second, the ability to build ICBMs is spreading. Further, we know now that the world came within inches of nuclear war at least three times during the cold war and once as late as 1982. Are you insane? Of course nuclear war is a threat.

[The Angry Optimist]

The whole world should have a shield. The harder it is to nuke someone the better off the world is. I don't care if you give a nuke shield to Russia. Really I don't.

Does anyone here really believe that? Sorry, John, but I do not. you would go nuts if Canada let Russia build a defensive shield, replete with troops and bases, on the border of North Dakota or Montana.

[John]

Further AO, Russia doesn't have to be agressive for something bad to happen. What if they accidentily shot off a missile? That is not beyond the realm of possibility. If the country it is aimed at doesn't have a defense shield, what are we going to do about it? Nuke Russia? Let them say they are sorry?

[Kevin]

Just because I know this is coming later on... shut the fuck up, Jimmy Carter.

[John]

"Does anyone here really believe that? Sorry, John, but I do not. you would go nuts if Canada let Russia build a defensive shield, replete with troops and bases, on the border of North Dakota or Montana."

I would think that I have posted on here enough to show that I am nothing if not consistent. Missile defense shields are defensive in nature. Truely defensive weapons are never a bad thing, especially when it gives one the ability to avoid nuclear war.

If cuba had a defense shield what good would it do them? All it would do would prevent the US from theatening to nuke them, which the US shouldn't be doing anyway.

[hmm]

? Woman regains sight after doctors implant a tooth in her eye.

Is this anything like asshole gains wisdom after implanting foot in ass?

[Naga Sadow]

Is this anything like asshole gains wisdom after implanting foot in ass?

CONSIDER THAT SHIT STOLEN, SON!!!

[The Angry Optimist]

John - who is going to fire the first nuke, and what could possibly be their motivation for doing so? Russia is a shell of the former USSR.

[Tim]

This gives new meaning to the term eye tooth.

[Tony]

John why are you in favor of a massive government program that has scant chance of ever being used, and if used probably won't be successful?

[The Angry Optimist]

If cuba had a defense shield what good would it do them? All it would do would prevent the US from theatening to nuke them, which the US shouldn't be doing anyway.

Yo, I'm talking about a Russian missile shield set-up in Canada, Mexico or Cuba. You would (rightly) view a serious build-up of armaments from Russia in "our backyard".

[The Angry Optimist]

you would (rightly) view a serious build-up of armaments from Russia in "our backyard" as aggressive.

[The Angry Optimist]

What if they accidentily shot off a missile?

For the love of all that is holy, you propose spending 53 billion dollars and pissing off Russia for an accidental nuclear weapon?

[The Angry Optimist]

For the small possibility, I should say, of an accidental firing?

[John]

"Yo, I'm talking about a Russian missile shield set-up in Canada, Mexico or Cuba. You would (rightly) view a serious build-up of armaments from Russia in "our backyard"."

Poland is not Canada. The US hasn't invaded and occupied Canada or Mexico in the last 70 years. Canada is not a historic enemy of the US. Why would Canada or Mexico be doing such a thing? There is no reason to believe that we will be invading anytime soon. Ultimately, if the Russians managed to get Mexico to let them base a few divisions there, that would be a problem. But it would be the divisions, not the missile shield.

Further, if the US had occupied Canada and set up a puppet government there for half of the 20th Century, I really couldn't blame the Canadians for looking to Russia for help. It would be defensive on their part. Since, we haven't had a war with Canada since the 19th Century and have never installed a puppet government there, there would be little reason for them to go to Russia for troops beyond meaning us harm.

In contrast, Poland has been invaded by Russia numerous times. They are looking to the US not because they mean Russia harm, but because they think Russia means them harm. The two situations are totally different.

[John]

"For the love of all that is holy, you propose spending 53 billion dollars and pissing off Russia for an accidental nuclear weapon?"

Or Iran or the Ukrain or Belerusia or anywhere else. The Russians have nearly done it at least twice before. Eventually our number will come up and someone will accidentily fire a missile. The consiquences of that are so horrible, that 53 Billion seems like a small price to pay.

[FrBunny]

This gives new meaning to the term eye tooth.

Tim, meet Russ 2000.

You two should go see Carrot Top together or something.

[TrickyVic]

"""What if they accidentily shot off a missile? That is not beyond the realm of possibility."""

A nuke? Yes, it is. It's not like you push a single button that starts a launch sequence. That's for the movies.

[The Ghost of Robert Heinlein]

Luna is in everyone's back yard.

[The Angry Optimist]

you are not making any sense, John. The missile defense shield is primarily designed to defend the United States. It is doubtful that a strategic nuclear weapon defense is going to work against the kind of short-range missiles that would fall on Poland. You know most of the tests occur like, 70 miles above the Earth? Russian nukes would not go that high to make it to Poland.

[John]

AO,

Do you honestly think that the world will continue to build ICBMs held by more and more countries and nothing bad will ever come of it? No country will ever lose control over them or have an accident or just go nuts? Never. Can't happen? I think you are crazy if you think that. Every weapon ever built was eventually used. And ICBMs will be used someday to, God help us.

[John Thacker]

Of course, there is the CBO report, Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe. From page x of the Summary (page 12 of PDF):

MDA's proposed system would complement the coverage already available from U.S.-based interceptors by providing redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.

Since Congress has required deployment of a system, Obama is switching to a combination of a ship-based system and ground forces from existing bases, according to preliminary reports.

Of course, the CBO report examined those alternatives. It reported that the alternatives would protect southeastern Europe more:

Because the alternatives CBO considered would locate interceptors closer to Iran than MDA's planned system, they would generally provide more extensive defense of southeastern Europe than would MDA's proposal.

But would protect the United States less:

None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States. Deploying Kinetic Energy Interceptors would add defense from a third redundant interceptor site for about 75 percent of the U.S. population in range of ICBMs from Iran. Deploying land-based or sea-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptors would provide additional defense for about one-half or less of the U.S.
population.

How much did the CBO say it would cost for this greater protection for Southeastern Europe but less for the US? From the same to twice as much, depending on whether the ship-based approach is used (which seems to be in the cards, from articles):

For roughly the same cost as MDA's European system-a total of about $9 billion to $14 billion over 20 years-the United States could deploy either SM-3 interceptors or Kinetic Energy Interceptors at its existing bases in Germany and Turkey, supported by tracking radars in Azerbaijan and Qatar. At greater cost, the United States could deploy SM-3 interceptors on U.S. Navy ships and station them permanently at three locations in European waters. That system would cost almost twice as much as MDA's proposal-a total of about $18 billion to $26 billion over 20 years.

So guys, it seems like Obama is going for the proposals that protect Europe more, the US less, and cost the same or more. He's doing it in order to placate the Russians, though it will upset the Czechs and Poles.

But he's not completely abandoning missile defense, just doing one that it more about protecting Europe and less about the US. At least if you trust the CBO.

[John]

"you are not making any sense, John. The missile defense shield is primarily designed to defend the United States. It is doubtful that a strategic nuclear weapon defense is going to work against the kind of short-range missiles that would fall on Poland. You know most of the tests occur like, 70 miles above the Earth? Russian nukes would not go that high to make it to Poland."

I don't think that is necessarily true. But if it is, you undercut your own point. If it is true, then we are not defending Poland, we are spending the money to defend the US. So what is your problem? Second, if it does nothing to defend Poland, then the Russians have even less to complain about. I mean, why would they have a problem with the US building a defense system to defend the US?

[Naga Sadow]

A nuke? Yes, it is. It's not like you push a single button that starts a launch sequence. That's for the movies.

TrickyVic's right.

[John Thacker]

For the love of all that is holy, you propose spending 53 billion dollars and pissing off Russia for an accidental nuclear weapon?

I don't, that's a stupid argument. But the proposed system increases domestic US protection against missiles from a variety of sources, such as Iran. It protects the US more than the alternative Obama is going with.

It is doubtful that a strategic nuclear weapon defense is going to work against the kind of short-range missiles that would fall on Poland. You know most of the tests occur like, 70 miles above the Earth? Russian nukes would not go that high to make it to Poland.

Yes, you're right. That's why the Russian complaints are specious. So your point is, "The system is useless against Russian missiles, which implies that we're telling the truth. But hey, they should still be pissed off because this system that is useless against them is being built near them."

[John]

that is very interesting John T.

[T-Bag]

@ John

All moot now anyway.

[TrickyVic]

"""So guys, it seems like Obama is going for the proposals that protect Europe more, the US less, """

A sea based system on ships is mobile. The report is assuming a static deployment. Which would be a fallacy. You can redeploy as you see fit.

As far as death bringing boogiemen, viruses pose a greater threat than nukes.

[TrickyVic]

"""It protects the US more than the alternative Obama is going with."""

I disagree because the ship based system can be moved as the threat moves.

[John Thacker]

I understand that people are against missile defense and protecting other countries on principle. But that's not an issue here. We're still going to deploy a missile system that costs at least as much (perhaps up to twice as much), will be delayed by at least 2 to 4 years, and will protect the US less but Europe just as much or more. What's we're doing is choosing a different system so as to piss off Russia.

Avoiding pissing off Russia (even for reasons we consider specious) is a real benefit, though it must be weighed against pissing off the Czechs and Poles, and any backlash from other allies if we're seen as abrogating our agreement.

The original plan was chosen because it best protected the US, not because it best protected Europe, though that was a secondary goal. Poland was arguably right to be initially skeptical; the real benefit for them was in gaining a US base and closer ties to the US in general, not the missile defense. Russian opposition actually galvanized Polish opinion in support of the missile shield, though.

[The Angry Optimist]

That's why the Russian complaints are specious.

They are not specious if you consider a troop-buildup among the borders of your country to be a hostile act, which it is.

[John Thacker]

A sea based system on ships is mobile. The report is assuming a static deployment. Which would be a fallacy. You can redeploy as you see fit.

That's true. That's also the option that costs twice as much, though, if you look at the report. So you can get more protection in that way by spending twice as much.

[James Ard]

Keep fighting the good fight John. Unfortunately you aren't going to convince anyone around here. Geopolitical considerations are a little too deep for most of the commenters on this site. I have also found that the most vehement opponents of missile defense are people that think it can work.

[John Thacker]

They are not specious if you consider a troop-buildup among the borders of your country to be a hostile act, which it is.

Their claims that the system is "really designed against Russian missiles" are specious. Their being upset by having silos next door, well, certainly they can be upset about it. You can't really dispute with anyone the claim that "I'll be upset if you do that."

[T-Bag]

"Every weapon ever built was eventually used"
[citation needed*]

* Said the nutron bomb.

[TrickyVic]

"""So you can get more protection in that way by spending twice as much."""

You get more protection not because you spent more money, but because you are using a more flexable option. Sometimes that's worth the money.

[John Thacker]

A sea based system on ships is mobile. The report is assuming a static deployment. Which would be a fallacy. You can redeploy as you see fit.

That also depends on if you think that all threats are going to be forseeable and afford redeployment in response to the crisis (like wars of choice, for example), or if you think that we need a standing defense against sudden threats. If you wish to maintain a standing defense at all times, then the ships in the double cost option would have to be permanently stationed. If not, then yes, you could be more flexible, though it would still cost more.

[Warty]

You may have noticed that Warty has not posted yet today.../i>

I LOOM LARGE

[Warty]

Motherfucker.

[P Brooks]

International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge on Thursday further dampened any lingering speculation that U.S. President Barack Obama would appear in Copenhagen next month to try to seal the deal for a 2016 Summer Games in Chicago.

President Obama "explained to me the current political situation in Washington did not allow him to participate in the bid in Copenhagen," Rogge said during an international conference call with reporters Thursday. Rogge was referring to a telephone conversation he had with the president last week.

"With a sense of humor, he said he'd send the best part of the couple," Rogge said, "and that the first lady was the best stand-in for himself. He didn't speak of coming himself."

Those remarks are in sync with Obama's comments Wednesday, when he said he was sending "a more compelling superstar," his wife, Michelle, to participate in Chicago's final presentation to the IOC. He made the comments during a pro-Chicago rally on the White House's South Lawn.

-Chicago Tribune

By all means, let's piss away millions of dollars kowtowing to those totalitarian fucks at the IOC. Every time I think I cannot despise that lying sack of shit more than I already do...

[The Angry Optimist]

James Ard -

Geopolitical considerations are a little too deep for most of the commenters on this site.

Please cram your condescension. I would not consider myself an expert in geopolitics, but to say that I have not taken any considerations of it into account is horseshit. This is really a fancy way of calling us "un-serious".

[John Thacker]

You get more protection not because you spent more money, but because you are using a more flexable option. Sometimes that's worth the money.

They're related, if the more flexible option costs twice as much, which it does.

They are not specious if you consider a troop-buildup among the borders of your country to be a hostile act, which it is.

Note that the Aegis ships proposed in the TrickyVic approved option would be just as close to Russian borders for their normal stationing. Close to the Kalingrad exclave, of course, since Poland doesn't otherwise border Russia these days.

We have similar ground based missile defense system radar to what would be build in the Czech Republic with COBRA DANE on one of the outermost Alaskan islands. That's about 600 miles from the Kamchatka Peninsula, a little farther than Poland is from non-Kalingrad Russia, and a little less than the Czech Republic is.

But still, if they complain, they complain; if they want to view it as hostile, they will. Can't really say much else about that argument.

[John Thacker]

It's perfectly reasonable to take Russian considerations into account, and if you judge that more important than whatever hypothetical harm to Polish or Czech relations (or those with other allies or our reputation) may result, that's fine. I don't think it's fair to say that TAO isn't considering geopolitical implications, he's just coming down at a different position, which is fine.

But other arguments based on "we shouldn't be spending the money/missile defense in general won't work/we shouldn't be protecting Europe" don't apply in this choices presented in this context.

[Pro Libertate]

I'd like some missile defense for my own home.

[Naga Sadow]

Pro Lib,

Try a roof.

[Pro Libertate]

Naga,

Do you know absolutely nothing about missiles? Unless my roof were made out of some Acme-supplied infinitely bouncy substance, a roof would provide very little defense to a missile, even one armed with a conventional warhead.

I expected more from you.

[TrickyVic]

"""Note that the Aegis ships proposed in the TrickyVic approved option would be just as close to Russian borders for their normal stationing."""

Not necessarily true. Since the Russian threat is ICBMs, you can deploy much further away.

[The Angry Optimist]

To me, it is readily apparent that the missile defense shield is meant to deliberately antagonize Russia. What the purpose behind that is, I cannot say, but there it is. The Czech agreement came right in the middle of the Georgian thing, and it was intentionally done so.

[Pro Libertate]

If we're scrapping the missile defense, how about requiring Europe to defend itself altogether?

[Tony]

Um, global thermonuclear war isn't like healthcare. It is about life and death.

This was a joke right?

[Chris]

Yes but without unused airports the terrorists will have won!

[Chris]

Tony, if thermonuclear is about to happen the most important thing to remember is: don't buy any bananas!

That is all. 😀

[P Brooks]

I believe there is a giant robotic arm holding a tennis racket in the ACME catalogue, Pro L; you might give that a try. With a little practice, you should be able to redirect the missiles to a location where they might do some good.

*directs baleful glare toward District of Columbia*

[James Ard]

Actually, geopolitics is pretty simple: you reward bad behaviour you get more of it. The fantasy that the cold war was ever ended is the mistake here. We won the battle of Eastern Europe, but we never defeated Russia. They are still armed to the teeth. They collaborate with Iran and they reown part of Georgia and are eying Lithuania. Giving in to any of Putin's wishes is bad policy.

[TrickyVic]

"""I don't think it's fair to say that TAO isn't considering geopolitical implications, """

I call bullshit on the considering of geopolitical implications with respects to US policy. It's extremely complicated, fluid, and often backfires.

How did our support of OBL in Afganistan in the 80's work for us? Sure we did help them kick the Russians out, mission accomplished. But put the hindsight glasses on, and it would have been better for us if OBL was tied down still defending Afghanistan from Russia in 2001.

[John Thacker]

Not necessarily true. Since the Russian threat is ICBMs, you can deploy much further away.

Yes, but for full coverage of the Iranian threat by ship-based coverage you would need to be there. This is all discussed in the CBO report. Wouldn't deploying in such a way that it wouldn't defend against Iran but would defend against Russia antagonize Russia as well?

[John]

AO,

I understand what you are saying. I just think that Russia and Putin are assholes who are going to do what they want and cause trouble no matter what we do. Given that fact, the fact that they are "upset" really doesn't matter much. The US needs to do what is best for its and its allies defense and not worry about Russian sensibilities or think that they can cut some deal that will make Russia and Putin anything other than what they are.

[John]

"How did our support of OBL in Afganistan in the 80's work for us?"

We never supported OBL. That is a myth. We supported the local Afghans. OBL and his crew were losers supported by the Saudis who showed up late and didn't do a lot.

[TrickyVic]

"""If we're scrapping the missile defense, how about requiring Europe to defend itself altogether?"""

Maybe they wouldn't be thinking carbon taxes if they had to be taxes out the butt for their own defense.

I have no problem with a defense shield on Polish or Chech soil, but let's be honest that it's not really for US protecton, it for our allies. I don't have a problem with that if they want to foot the bill.

[Naga Sadow]

Oh Pro Lib. Why do you wrong me? We both know missle defence is worthless. All you gotta do is add dummy warheads and voila! Patriot missles destroy missles, not the warheads. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance on this issue.

[P Brooks]

A 65-year-old Southern Illinois woman died days after she was burned in a fire in an operating room, a lawyer for her family says.

Attorney Robert Howerton of Marion says a state of Tennessee death certificate shows that Janice Diane McCall of Energy, Ill., died from thermal burns. Howerton said the death certificate has not been officially stamped and entered into a state ledger.

McCall was transferred to Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville, Tenn., for treatment of the burns she suffered while she was a patient in the operating room at Heartland Regional Medical Center in Marion on Sept. 2. She died six days later.

A news release issued by Heartland Regional on Tuesday said the accidental fire was immediately extinguished by operating room personnel. No other injuries were reported.

--------

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, which accredits 17,000 hospitals nationwide, estimates that 100 to 200 fires ignite each year in hospital operating rooms.

-St Louis Dispatch

Holy Fuck!

One more reason to stay away from hospitals. They kill people, there.

[John Thacker]

How did our support of OBL in Afganistan in the 80's work for us? Sure we did help them kick the Russians out, mission accomplished. But put the hindsight glasses on, and it would have been better for us if OBL was tied down still defending Afghanistan from Russia in 2001.

Of course, it's extremely complicated, as you note.

We didn't exactly "support OBL." We supported anyone who was fighting the Soviets. There were lots of other factions. What happened is that after we left, there was a civil war, initially with many sides. It developed into a proxy war, as both Iran and Pakistan had interests in influence in Afghanistan, and both picked sides to back. The sides with foreign backing one.

It's quite complicated, and you could just as easily make a case that we would have been better off staying engaged in Afghanistan rather than letting Iran and Pakistan fight over it.

You could also make a case that without US intervention, support from Iran and Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world would have been sufficient to throw out the Soviets, and that possibly the Afghanis would have become even more radicalized and less friendly to the US, that the Taliban would still have taken over but without any "Northern Alliance" for us to ally with when invading Afghanistan. And that as a result 9/11 would have still happened, but an invasion of Afghanistan would have been much more difficult and bloody. But then maybe we don't invade Iraq.

It's complicated, and you can make lots of counterfactuals.

[TrickyVic]

"""Patriot missles destroy missles, not the warheads. """

With a range of 70km.

[J sub D]

Some thought about morning links sure to piss off both the right and the left.

? Obama administration to drop Bush plans for missile defense shield in Europe.

Good for Obama. The system won't work, it's a waste of goddam money. Anyone with anti-missile technology experience greater than or equal to my own knows why.

? Barely used airports kept running by federal funding.

I wonder what the percentage of private plane owners who bitch about the expense of welfare and food stamps is? I figger >80%.

? Massachusetts likely to pass bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to name interim replacement for Ted Kennedy.

All of you Dems now agree that Tom Delay's shenanigans regarding Texas redistricting were OK after all and you apologize for criticizing them, right? All you GOPers bitching about this were up in arms over Delay's work, right?

[FrBunny]

Google image of ProLib's house, including missile shield.

[Pro Libertate]

Naga,

You mean the X-ray lasers and particle accelerators I just bought to defend my home will do nothing?

[John Thacker]

I have no problem with a defense shield on Polish or Chech soil, but let's be honest that it's not really for US protecton, it for our allies. I don't have a problem with that if they want to foot the bill.

Again, did you read the report? The Polish and Czech proposal provides more US protection but less European (mostly in Southeastern Europe) protection against Iranian missiles. Yes, lots of ship-based platforms could cover the whole globe, but it's more expensive to put the same equipment on a ship and build the ships to house it, and to get full coverage of the globe you would still need to be in close waters.

We both know missle defence is worthless. All you gotta do is add dummy warheads and voila! Patriot missles destroy missles, not the warheads. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance on this issue.

Yes, among that being the people who think that this decision actually reduces spending or stops missile defense. It simply changes to a different deployment option.

[John Thacker]

I'll note that people on both sides are overplaying this issue. The most significant part is the diplomatic effects on both sides, though we are going to now spend more for less US protection, more Southeastern European protection on a slower deployment schedule, those differences are relatively small and for relatively low probability events.

[Neu Mejican]

It is truly defensive and cannot be used offensively. It allows the world to prevent nuclear destruction.

If this were some sort of force field you might have a point here. However, missiles are pretty much missiles. The defensive/offensive aspect of them is determined by how they are used...there is nothing in the nature of this system that limits it only to defensive uses.

[James Ard]

And the fact that Puten feels free to assassinate his opponents doesn't bother any of the libertines? Dealing with him is dealing with the devil.

[John Thacker]

Good for Obama. The system won't work, it's a waste of goddam money. Anyone with anti-missile technology experience greater than or equal to my own knows why.

You do realize that we're going to spend as much money or more on a different anti-missile system and deployment, right? This is the kind of thing I'm complaining about.

[John Thacker]

If this were some sort of force field you might have a point here.

Nah, you could come up with all sorts of awesome offensive uses for force fields.

[John Thacker]

And besides, a perfect defense gives you the ability to strike with impunity, so an enemy should fear it as enabling attacks.

[Neu Mejican]

oops, hit submit too soon...

It allows the world to prevent nuclear destruction.

You are over-confident.
It could be argued, in fact, that an effective shield held by one side (assuming it worked) would remove some of the MAD aspects of nuclear war that have (theoretically) held the two sides in check so far.

[Neu Mejican]

Or what JT said.

[TrickyVic]

"""You could also make a case that without US intervention, support from Iran and Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world would have been sufficient to throw out the Soviets,"""

I don't think you can. Russia wouldn't have been thrown out. At best, they would have gotten tired of figthing, getting nothing for it and leave. Much like what did happen, but it would have taken longer without US help.

That's pretty much how it's going to workout for us too.

[T]

All of you Dems now agree that Tom Delay's shenanigans regarding Texas redistricting were OK after all and you apologize for criticizing them, right? All you GOPers bitching about this were up in arms over Delay's work, right?

Hmm. Not exactly analogous. I just think it's funny that the rules dead Ted pushed for are now being rewritten to allow the new donk governor to do exactly what they didn't want the old efenant governor to do. That's pretty much the definition of partisan hackery.

Redistricting Texas was an entirely different sort of partisan clusterfuck, exacerbated by the fact the Lege couldn't pull off the job the first time and the courts had to do it.

[John Tagliaferro]

How is building a defense shield an aggressive act?

It is agressive toward the side he supports because it prevents them from taking over.

[J sub D]

I may have been on a drug binge and missed it.

When did we sign and gain senate approval for a treaty that says we'll place a missile defense system in Europe?

[John]

"You are over-confident.
It could be argued, in fact, that an effective shield held by one side (assuming it worked) would remove some of the MAD aspects of nuclear war that have (theoretically) held the two sides in check so far."

If the Russians decide to launch a few thousand warheads, no defense will stop it. But we would have been screwed anyway. The real threat is some crackpot country like Iran or North Korea building a few ICBMs. Those countries will never build hundreds letalone thousands. But they could build a few. Missile defense will stop that. It will also stop a rogue or accidental launch. I don't really want to bet my life that a country like Pakistan or Iran or North Korea is able to keep conplete control of their nukes and never have an accidental launch or let some nut or some group of rogue nuts launch one intentionally.

As far as MAD goes, the US could have nuked Afghanistan or Iraq with no worries of retaliation but didn't. The Russians could have nuked Afghanistan or Georgia and didn't. You would have to be a homocidal lunatic to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. If a country is lead by such a lunatic, we are in a lot of trouble regardless of whether that country has a missile shield.

[TrickyVic]

"""Again, did you read the report? The Polish and Czech proposal provides more US protection but less European (mostly in Southeastern Europe) protection against Iranian missiles.""

I thought we already discussed that a mobile platform actually gives you more protection, and that the report you are relying on is assuming a static deployment.

[John Tagliaferro]

When did we sign and gain senate approval for a treaty that says we'll place a missile defense system in Europe?

Just taking a wild stab at this, I think it is under an alliance, plus you don't need a treaty for the Congress to fund overseas deployments of anything.

[TrickyVic]

"""The real threat is some crackpot country like Iran or North Korea building a few ICBMs."""

Right. We don't need a Cech based system to defend from ICBMs. We can defend from those with systems deployed here in the US. I'm not sure the Chech based system would help with N. Korea. But a US based system can defend us from any direction.

[Neu Mejican]

John,

I recognize your theory that this would protect us from some minuscule risk, but you are over-confident regarding its effectiveness, under-playing the diplomatic implications. Some risks are not large enough to justify the cost of their prevention.

I mean, why not shift the money and effort to the asteroid defense shield? I mean a large enough asteroid could potentially kill billions while a rogue state with a nuke is looking at deaths in the thousands.

[John Thacker]

I thought we already discussed that a mobile platform actually gives you more protection, and that the report you are relying on is assuming a static deployment.

Apparently we didn't discuss it, or you didn't read my replies to that. The report assumed a static deployment because it was attempting to consider what was necessary for a standing defense against sudden threats. That requires a permanent deployment.

Defending only against crises that can be responded to with redeploying is not absolutely "actually more protection." It's more protection against one type of threat and less protection against another-- a sudden attack.

Your preferred defense is only more protection against threats we can anticipate for days or weeks, such as when we're invading another country and want support in theater or against retaliation. It provides less defense against sudden attacks by enemies.

Since I assume that you would favor fewer wars of choice and US invasions, it seems strange that you would favor the defense that is relatively more useful in that situation.

In any case, a mobile platform only gives you equivalent protection (for a standing defense) or more protection (for ability to react to crises) if you spend more money. Putting the equipment on a ship makes it more expensive.

What I was in particular disputing in my above comment was your statement that "it's not really for US protection, it's for our allies." The report in question considered US protection first. And the proposed solution that Obama is abandoning provided less support to our allies against Iranian missiles and no support against Russian missiles. So I don't see how you can argue that an alternative that the government and CBO admits would be worse for our allies was adopted "for our allies."

[Rich]

You mean the X-ray lasers and particle accelerators I just bought to defend my home will do nothing?

Fear not. I hear a cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home missile-defense systems is due early next year.

[John]

"Right. We don't need a Cech based system to defend from ICBMs. We can defend from those with systems deployed here in the US. I'm not sure the Chech based system would help with N. Korea. But a US based system can defend us from any direction."

Not according to the CBO report Thacker linked to.

[John Tagliaferro]

You mean the X-ray lasers and particle accelerators I just bought to defend my home will do nothing?

They make pretty lights in the sky on foggy/cloudy days!

[John]

"I recognize your theory that this would protect us from some minuscule risk, but you are over-confident regarding its effectiveness, under-playing the diplomatic implications. Some risks are not large enough to justify the cost of their prevention."

I don't think it is miniscule at all. And the consiquences are huge. Further, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year on Congressional theft and bullshit. Why not spend a few billion on real no shit risks? I think we need to be spending money trying to figure out what we would do if there was an astroid headed our way. We also need to be planning how to respond to an EMP attack or a huge solar even like the one that happened in 1859. The government if anyone ought to be thinking about the unthinkable.

[Pro Libertate]

I always wonder whether my end will come when someone sees me outside with my 8" Dobsonian and a green laser and decides that looks threatening, so I suppose deploying an actual personal ABM system would be a bad idea.

[John Thacker]

Right. We don't need a Cech based system to defend from ICBMs. We can defend from those with systems deployed here in the US. I'm not sure the Chech based system would help with N. Korea. But a US based system can defend us from any direction.

Just not as well. As the CBO report says in Chapter 3:

Before considering the capability of dedicated missile defenses in Europe, it is useful to look at the capability that would be available if no dedicated European defenses were fielded.

And then it proceeds to examine the capabilities of both a US-only ground site defense and current Aegis ships (without new technology) alone. The latter does require a ship just off the coast of Poland for full coverage. The former has the problem of requiring on tracking from radar located in England and Greenland, which would not be protected by the system itself. Therefore, we would have to permanently station defenses for at least that part of Europe. And of course Alaska wouldn't be covered. And you'd have to have a lot of faith that the one system wouldn't fail or its assumptions wouldn't be wrong, because there would be less redundant protection from multiple systems, so it's not the same level of coverage.

I agree that it's a low probability event and probably a waste of money to spend at all. However, you're apparently arguing for an alternative that spends at least as much more or more with lower protection, and I don't understand that.

[John Tagliaferro]

SF,

Why are you re-running Typical Libertarian, the Ayn Rand bathroom episode?

[John]

Pro,

Does the green laser actually look like that? What does it las on in the air that allows you to see the beam like that? That picture you linked to is way cool.

[Rich]

PL, good move to take the folding stock off that thing!

[Neu Mejican]

John,

One advantage of the asteroid defense shield is that the asteroids are not likely to feel threatened by it.

[John Tagliaferro]

PL,

Glad you don't have a bayonette lug on it either!

[John]

Very true Neu Mejican.

[Neu Mejican]

John,

The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that a "shield" against one kind of attack doesn't lower the risk of attack, it just changes its shape. So, protection against an ICBM (a very difficult to pull off attack) may actually increase the chances of a lower-tech attack (shipping container). Eventually you end up with a justification for an ever increasing array of "defensive" weapons.

The better defense, of course, is prevention of conflict by working out problems non-violently long before the boil into the shooting stage. Sure, to do that you needa credible defense strategy, but you can't base national defense on some illusion of a full-proof technical solution.

[Naga Sadow]

I always wonder whether my end will come when someone sees me outside with my 8" Dobsonian and a green laser and decides that looks threatening, so I suppose deploying an actual personal ABM system would be a bad idea.

Apology accepted. Just don't let it happen again.

[Pro Libertate]

John,

I don't have the green laser yet, but my understanding is that the beam is actually visible to the eye. I keep meaning to get one.

The telescope is great, but I live in the suburbs and can't see all the space porn goodies. It's actually my brother's and mine, and I'm waaaay overdue in getting it back to him.

Naga,

I just meant that my missile defense efforts need to be more unobtrusive.

[John]

Pro,

My father lives in Western Kansas. It is high and dry with wonderfully clear air. I take my cheap meade telscope with me every time I can. It is for space porn, what cable modems are for sex porn.

[Pro Libertate]

Get yourself a Dob. They have the most bang for the buck. They require manual handling, but even a fairly big one isn't that expensive. An 8" scope at Orion is around $300, and there are cheaper versions out there.

Of course, they're friggin' huge, so maybe you should just buy one for your father and visit it.

[JB]

Who needs Europe anyways?

When is Obama going to bring the troops home from Germany?

[The Angry Optimist]

It is agressive toward the side he supports because it prevents them from taking over.

What the fuck? Yeah, you know me, anti-American, pro-Russkie Iraq war veteran.

You're full of fucking nonsense.

[John Tagliaferro]

PL,

Can you see Uranus with that thing?

[Pro Libertate]

FRY: This is a great, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. Heh heh.

LEELA: I don't get it.

PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

FRY: Oh. What's it called now?

PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: Urectum.

[TrickyVic]

"""In any case, a mobile platform only gives you equivalent protection (for a standing defense) or more protection (for ability to react to crises) if you spend more money. """

If it gives you equivalent or more, how does it give you less? Am I wrong about you arguing it provides less as the report implies?

[TrickyVic]

Pro, that's one of my favorite lines.

[John Tagliaferro]

I was trying to remember the National Lampoon magazing joke about the beings of Uranis changing the name to the planet Fuckface.

[John Tagliaferro]

Oh, and the Lethal Weapon bit with Joe Peschi describing his rectal exam.

[Pro Libertate]

I remember than one. Was it one of those National Lampoon letters to the editor?

I don't acknowledge Joe Pesci as ever being in a Lethal Weapon movie.

[John Tagliaferro]

LW 3:

Leo Getz: Those doctors are savages. I mean, where does it say that a gunshot wound requires a rectal exam?
[Murtaugh rolls his eyes at Riggs]
Leo Getz: Yeah. With a telescope big enough to see Venus!
Martin Riggs: I guess all they saw was Uranus, huh?
Leo Getz: Oh, that's great, Riggs. Ha ha. That's great. Well, you know what I say? They FUCK you at the hospital! First they drug you, then they FUCK you! And when they're done FUCKING you, along comes the insurance company and FUCKS you some more! Ten dollars for a FUCKING aspirin...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000582/

Joe Peschi played Getz.

[Pro Libertate]

I don't acknowledge Joe Pesci as ever being in a Lethal Weapon movie.

[John Tagliaferro]

I don't acknowledge Joe Pesci as ever being in a Lethal Weapon movie.

LOL, so is it like a big hiss noise when you watch the ones he was in?

[T-Bag]

On the same day the Obama administration caves to Kremlin pressure and undermines our NATO allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, we learn via Vlad Socor's precise analysis that the Russians remain active in their illegal occupation of Georgia.

Russia just signed 49 year military cooperation agreements with the "defense ministers" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both of whom just happen to be Russian citizens). The agreements call for Russia to build bases, station 1,700 ground troops in each enclave, and provide air space security and control. Russia will also train and equip Abkhaz and South Ossetian forces. Each of these steps is in utter defiance of the cease-fire negotiated by French President Sarkozy and endorsed by the EU, which required Russian and Georgian forces to return to where they were prior to hostilities. As Russia expands its illegal military presence, don't expect Sarkozy or the EU to raise a peep.

As for the Obama Administration, their policy toward Georgia seems to consist of nothing more than providing training but refusing to provide even defensive weapons, leaving Georgia conveniently defenseless on the platter for the Russian bear. The costs of Obama's "reset" will be very high for Poles, Czechs, Georgians, and the many other Central and East Europeans that have relied on the United States for security. All Moscow sees now is a green light for aggression.

[Pro Libertate]

It's more like a blind spot. Oddly, I can see and hear him perfectly fine in Goodfellas.

[Seamus]

Further, we know now that the world came within inches of nuclear war at least three times during the cold war and once as late as 1982.

But, strangely enough, not at all since 1991. The Russian Federation is not the same thing as the Soviet Union.

[Seamus]

Poland is not Canada. The US hasn't invaded and occupied Canada or Mexico in the last 70 years.

You don't like a reference to Canada or Mexico. Fine, make Cuba, Guatemala, and Nicaragua the places that Russia is installing missile defense shields. We've invaded or subverted the governments of those countries more recently than Russia has invaded Poland.

[Mike Laursen]

Obama administration to drop Bush plans for missile defense shield in Europe.

Good on him. Every once in a while he gets it right.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

"As for the Obama Administration, their policy toward Georgia seems to consist of nothing more than providing training but refusing to provide even defensive weapons, leaving Georgia conveniently defenseless on the platter for the Russian bear. The costs of Obama's "reset" will be very high for Poles, Czechs, Georgians, and the many other Central and East Europeans that have relied on the United States for security. All Moscow sees now is a green light for aggression."

Like I said earlier in the thread. It is foolish to depend on foreign governments for your country's defense.

[TrickyVic]

""On the same day the Obama administration caves to Kremlin pressure and undermines our NATO allies in Poland and the Czech Republic,"""

Fuck N.A.T.O.

Wasn't that once a conservative mantra?

[RMT]

The decision is good, but it is incredibly stupid to announce it on 9-17. This was obviously a part of a deal over Iran with Russia, so to announce it on the anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland... Besides, Obama, thanks for screwing us up after we stood up to the Russians and Western Europeans over this issue...

[Isaac Bartram]

I don't know about the merits of the missile defense decision but I gather from some of the responses from their politicians (Waleza, for one was quoted this AM) there was nor little or no consultation with the Czechs or the Poles on this.

If you're going to hold up multilateralism as an ideal it looks kind of bad when you ditch it for convenience.