Battle brews on missiles in Europe
Text Size
- -
- +
- reset
- Sen. Carl Levin argued for the administration’s plan during a hearing, saying it would protect all of NATO Europe by 2018. AP Photo
POLITICO 44
Republicans are blasting the Obama administration’s plans to phase in a new missile defense system in Europe, saying it leaves a gap in the nation’s protective armor against Iranian missiles that could be deployable as soon as 2015.
Democrats and administration officials are firing back, saying that Obama’s new approach to missile defense is a more practical and effective improvement over Bush-era policies.
The debate over the nitty-gritty of missile defense policy is playing out as the Senate prepares to consider whether to ratify a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. Both Democrats and Republicans are posturing for an advantage in that looming debate, and Republicans are using it as another issue with which to paint the administration as weak on defense.
Missile defense has long been an issue that divides Congress along party lines. But in recent years, Democrats have taken a more nuanced approach, promoting the growth in successful short- and medium-range missile systems that were proven to work and taking aim at a longer-range missile system that the Bush administration deployed at the same time it was being tested.
In Obama’s first year in office, he cut missile defense funding, scaled back plans for the long-range ground-based missile interceptors that defend the nation against intercontinental ballistic missiles and increased funding to test the system. And last fall, he killed a Bush-era program that would have installed similar interceptors in Eastern Europe.
Instead, the administration is working with nations in Europe to deploy systems at first that intercept short- and medium-range missiles. Then, in the next decade, the U.S. will also build a shipboard missile defense system known as Aegis, so that by 2018, it can protect all of Europe.
The next upgrade, in 2020, would bolster defense of the U.S. already provided by interceptors in California and Alaska.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, argued for the administration’s plan, saying it protects the most vulnerable areas first and would protect all of NATO Europe by 2018. Unlike the old plan that would only ever cover 70 percent of that area, Levin added, it would handle more missiles of varying sizes, better cover short-range missiles and be more adaptable and flexible.
But rank-and-file Republicans, still miffed over the cancellation of Bush’s ground-based missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, continued their criticism of the Obama administration’s new plan, saying it leaves a gap of several years between the time when experts estimate Iran could have an ICBM and the time when the European missile defense system is ready and will place too high a demand on Navy ships.
Readers' Comments (72)
...Obama the Idiot and Liar is the gift that keeps on giving. God helps us all, especially NATO...
...There are about 200 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, according to a 2009 report by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The weapons, all gravity bombs for delivery by U.S. or NATO aircraft, are deployed in five NATO countries.
The International Commission on Nuclear Non- Proliferation and Disarmament estimates that Russia has some 2,000 nuclear weapons deployed in the western part of the country.
Let's see, 200 versus 2000 nuclear weapons, and Obama the Idiot and Liar wants to bring our level down to ZERO and scale back our missle defense systems.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), along with peace through strength, kept the peace in Europe. The dreadful occupant in the White House is failing us in EPIC PROPORTIONS....
The smart money is on Iran and North Korea. Americans must be presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions. By selecting a president uncommitted to robust missile defenses it must be presumed that a majority of the American people have decided they can live with peril.
These two idiots obviously learned everything they know about defense policy from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
... Dauntless: "...obviously learned everything they know about defense policy from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."
It didn't take long for a TROLL to show up...LOL. I don't listen, read and/or watch either of them. Stop being a dumb arse, Dauntless...
I wonder then why his knowledge on the subject is so superficial? Like he just heard about this on talk radio or FOX News.
...Dauntless: "I wonder then why his knowledge on the subject is so superficial? Like he just heard about this on talk radio or FOX News."
Just because I share a different point of view doesn't mean I get my information from the chattering classes. I ascertained the facts from credible sources and cited my source material before staking out a position.
You should try it sometime, sir/madame. It's very liberating...
Quaere verum. - Seek the truth.
Thanks for the input. You fancy yourself a military historian and analyst don't you? Would you like to debate the subject of missile defenses? Speak up. Dreadnought.
Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,In the summer, click in. Let's facelift bar!
http://www.Allbyer.com
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
http://www.Allbyer.com
FREE sHIPPING
uyir6y
No doubt he thinks he's well versed with Wikipedia.
He apparently can't tell the difference between the truth and knee jerk rhetoric. The inevitable result of years of exposure to FOX News and right wing talk radio and their long running campaign of lies.
...Dauntless: "He apparently can't tell the difference between the truth and knee jerk rhetoric. The inevitable result of years of exposure to FOX News and right wing talk radio and their long running campaign of lies."
And you sir/madame are a talentless peacock and a big-headed minging gaga...LOL
That's nice. Let's start our conversation off with the basic question. In your opinion does national missile defense make sense from a technical and cost/benefit standpoint? Thanks.
PS. Are you interested in discussing the Pacific Theater of WWII?
Friday, Feb. 19, 2010
From the NATO Monitor publication... It's Official - German Coalition Wants US Nukes Out ...a quote from the Germans agreed programme reads...
>"We emphatically support President Obama’s proposals for new far-reaching disarmament initiatives – including the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.
>So, extanker, you are upset because they agreed to our suggestion?
From the same NATO Monitor publication...
"It is clear that many NATO states still have security concerns that lead them to continue to rely on a US policy of extended deterrence. However, in the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, the ways in which that extended deterrence are provided are being considered, and it is by no means certain that the US will wish to maintain a small number of Cold War weapons in Europe indefinitely. Concerns over extended deterrence can be met in the short term, while the Obama goal of a nuclear weapon free world is pursued, by US and UK Trident forces allocated to the Alliance. The relevance of free fall nuclear bombs intended for use in a central European bloc-to-bloc conflict, for attacks on large Soviet tank armies, and rear base areas like then Leningrad, is not at all clear today".
Extanker, how do you come to the conclusion that "Europe considers the US to be the problem"?
We should take all of our balls home as punishment for Europe working with us to rid that continent of this obsolete deterrent?
You'd sacrifice our stategic interests in Europe? Abandon them? And Why? A spiteful response to something that did not happen?
Fully, unequivocal, dis-information.
From your own link...which was broken when I tried it http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0ge...
"It's a question of launching the debate at the heart of NATO," Dominique Dehaene said.
"The request would not address the nuclear arsenals of France and the United Kingdom, AFP reported."
"At the height of tensions with the then-Soviet Union, the United States reportedly fielded thousands of such armaments on the continent."
How many does it take to send us back to the middle ages?
Couldn't our Tridents pull it off all by themselves a few times over?
How is de-nuclearization a bad thing?
Tain
P.S. If you had simply said, "If Europe thinks there is no need for the Nukes, then there is no need for the Troops, we should pack it up and come home"....I'd have agreed with you.
However, your response was laid out as clearly reactionary to another unrelated matter (that was not even true)...and not a logical thought progression.
"IF Europe thinks the US the problem...THEN WE SHOULD pack it up and..." (abandon all gound based strategic capability?)
I can't quite see your rational, Even IF they considered us the problem, which they don't...
And when you factor that in...well, you do the math...
200 might as well be 2,000,000.
These aren't WWII surpluss from the Pacific Theater...these are 10 to 50 or even perhaps 100 megaton devices. Just buy a dozen, that should do it.
200 + 2,000 and it still might as well be 2,000,000...
If you had it your way....
2,000 + 2,000...
Game Over
Tain
Forget what I would do, lets take a look at reality...
South Korea? No nukes? I did not think so...
The United States does not have nuclear weapons in South Korea. It used to have almost 1000, but the last were withdrawn in the early 90's.
Do we have ground troops in South Korea? I thought so...
Look up Trident II D5 and you will clearly see what modern day deterrents look like.
Your example, again, works against your point. Making it simply dis-information....
NEXT!
Tain
...Tain: "200 might as well be 2,000,000."
Do you understand what the word "parity" means? Put into the context of balance of power, parity, Mutual Assured Destruction, peace through strength, verifiable arms agreements, these strategies, among other things, have keep the peace in Western Europe.
Here's something to ponder while we're on the subject: was there military parity between Russia and the Republic of Georgia? If Georgia had access to tactical nuclear weapons, do you think Russia would still have invaded the former Soviet Republic? Tactical nuclear weapons would have been the great equalizer in this case and truly a peace keeper for the citizens of Georgia...
All European nations would be covered by the NATO portion of the Trident force. Mutually Assured Destruction remains intact.
You're argument proceeds from the false assumption that there would be no parity...
Making it, yet again, more dis-information..
Tain
OMG, NEXT!!!