User Comments

1. 

   11/13/08

   Anok

   I will have to read up more about this specific topic, but I have a feeling there will be plenty of "showdowns" to be had in the next 1-2 years.

   [reply]
2. 

   11/13/08

   loverofjazz

   george.loper.org/archives/2008/May/926.html
   
   the missile defense program is a joke.
   it's a waste of money, doesn't work, has no chance of working and serves no purpose anyway.
   the US is the only country that's actually used nuclear weapons on an enemy.
   no country is going to launch nukes at us.
   i guess obama is as close as we're going to get towards sanity on this issue, though flat-out cancelling the program would make more sense.
   the only real threat to the US is the one faced on 9/11: non-state actors/terrorists, and all the missile shields in the world won't help deter them.

   [reply]
3. 

   11/13/08

   clioandme

   Bolton is the last man I'd listen to on anything. Also, we really do have one president right now, and it isn't Obama. Regarding the rest of it, here's a short comment I made on another thread: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/putins-successor-wants-cold-war-...

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/13/08

      loverofjazz

      the wall street journal is the most schizophrenic newspaper in the world.
      great reporting, but the op-ed pages are almost a parody of right wing extremism.
4. 

   11/15/08

   NewBlogger2008

   Missle defense systems are a political statement, not a military practicality. The missle defense system that is being planned for Poland is to send a message to Iran. The message is that "if we can put these missles this far into Europe, just think of what other things we could put there". It is a Cold War political tactic, they do not have any real military purpose. It can also be called "saber-rattling", just showing off the militaries new toys. In reality, the only missle that can stop a nuclear missle is another nuclear weapon. MAD- Mutally Assured Destruction. This means that if one nation launches a nuclear warhead, they should expect a nuclear retaliation.
   
   Loverofjazz, as you say "no other country is going to launch nukes at us". Don't be so sure of that. If Iran ever got a hold of a nuclear warhead, do not think for a minute they will not try and get it in the hands of Hezbollah, al-Qaida, or even launch the warhead themselves against a Western target. Unlike the Russians during the Cold War, Iran will use one given the opprotunity.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/15/08

      loverofjazz

      i don't drink kool-aid.
      not from the left or the right, so i think what you've written about iran has little value.
      if it gives you guys an excuse to ratchet up the pressure on iran, feel free to continue with the transparent nonsense.
      if iran ever gets nukes, the israelis will blow the living bejesus out of them. same as they did with saddam, years ago.
      everybody sane person knows this.
5. 

   11/15/08

   wehireu

   This is a classic bust your enemies economy move by forcing them to use unproven technology. It is what we did to Russia during the cold war. They are doing the maneuver on us while we are vulnerable.
   
   Everything being said has to be watched with a cold hearted eye towards the pragmatic. Nothing believable will come out of Russia or Poland during this game. At least nothing good for the United States.
   
   You are right about no country being likely to launch missiles against us. You are wrong about no country being willing to use nuclear weapons against us. The nightmare scenario is terrorists blowing up a nuclear weapon in a busy harbor or city.
   
   I would not be surprised if someone blows up an electromagnetic pulse weapon in the next big war in the upper atmosphere.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/15/08

      loverofjazz

      if that's the case (and i don't think it is) then we'd be better off worrying about pakistan, seeing as how they have documented connections with 9-11 and the north korean nuclear program. in turn, the north koreans are known to be disseminating weapons as well.
      the reason why i dismiss this iran stuff as nonsense is because that's all it is. there are worse threats than iran, those other threats don't happen to be sitting on large oil reserves.
      we're making ourselves look worse every time we try to sell this propaganda about iran being so dangerous. they aren't, we know it and so does the rest of the world.
      
      www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/01/27/030127fa_fact
      
      64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:fCaK3zemYkMJ:www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles...
6. 

   11/20/08

   historytimes

   I think wehireu's perception here about a nuke being detonated on US soil in a city pretty precient, and Steve's also right about Pakistan being one to watch. I've been there, right up in those Pathan/Taliban tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and it's very volatile. The very folks who supported the Taliban installation in Afghanistan were the ISI Pakistani secret service - although I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Iran.

   [reply]