Way to go Obama

[wtfd661]

1 day after canceling the missile defense in Europe, NATO and Russia look to cozy up



BRUSSELS - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Friday urged the Western alliance and Russia to consider linking their defensive missile systems.
He said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combating the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in East Asia and the Middle East.
"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Fogh Rasmussen said in a speech.

Rasmussen's call for a rethink of NATO's ties with Moscow comes a day after the U.S. dropped plans for a large defensive missile system in Europe that Russia opposed.
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had pushed to base elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying it would help defend against a missile attack from Iran.
But the Kremlin strenuously objected, fearing that the system would compromise Russia strategic nuclear capabilities or be used to eavesdrop on Russian military forces.
Russian leaders in the past threatened to deploy short-range missiles to the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad near Poland if the U.S. moved ahead with the missile defense plan.
'Right and brave'
On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that such retaliatory measures would now be frozen and, possibly, fully canceled in response to Obama's decision to scrap the missile defense shield.
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin also praised Obama's decision Friday and urged the U.S. to cancel restrictions on trade with Russia.
Putin hailed Obama's move as "right and brave" and said that it has raised hope the U.S. administration also will move to cancel all existing restrictions on trade with Russia.
Russia has spent years trying to get the U.S. to scrap a handful of restrictive laws on bilateral trade, including a Cold War-era amendment that has been a key irritant in relations between Moscow and Washington.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

NATO chief proposes Russia missile link - Europe- msnbc.com

 

[XMil]

In an unrelated story, https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/www.google.comFarmer and foxes collaborate on guarding hen house

 

[Fletch]

I for one am staggered by the fact that this missile defense crapola has been in the news and politics for 25 years now, and it seems we're no closer to actually doing it, no matter what combination of parties controls Congress and the Presidency. I think there's even an icon for it...



Seriously folks, it's time to just let this one go. Like a space program that makes sense, it's obviously never going to get done.

 

[dburkhead]

I for one am staggered by the fact that this missile defense crapola has been in the news and politics for 25 years now, and it seems we're no closer to actually doing it, no matter what combination of parties controls Congress and the Presidency. I think there's even an icon for it...



Seriously folks, it's time to just let this one go. Like a space program that makes sense, it's obviously never going to get done.

I told Orville, and I told Wilbur, and now I'm telling you, that contraption will never work.

First man carrying heavier than air flying machine was a glider in 1853. First vehicle to take off under its own power and fly was in 1903. First jet aircraft 1929. First supersonic aircraft 1946.

Sometimes things don't happen overnight. And in none of the above was there the concerted political opposition designed deliberately to squelch the idea. Goddard may have been ridiculed by ignorant people in the press and people who should have been less ignorant people in the scientific community but they didn't put active roadblocks preventing his experiments.

And Goddard is a pretty good cautionary tale as well. Folk in America dismissed Goddard's work but when the German rocket scientists (Oberth, von Braun, et all) were asked about the origins of their rocketry program the answer was, "didn't you read your Goddard's papers? It was all in there."

If we don't do the work that doesn't mean that somebody else won't. And there's no guarantee that that somebody else would have our best interests at heart.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had pushed to base elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying it would help defend against a missile attack from Iran.

I just don't get why it's our responsibility to protect everyone from Iran

Russian leaders in the past threatened to deploy short-range missiles to the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad near Poland if the U.S. moved ahead with the missile defense plan.
'Right and brave'
On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that such retaliatory measures would now be frozen and, possibly, fully canceled in response to Obama's decision to scrap the missile defense shield.
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin also praised Obama's decision Friday and urged the U.S. to cancel restrictions on trade with Russia.
Putin hailed Obama's move as "right and brave" and said that it has raised hope the U.S. administration also will move to cancel all existing restrictions on trade with Russia.

Looks like this could be a step in the right direction.

Russia has spent years trying to get the U.S. to scrap a handful of restrictive laws on bilateral trade, including a Cold War-era amendment that has been a key irritant in relations between Moscow and Washington.

This is now the second thing I agree with Obama on...the other was calling Kanye a *******

 

[Fletch]

If we don't do the work that doesn't mean that somebody else won't. And there's no guarantee that that somebody else would have our best interests at heart.

It's not that I don't think it can be done. I simply have zero confidence that government, specifically our government, is capable of ever doing it. Our politicians' time horizons keep getting shorter and shorter, and a long-term sustained effort is less and less possible as a result. Start a project that will take 10 years to complete, and you have 5 sessions of the House where someone will get a burr under their saddle about it, because it's "wasteful" or "Issue X is a better place to spend our money", and the whole thing gets put on hold.

Worse yet, whatever managing bureaucracy winds up issuing the contracts has to listen to the political winds and shuffle projects around in a ridiculous game of 3-card Monte based on whatever Senator or Representative has it in their heads to do this or that with the budget.

I'm not in favor of government doing much of anything, so obviously there's a bias here, but if the gov absolutely has to have something done, it should just allocate the funds into a prize-style system, and tell the entrepreneurs and such "whoever can do X by date Y gets Z dollars". Kinda like the Ansari X-Prize.

Incidentally, this comes from my own experience working on a mesoscale surface observation network, and watching our Director attempt to game the political winds at NOAA to get a similar network rolled out nationwide. Every time it looked like he was getting somewhere, another election or scandal or change of management would happen, and the whole thing would start over. You are right about one thing, though... someone else will do the work. He's in South Korea right now, doing that work for them because their political class can pull their heads out of their butts for more than 5 minutes at a time.

 

[dburkhead]

It's not that I don't think it can be done. I simply have zero confidence that government, specifically our government, is capable of ever doing it. Our politicians' time horizons keep getting shorter and shorter, and a long-term sustained effort is less and less possible as a result. Start a project that will take 10 years to complete, and you have 5 sessions of the House where someone will get a burr under their saddle about it, because it's "wasteful" or "Issue X is a better place to spend our money", and the whole thing gets put on hold.

Worse yet, whatever managing bureaucracy winds up issuing the contracts has to listen to the political winds and shuffle projects around in a ridiculous game of 3-card Monte based on whatever Senator or Representative has it in their heads to do this or that with the budget.

I'm not in favor of government doing much of anything, so obviously there's a bias here, but if the gov absolutely has to have something done, it should just allocate the funds into a prize-style system, and tell the entrepreneurs and such "whoever can do X by date Y gets Z dollars". Kinda like the Ansari X-Prize.

Incidentally, this comes from my own experience working on a mesoscale surface observation network, and watching our Director attempt to game the political winds at NOAA to get a similar network rolled out nationwide. Every time it looked like he was getting somewhere, another election or scandal or change of management would happen, and the whole thing would start over. You are right about one thing, though... someone else will do the work. He's in South Korea right now, doing that work for them because their political class can pull their heads out of their butts for more than 5 minutes at a time.

So your solution is just to throw in the towel and let the rest of the world carry on?

I prefer to at least try to elect folk who will actually think beyond the next election. It may be doomed to failure if I (and others) try. It certainly will be doomed to failure if we just give up.

As for not having the government do much of anything, national defense is one of the few things they do that is part of their Constitutional mandate. I think an argument can be made that basic research (think the old NACA approach rather than NASA's "operations" and "keep the standing army of NASA employees and bureaucrats employed" model.) is likewise legitimate under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Basic research can have some pretty profound "the national defense and general welfare of the United States" consequences that aren't obvious until it's actually done.

I like NACA as a pretty good example of how the government should do aerospace. Run tests, develop new techniques and technologies (NACA cowlings, various airfoils, NACA flush inlets, materials and other tests) and then make the results available to private industry for use. That, combined with the old airmail contracts (a perfectly reasonable extension of the "post offices and post roads" power) gave aviation a big leg up far more effectively than NASA has done with space. (I'm a big "pro space" proponent but I'm just as big anti-NASA.")

 

[Mr. Habib]

Isn't this the same President that just pulled funding for a missile
defense system in Poland?RealClearPolitics - Video - Flashback: Obama Pledges Missile Defense Against Iran In April

Oh wait did his own words just call him out as a liar? Obama must be a
card carrying racist just like Joe Wilson.

 

[Fletch]

So your solution is just to throw in the towel and let the rest of the world carry on?

No, I'm pretty sure that you'll find my proposed solution in the paragraphs above, if you read them. My first post was an expression of frustration... It's the same BS every year... has been since I started voting back in the 80's.

(I'm a big "pro space" proponent but I'm just as big anti-NASA.")

See? We do agree on something. Namaste.

 

[dburkhead]

No, I'm pretty sure that you'll find my proposed solution in the paragraphs above, if you read them. My first post was an expression of frustration... It's the same BS every year... has been since I started voting back in the 80's.


See? We do agree on something. Namaste.

I also am in favor of prize style systems but not all things that government should be doing is appropriate to that approach.

The X prize worked well and, frankly, I'd like to see something like:

"Congress having determined that the United States having the capability to ship cargo and passengers into space on a routine basis is important to the General Welfare of the United States, it is determined that the first US person* having constructed a space vehicle which shall demonstrate the ability to reach orbit with no less than 5 passengers and no less than 10 tons of cargo 10 times in a six month period, all flights being made by the same vehicle, shall receive a prize of 5 billion dollars. The second such US person shall receive a prize of 2 billion dollars. The third such US person shall receive a prize of 1 billion dollars."

And, in very short order, we will have three different companies producing bona-fide spaceships that can actually fly often enough to be cost-effective.

"Congress having determined that the United States having a long term human presence in space is important to the General Welfare of the United States, we therefore set the following prizes: the first US person who places a facility in orbit and keeps it continually staffed by a crew of at least 10 no less than half of whom are United States Citizens and maintain them in orbit continuously for a year and a day shall receive a prize of 10 billion dollars. The second such US person shall receive a prize of 5 billion dollars. The third such US person shall receive a prize of 1 billion dollars. No funds shall be paid until the terms of the prize are completely met."

Folk would be amazed at how quickly we have three working space stations.

And so on.

* I used the term "US Person" because I learned it as a "term of art" when I was in the Military that includes things like "legal persons" (i.e. corporations) but restricts to those under US jurisdiction. These prizes are supposed to be for the United States' "general welfare" not for that of France, China, or wherever.

 

[spartan933]

I think the Russians were more concerned about preserving M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Besides, if we are that concerned with Iran and nuclear weapons, our Missile Defense System is already in place. It's called, the Israeli Air Force.

 

[rambone]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k]YouTube - Obama: Missile Defense & Nuclear Weapons[/ame]

 

[printcraft]

Ok guy's, here is the question.....

What did we get in exchange for dropping the missile shield?



Non interference with N. Korea?
Don't cry foul when Israel burns out the rats in iran?
Stop supplies of weapons to iran/syria?
OR much more likely jack and good feelings toward bam?

 

[Robert Richardson]

Washington will do anything to keep our enemies happy.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Washington will do anything to keep our enemies happy.

And then they might do something to make us happy in return...what say you...all of you who opposed Obama's move?

Russia says it won't deploy missiles near Poland - Yahoo! News

 

[wtfd661]

Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat.

Not really seeing where we gained anything.

 

[Bigum1969]

Not really seeing where we gained anything.

Not really a good trade.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Not really seeing where we gained anything.

Neither move, however, represented ceding any significant ground. A plan to place Iskander missiles close to the Polish border was merely a threat.

Not really a good trade.

We removed a threat, they removed a threat...I see that as progress...no?

 

[dburkhead]

We removed a threat, they removed a threat...I see that as progress...no?

The "threat" was no more than a threat. IOW, they bluffed, we folded.

Sorry, but I don't call that "progress".

They took away the transit permission (for reaching Afghanistan) because they thought Obama was a wimp. They were right.

 

[ATF Consumer]

The "threat" was no more than a threat. IOW, they bluffed, we folded.

Sorry, but I don't call that "progress".

They took away the transit permission (for reaching Afghanistan) because they thought Obama was a wimp. They were right.

You're assuming that Obama canceled the program because of Russia's "threat", I do not see that.
I suppose if we want to insure that other countries are against us, then we continue to install measures that do so.

We can't allow other countries to gain nuclear capability, as we have shown that we are the ONLY nation that can use them responsibly.