The Pentagon has signalled that US plans for missile defences in eastern Europe are likely to be scaled back, according to reports. Smaller, cheaper interceptors - able to stop a possible shorter-range attack on Europe, but not a full-blown intercontinental strike against the USA - may now be proposed. US Defence Secretary …
North Korea to the USA via Poland? seems like a very, very long route to take.
sounds like ...
... the americans invited a whole bunch of countries to a war, but they all had better things to do.
Not on schedule.
Now you'd have thought that the US of all countries would understand that just 'cos someone's military might doesn't turn up when it's expected doesn't mean that it won't turn up at all.
I mean, they invented the idea of being fashionably late to major world conflicts......
Why always the expensive solution
It would be much cheaper for the USA to make friends with Iran, a country that has not invaded or made an unprovoked another country in over 300 years.
But I suppose the peaceful nature of Iranians makes them unbelievable and scary.
As for North Korea, that is a far tougher problem. They keep making agreements, getting aid or favours, and then breaking the agreements. Kind of like how France and Israel negotiate, except that North Korea is run by a family of sadistic despotic mad men.
US buys apparently working (but slightly less capable) kit able to deal with likely potential opponents over mostly untested and hugely expensive kit against just barely credible threats.
I think I'll need to lie down for a bit.
Another Possible Option
"I mean, they invented the idea of being fashionably late to major world conflicts......" ... By TeeCee Posted Tuesday 25th August 2009 11:43 GMT
Some would be bold/unkind enough to posit, that rather than being fashionable late, they invent major world conflicts or are suckered into them with dodgy Intelligence.
If Iranian wanted to destroy American they don't need ICBM. Ghawar the world largest oil province located in Saudi Arabia is a better target. Ironically, vast majority of people working in ghawar oil field are Shia follower -- the religion of Iran. Also, they could simply disable transportation in Strait of Hormuz.
Yes, American will carpet bomb them, but guess what this would bring the oil production pass its peak "Hubbert Peak of Oil Production". This means there will not be enough energy left to feed 8 billion people, and America would become a 3rd world country with Serbian style racial, religious wars.
Iranian have American by the balls, and American know it.
So, I'll be keepin' a gert big shotgun in me cottage so's I can shoot anyone who might want to blow up the manor house. Can I use it to protect me cottage? Course I effin' can't. Far too good for the likes of me.
Not Paris, coz I said forelock
"...and America would become a 3rd world country with Serbian style racial, religious wars."
Jesse, you deeply misunderstand us. We have our own squabbles, but, like arguing siblings watching out for one another, there's nothing like a little existential threat to unify Americans. Most non-Americans can't relate to this impulse.
As for the topic at hand, nothing makes me happier than seeing us save our hard-earned tax dollars instead of providing the protection the Europeans refuse to provide themselves.
Wow, what narrow sense of history we do have...
>Some would be bold/unkind enough to posit, that rather than being fashionable late, they
>invent major world conflicts
Well that's an example of someone replying on a totally different timeline...even taking into account both halves of the 20th century, the homicide totals racked up by either Europeans or Aisans far exceede those of the U.S.
>But I suppose the peaceful nature of Iranians makes them unbelievable and scary.
The unpleasantries of 1979 tended to put a damper on that image. I admit I cringed when they were lumped in with the "Axis of Evil" since Iran and it's people should naturally align with western civilization and interests much more then Arabia. Nor do I like that world diplomacy often acts as if we're still in the Victorian Era, in Europe, and should feel insulted if not invited to the ball. There is a lot of immaturity on both sides that the Swiss have to relay back and forth.
>If Iranian wanted to destroy American they don't need ICBM...America would become a 3rd
>world country with Serbian style racial, religious wars.
It's hard to begin on that one.
First, the U.S. is not dependent on middle eastern oil. The global economy is -- but the oil from the Gulf is far more likely to end up in Europe, China, or Japan then the U.S. Between U.S., Mexican, and Canadian production we'd do OK in such a scenario, and for all the talk about the fungibility of oil let's face it -- in a situation of global economic meltdown caused by a constriction of oil supplies, the U.S. Navy would not have difficulties ensuring Venezualan oil also flows north if push came to shove.
In such an economic meltdown the U.S. would still come out in a very good position -- we still have vast natural resource advantages, first and foremost the largest agricultural capacity of any nation on the earth. Strip away all the chemical fertlizers, we could still feed our nation and export food. Eliminate oil for transportation and we have the largest coal reserves in the world to power our nation while working on longer term solutions. When all else is said and done, the folks with the most corn and coal will still come out on top -- at least for the next few centuries.
To think, or even postulate, the U.S. would break down into racial or religous wars is not credible. Even the Civil War was, in the end, was fundamentally economic and not cultural. Slavery as a cultural problem was fading away in the late 18th century and would have, absent the invention of the cotton gin or similiar items, petered out a natural death. It was the new life breathed into slavery by new technology that fanned the flames of the anti-slavery movements and the pro-slavery side out to protect the economic interests of their region.
The economies of the several states are in far better shape as one, then as many. We recognize it and that will keep a new civil war from occuring. Even in a scenario of a true global economic meltdown that stopping middle eastern oil would cause.
Re: Re Idiotic
tantiboh - I think we are all impressed by how the USA held back from responding to recent events with rampant xenophobia and paranoia. And I agree that it's shocking how Europe fails to spend its tax-euros to protect America from North Korean missiles. Perhaps some of those democracy bombs that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan would help us see the error of our ways.
Scrapping missile defence in Europe seems like a good idea:
- It is expensive and the money could be usefully spent elsewhere;
- It may not work on the day - launch detection alone is quite tricky. What if they mistook a civilian aircraft for a threat (again)? ;
- The Iranians wouldn't use a missile against Europe or the US (it would be suicide), they would just get some guys from Hezbollah or a similar group to smuggle the bomb(s) to suitable targets;
- Israel is going to bomb Iran before they finish a nuclear weapon - why else would they keep buying so many bunker-busting bombs?;
- European missile defence is seriously pissing off the Russians who have promised to respond by deploying Iksander missiles in Kaliningrad and who may decide to prevent future resupply of troops in Afghanistan through Russian airspace.
Re: Re: Re Idiotic
Slabman, your sarcasm's too thick to see through to your point.
'Salright, it's easy to pick on the big kid. We can take it. Still, it gets tiresome having to liberate and shield the world from despots time and time and time again.
If I were king of the heap, I'd put the missile shield over U.S. territories and tell the rest of the world to take a flying leap. Protect your own damn selves from Iranian madmen. Or Soviet expansion. Or Nazi aggression. Or Japanese imperialism.
Unfortunately, that's just me.