Within mere minutes of his inauguration, President Trump’s White House website laid out a series of new policy positions, including a promise to develop a “state-of-the-art” missile defense system to protect against both Iran and North Korea.
The statement was prominently positioned, underscoring it as a point of emphasis for the new administration, but provided no details on what the announcement actually means, and indeed whether or not it marks any change from the existing missile defense systems the US has been throwing money at over the years.
The US started bankrolling anti-Iran missile defense systems way back in the Bush Administration’s waning years, a sore subject in US-Russia relations because Bush was positioning them all right along the Russian frontier, and far outside the range of Iran’s best missiles. In more recent years, the US has been scrambling to get a system in place in South Korea targeting their neighbor to the north as well.
In both cases, the systems are massively expensive and their reliability is a matter of considerable debate, with their survival largely dependent on hypothetical best-case numbers, and the reality that any incident in which they were put to a real test would be so calamitous that the system would be the least of everyone’s concerns.
It is something of a surprise that Trump would be emphasizing the pricey missile defense systems, however, given his inclination to push for savings on weapons programs, and promises to get runaway spending on such programs under control.
Unfortunately, like virtually everyone in American politics, Trump still feels the need to cater to neocon and neoliberal values. Prepare for more wars against weak and distant foes.
All these preemptive killings will all be done in the name of democracy and defense.
Granted, it seems wasteful and perhaps unnecessary, but I see no ‘preparation for war’ in a defensive system.
Not always. The German “Siegfried Line” also known as “Westwall” built during the 1930’s was part of Germany’s preparation of war against Poland, France, and the Soviet Union. As soon as Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were defeated and occupied the construction of the Atlantik-Wall began in preparation for the invasion of England which never happened and of the Soviet Union which did happen. For Hitler offense and defense were an integrated concept. When the Wehrmacht was stopped before Moscow and pushed back he ordered the making of a defensive line on that front as a backstop for the 1942 offensive towards Stalingrad and the Soviet oilfields. That line held until the fall of 1944.
Utter nonsense, The Siegried Line was purely defensive. You’ve drank the Kool-Aid.
These guys will free your mind in a heartbeat from your propaganda:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
Specifically see:
‘Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack’
Enjoy it when your taxes go up to pay for the welfare program of the MIC.
Defensive systems cause superpowers like China and Russia to take dangerous actions to prevent their deterrents from being neutralized. That means deploying armed nukes in submarines or flying nuke armed bombers 24-7 turning them around before they reach enemy airspace like the US and the USSR did during the Cold War.
While the people will be looking for economic improvements and order at the border, Trump will continue or even increase military operations overseas. Most Americans could care less about war if they can’t see it. This is my biggest fear.
Don’t just say that and expect us to believe it without suggesting the victim countries. If you’re thinking Syria and/or Iran then you’re going to have to keep in mind that Obama betrayed his won country and made that highly unlikely. I would suggest it’s a crime against America that rises to the level of TREASON!
luv from Canada.
Misleading headline, a defensive system does not really “target” someone.
Don’t be silly.
Yes, it does. It “targets” the attacker it is arrayed to defend against.
And yes, building a “defensive system” is a preparation for war — that’s it’s whole point.
Furthermore, there’s no clear dividing line between “defensive” and “offensive” systems. One purpose of the former is to leave one with a free hand to use the latter.
I like it! But I like mine even more because I’m pointing out the MAD concept and cold war negotiating strength more directly, while yours hints at the facts. And I’m afraid that with most of these people, hinting doesn’t quite do it. After all, a couple of days ago most of them were either silent on Trump or hinting that they were Trump supporters. Today they are nearly unanimously anti-Trump. What the hell happened?
You said: “And yes, building a “defensive system” is a preparation for war — that’s it’s whole point.”
War against who? You’re probably taking it for granted that everybody understands the ‘who’. Incredibly, that’s likely a big mistake as this whole bait and switch is still selling quite well with the majority.
A free hand to use them as a pre-emptive offensive would require the relinquishing control of system to US hands. That would be suicidal for the EU nations which have agreed to house them.
Would the US relinquish control over a missile system on it’s own soil to another Nato ally?
As Clausewitz put it ‘Great conquerors, like Napoleon, are always men of peace. They wish to enter our state unopposed.’
After all, if you don’t defend yourself, there can’t be a war, although there might be a massacre. This is why the police are always emphatically opposed to victims defending themselves. Their lack of defence diminishes the death rate.
Assuming a system is completely defensive and effective a superpower like Russia or China will redeploy and enhance their offensive systems to prevent their nuclear deterrents from being neutralized. That means deploying missiles in advance positions, building more nuclear missile submarines and placing nukes in the air on bombers 24-7 flying on attack runs that get aborted when the bombers approach hostile airspace. Aside from being costly, this is very dangerous. And Russia and China will build their own missile shields which the US military will believe it needs to defeat.
“…the systems are massively expensive and their reliability is a matter of considerable debate…”
At this point, I’d prefer they waste as much of the military budget on systems that aren’t needed and won’t work, rather than putting those resources into weapons that can quickly be put in some theater or other. Maybe the US government will go bankrupt. I’d prefer that to more war, even if it means I don’t collect SS.
They’re not for using so it doesn’t matter if they work. They’re for making an impression on Russia which builds negotiating strength. Why does it take so long to educate some of you people?
“They’re for making an impression on Russia which builds negotiating strength. ”
If you are referring to the missile defense system in Romania and Poland, its purpose is to prevent a Russian retaliation to a nuclear first strike from the West. The idea was put forth in “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”, published 10 years ago by the CFR. Google it.
Russia is not going to give up nukes because its population, economy and conventional deterrent are no match for NATO, especially in a long war.
I don’t accept for a minute that Russia fears that it’s counterattack has been totally eclipsed by the US m.d.s.
Instead, I believe that Russia stands confient in it’s ability to get an adequate number of warheads through to the US mainland.
I’m anxious to hear a reasonable argument against that idea.
And also: I believe that the US will be up against a huge wall of negotiations with any EU state if it wishes to launch a first strike from EU soil. They will all be fully convinced that would be suicidal.
Anybody think they can take me on with that one?
Putin has said repeatedly since the first proposal to put those two sites in place that the point was to enable a first strike against Russia. Sure they are confident that it would not prevent them from having a few missiles left to hit the US.
But the idea is to reduce the Russian response to only a few dozen missiles, which the limited capabilities of American continental missile defense might be able to handle.
It’s not a good plan, or one that is likely to work, but it’s a plan that the Russians have to take seriously.
Yes of course they are meant as a first strike against Russia. And yes, the EU states which contain them understand that perfectly. However, having them there is a lot different from receiving permission from the EU to use them as a first strike. Those EU states will maintain tight control over that US plan. They will not become US “PAWNS”.
Don’t talk a few dozen. Talk more in terms of a dozen being transported and borne from a few dozen, which will yield the end result as at least a dozen successes. Likely a few hundred.
Better still, don’t even talk this madness because it installs delusions of grandeur in the minds of patriotic Americans who can view any hint of vulnerability as unpatriotic.
“I believe that the US will be up against a huge wall of negotiations with any EU state if it wishes to launch a first strike from EU soil.”
If it’s a question of a first strike on Russia, what makes you think the US would “negotiate” with — or for that matter even notify — an EU state? If the US already has the nuclear assets there, and wants to launch, it will launch. It will not ask permission beforehand. At the very most it will ask forgiveness afterward.
You make a good point which you may have right, but I think my scenario is more likely. And that’s not backtracking on my numerous submissions that Nato is the US for most purposes.
If a pre-emptive war is going to happen then there will need to be some planning. by Nato members in collusion. This would obviously allow those countries the opportunity of seeing and understanding the possibilities of MAD on their respective peoples And so, the decisions would be made by the leadership of the country from which the attack would come. I think it’s reasonable to expect that each country involved would be masters of their own destinies.
As opposed to an attack being launched from US soil which could be as you say, completely mounted by the US and indeed could even be imaginined as a surprise attack to all other Nato countires, as well as the target countries.
It’s an interesting discussion but I will require some hint of evidence that your scenario would be more likely.
Occasionally defensive systems are gigantic failures. The French Maginot Line assumed that the German Panzer Armies of 1940 could not possibly advance through the Belgian Ardennes and thus bypass the line. They did. Great Britain spent at least as much on the defense of Singapore as it did on the homeland defense. Singapore’s was a defense which assumed a naval attack/landing by the Japanese from sea-side. The Japanese came down the jungles of Malaysia with mini-tanks which was deemed impossible. It was not.
One of the greatest racketeers of failing defenses was 19th century Krupp. His company would develop and sell shipbuilding plate which could not be penetrated by any of the then known ordnance. A few years later Krupp would develop and sell a cannon whose shells could penetrate the impenetrable plate.
The Maginot line was actually assaulted by the Germans in 1940. They failed to make any progress against the section they attacked. And the Maginot garrison, even when surrounded, held out until the Germans threatened to bomb Lyon, which by that time was completely defenseless.
You can’t “sourround the Maginot garrison”, as it’s a line of defense.
> And the Maginot garrison, even when surrounded, held out until the Germans threatened to bomb Lyon
References?
Why would they want to bomb Lyon? They could leisurely Stuka-bomb any position that they formerly didn’t care about.
Anyway, this is all very irrelevant today.
Surrounded because the Germans had already taken Northern France and approached the line from the rear.
“As the line was surrounded, the German Army attacked a few ouvrages from the rear, but were unsuccessful in capturing any significant fortifications.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line#German_invasion_in_World_War_II
The threat to bomb Lyon:
“Even after the French government’s surrender… some fortress units continued to resist. The frustrated Germans threatened to bomb Lyon unless the fortress troops ended their holdout…”
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XHOTNUZ-9EAC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=german+threat+to+bomb+maginot+line&source=bl&ots=7yZILrQoJ7&sig=TyhCFHsVdz_g4nfKrIf7WmZxR3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim-bjFutbRAhVOxWMKHcwJCqkQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=german%20threat%20to%20bomb%20maginot%20line&f=false
Agreed, though, ancient history now.
Trump is a loose cannon on the Ship of State…
Jeez, he didn’t even get through his inauguration speech without starting to disappoint the idiots who thought this moron would be any different.
A missile defense shield will be seen as an offensive move by the Chinese and have disastrous consequences. China is the only country that has any leverage to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear capability.
Talk about missile defense “targeting Iran” which has always actually targeted Russia is code for “I’m not serious about nuclear disarmament.” The Russians will get the message and not propose cuts.
Obvious! But good job pointing out the contradiction once again.
Just because because Iran would have no conceivable reason to shoot a missile at Europe, and just because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons and shows no indication of even moving in that direction and is a signatory to the NPT as well as having signed up for the “Iran Deal”, and just because they don’t even have a missile with that kind of range, just because there’s basically zero chance of any threat from Iran for at least ten years, if not fifty, is no reason to think that these sites are really there to target Russia. That’s just paranoid.
Love your routine Px but I would still advise to keep it simple. You’ve pushed the envelope for the level of understanding around this place.
luv from Canada.
“It is something of a surprise that Trump would be emphasizing the pricey missile defense systems, however, given his inclination to push for savings on weapons programs, and promises to get runaway spending on such programs under control.”
—
Surprise? What surprise? The sooner you guys at AntiWar stop drinking the Trump Kool-aid, the faster you all will get your heads on straight.
The Trump lies will manifest themselves very quickly now but the job fro Trump and his accomplices will be to spin it as his successes and the fulfilling of his promises.
This can work for quite a while but probably no more than six months when his lowlife supporters find that they don’t feel all the ‘great’ and they don’t have ‘great’ jobs.
and if rumours are right about all those women who are marching in other countries really do stop buying “American” to show Trump, then more jobs may start happening in other countries. LOL
luv from Canada.
He might even be stupid enough to think that’s what they’re for!
But not likely now that he’s been briefed and he’s only going to saying good boy things. How will Raimondo see this now?
I’m absolutely astounded that at this point, anyone would make reference to it being ‘surprising’ that trump isnt keeping a promise.
As an example,trump gave a press conference the other day all about how he’d hand over his business to his sons, remember? Yet he hasn’t filed any paperwork to do so
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-promised-to-resign-from-his-companies-but-no-record-hes-done-so
The man is a pathological liar. I dont mean that as hyperbole or impressionistically. He is literally a pathological liar (and a narcissist, probably)
links not working
www .propublica.org /article/trump-promised-to-resign-from-his-companies-but-no-record-hes-done-so
It would seem that Mr. Trump is not paying close enough attention to his Russian handlers. Because the removal of those two sites in Poland and Romania will be at the top of Putin’s list.
Has anyone in the press asked the White House how Trump plans to build a shield around North Korea that won’t threaten China?
Donald trump will be hypnotized relating American foreign matters / issues of some foreign countries has to be demonised no matter how well they behave because of huge white elephant in the room that is Palestine and half of the world population supporting it.
Piece and harmony wouldn’t helps American weapons industry wich is Hart of the economic development.
So it will take sometimes for him to understand this.
Wasting time and not allow him to rule is more beneficial to Anerican higher interest.
As protesters says ; what have you done America?
It’s not like ignorant reformed alcoholic George W.Bush guided by Chaney, Trump won’t listen to anyone.
Thank God for Putin so he would handle him nicely since they like each others.
Trump: Should Have Taken Iraq’s Oil – “Maybe We’ll Have Another Chance”…
Sorry, meant to only post the relevant excerpt
Star Wars II – The Farse Awakens!
This leaves little doubt that Russia has it figured out.
https://www.rt.com/news/374687-russia-sanctions-medvedev-elections/
Long before Trump even gets a chance to live up to any of his promises. Which, despite the gnashing of teeth in the US by the warmongers and hawks, were only lies anyway. Oh well, at least Trump’s lie can still be used by the large majority of the people to demonize him. Surely it can’t be more than10% of the people who want friendly relations with Russia.
luv from Canada.