I was under the impression that the shield was to protect European- NATO countries from Iranian missle attacks. The shield wouldn't do squat to Russian tanks rolling across the border.
One of the original complaints about the "missile shield" was that intercepted missiles would most likely have to explode over the countries that housed the interceptors- indeed they were not meant to protect Poland or the Czech republic from ANYTHING, neither Russia NOR Iran.
The Russians had every right to complain about the presence of US missiles on their border, especially given that the specifics of such a system would not have been freely shared- being suspicious of the US' motives abroad is hardly unreasonable nowadays
If someone was justifiably mad at a neighbor a few doors down and decided to attack their house, I'd much rather the intended target get hit than have things blow up over my house despite my having nothing to do with whatever conflict was happening.
Ship-based interceptors seem like a much more sensible solution for a slew of reasons. Somehow I am reminded of the "cuban missile crisis" by the whole missile-defence business- "good" countries can out whatever they want wherever without so much as a reasonable explanation, "bad" countries are ALWAYS up to no good and should not be allowed to do anything without the express approval of the "good" countries (who we know only do good deeds)
So now Obama is a commie appeaser, very interesting. I truly hope at least some of the people puching this nonsense are just playing along and realize how utterly stupid it looks
Oh no "ostrich" premise here, if someone damaged my house while attempting to strike at someone else they had better be ready to defend themselves, and similarly if I knew someone was being a goof and had good reason to believe someone was gunning for them, I would NOT side with the goof (and probably not with the other party either)
By not having missile bases on their soil, Poland is effectively not siding with the goof in my above example, and also not siding with the other party in the equation. I would think that is neutrality, basically.
And "Obama the Appeaser" was a sarcastic take on what it seemed, to me, was the thrust of the OP- to me, it truly seemed that such a notion was strongly suggested in the OP and I found it kind of hilarious
That plan would have put the radar and interceptors in Central Europe by 2015 at the earliest. Delays in the Polish and Czech ratification process extended that schedule by at least two years. Which is to say, under the previous program, there would have been no missile-defense system able to protect against Iranian missiles until at least 2017 — and likely much later.2017? That’s a long time, don’t you think? With all we’ve heard about how close Iran supposedly is to having the bomb, or a missile system of its own, it seems like 2017 would be far too late to do anything about it. Gates says the new solution is to roll out the new system in phases, making it come about much more quickly:
in the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles — weapons that are growing in capability — in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe. [...]
The new approach to European missile defense actually provides us with greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede. For example, the new proposal provides some antimissile capacity very soon — a hedge against Iran’s managing to field missiles much earlier than had been previously predicted. The old plan offered nothing for almost a decade.The plan Gates outlines provides for both sea and ground defense, with the SM-3 missiles being placed in Central and Southern Europe by 2015.
Quoting EagleSmack When is Poland NOT a target?
and twice by the Pole living in China.