Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

[VIT]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

VIT this is not a soviet propaganda soap opera. It's just a debate.... Nobody is catching any spies.

It's just about the fact that Russian invasion in Georgia in an attempts to take control over Abkhasia and Ossetia is unjustifiable and IMHO the free world has to react on that. I don't believe that an appeasement approach would be good for the West.

It wouldn't be good even for Russia for that matter, be cause the neo-comm siloviki Putin regime would be reinforced by an unchallanged military aggresion against Georgia. In the end the ordinary russians would be the ones to suffer most from the irresponsible actions of their leaders.

That is where I can agree with you. But it would be 1000 times more efficient if West recognizes what happened in Kosovo, Iraq and Saakashvilly responsibility. Otherwise siloviki and US neo-cons will use this incident for the propaganda and brainwashing their citizens.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

That is where I can agree with you. But it would be 1000 times more efficient if West recognizes what happened in Kosovo, Iraq and Saakashvilly responsibility. Otherwise siloviki and US neo-cons will use this incident for the propaganda and brainwashing their citizens.

VIT I slightly disagree here:

First Kosovo is a completely different story and should not be equated with Georgia's invasion: The NATO tried to negotiate with the Butcher of the Balkans (aka Milosevici) Millosevic kicked out of the country the UN and OSCE observers as well as the Human Rights organisation. Saakashvili asked for international observers and a neutral peace keeping force because it's obvious the russian troops are not neutral.

The NATO troops haven't started a disquised campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo through looting, raping, killing and burning down houses of serbian population. By the contrary when former KLA guerilla elements tried to do that they were promptly arrested.

US did not offer US citizenship for albanian Kosovars and came after that into Kososvo under the pretext of defending the new american citizens.

Saakashvily cannot be compared to Milosevic. He has no record of ethinc cleansing and ordering massacres. By the contrary, in Adjaria, last year, after he succesfuly kiked out the russian troops and their puppet adjarian leader, there was no ethnic cleansing. This is confirmed by international observers and independent human right groups.

Do you want me to continue with a point by point comparison?

But on the rest I agree with you. The neo-cons and the neo-comms will thry to use all these for propaganda and brain washing.

And I hope that in a few months some of the neo-cons will go to jail for their role in Iraq's occupation.

[VIT]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

To ASH:

"On the question of an arms race:
With whom? Actually, the avowed strategy of the American military is full-spectrum dominance"

Not with Russia. China. This will support world-wide military spending.

[VIT]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

To $#*:

I do not want to polemicize about differences between Kosovo - Iraq - Georgia. But you would find many common features looking on the details. Good approach is to split "following law" and morale side of these stories. All of these stories are pretty miserable for me.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

To $#*:

I do not want to polemicize about differences between Kosovo - Iraq - Georgia.

In this care please don't follow Putin's propaganda which is a serious twisting of facts.

All of these stories are pretty miserable for me.

That is absolutely true.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#*,

Once again, you focus on just one case.

Sure, what is being done is bad.

But it is nothing new in the geopolitical scheme. Any incentive Russia had to play nice was destroyed by the combination of Kosovo (the precedent) and Georgian shelling of South Ossetia (the excuse).

Was the Russian response overly harsh? Sure.

But to be fair, I'm not sure the Russian behavior to date is all that surprising given:

1) Missile shield provocation that has been ongoing for several years
2) McCain, one of the 2 candidates for President this year, has a (previously paid) Georgia lobbyist for a close advisor and has been very Cold War hawkish even before this latest incident
3) Saakashvili went to school in the US (Columbia) and has publicly boasted of his close ties to the US
4) US has sent military advisors to train Georgian military forces
5) Kosovo - Russia strongly protested the US/European action and was ignored.

As for shady crap - what do you call supporting the Reza Pehlavi regime in Iran? How about training the mujahideen (holy warriors, i.e. Taliban to be) to overthrow the government in Afghanistan? The Allende incident in Chile?

It is really quite silly to ascribe the moral high ground to any major power government.

[ASH]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

To ASH:

"On the question of an arms race:
With whom? Actually, the avowed strategy of the American military is full-spectrum dominance"

Not with Russia. China. This will support world-wide military spending.

My point was that up until now, we haven't been in a race with anyone since the Cold War. The full-spectrum dominance strategy is only feasible if there's no one out there willing and able to engage in an arms race. If China gets richer and the US gets poorer, then we will probably conclude that striving for military dominance is no longer feasible.

Still, reading my own words, I have to admit that the change in strategy won't happen overnight. I suppose you're right, and that we'd see at least the beginnings of an arms race before any change in strategy occurred. The impracticality of maintaining dominance would first have to be demonstrated (through a steady decline in strength relative to China, accompanied by severe budgetary strains) before we gave up on our present strategy.

My thesis was that the United States would lose its position of military dominance anyway, China or no China, because of our impending demographic crisis.

Actually, do you give any credence to the idea that China, thanks to its one-child policy, will face an even worse (and more abrupt) demographic crisis than the United States? What if China also lacks the money to engage in an arms race?

I wonder if we will see a pull-back of American hegemonic power in the coming decades, without anyone else stepping up to really fill in the vacuum.

[Shakespear]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

I was watching the news about the signing of the Polish-US agreement in Warsaw and to my amazement the reporter stated that in the future Poland would be buying more Patriot missiles. BUYING !!!! All along I was under the impression that the US would provide the Patriots and now there is talk that Poland will be buying.

The following article is starting to make a lot of sense

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/19/11068/

US politics, because of the failure by both Republicans and Democrats to deal with the problems of campaign finance, is rotten from head to toe. But under Bush, the corruption has acquired Nigerian qualities. Federal government is a vast corporate welfare programme, rewarding the industries that give millions of dollars in political donations with contracts worth billions. Missile defence is the biggest pork barrel of all, the magic pudding that won’t run out, however much you eat. The funds channeled to defense, aerospace and other manufacturing and service companies will never run dry because the system will never work.
To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it - and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strong armed into becoming America’s ground bait.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

The following article is starting to make a lot of sense

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/19/11068/

To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it - and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strong armed into becoming America’s ground bait.

Exactly! That says it all.

[phirang]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

My point was that up until now, we haven't been in a race with anyone since the Cold War. The full-spectrum dominance strategy is only feasible if there's no one out there willing and able to engage in an arms race. If China gets richer and the US gets poorer, then we will probably conclude that striving for military dominance is no longer feasible.

Still, reading my own words, I have to admit that the change in strategy won't happen overnight. I suppose you're right, and that we'd see at least the beginnings of an arms race before any change in strategy occurred. The impracticality of maintaining dominance would first have to be demonstrated (through a steady decline in strength relative to China, accompanied by severe budgetary strains) before we gave up on our present strategy.

My thesis was that the United States would lose its position of military dominance anyway, China or no China, because of our impending demographic crisis.

Actually, do you give any credence to the idea that China, thanks to its one-child policy, will face an even worse (and more abrupt) demographic crisis than the United States? What if China also lacks the money to engage in an arms race?

I wonder if we will see a pull-back of American hegemonic power in the coming decades, without anyone else stepping up to really fill in the vacuum.

China and Russia just need to dump their MBS', and then US soldiers in Iraq have to hitch-hike home...

[ASH]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

I was watching the news about the signing of the Polish-US agreement in Warsaw and to my amazement the reporter stated that in the future Poland would be buying more Patriot missiles. BUYING !!!! All along I was under the impression that the US would provide the Patriots and now there is talk that Poland will be buying.

The following article is starting to make a lot of sense

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/19/11068/

Fair notice: I am a biased observer, because my own livelihood is presently tied to American defense spending -- on missile defense in particular. So, take my comments with a grain of salt.

Common Dreams's assessment that "the system will never work" is more of a rhetorical statement than an valid technical statement. There is a categorical difference between a perpetual motion machine (which truly "will never work") versus missile defense, which is merely difficult.

The real questions are these: what is the strategic value of a limited anti-missile system, and is it worth the financial and political costs required to develop and build it?

Ever since we built our early warning system of satellites and radar, long-range ballistic missiles have come with a return address. Since the price of nuking an American city is a devastating retaliatory strike, the only threat countered by limited missile defense is attack by a nation that (1) is not already deterred by the prospect of total annihilation, and (2) chooses to deliver the warhead by missile rather than smuggling. That somewhat narrow utility is the ostensible goal of the present limited missle defense system.

I personally think that the strategic goal of limited missile defense extends beyond this. An autocratic leader of a small nuclear-armed state may be deterred from attacking the United States, but what about using nuclear weapons to deter the United States from attacking him? If this hypothetical leader is facing "regime change" and eventually a noose, then the alternative threat of nuclear annihilation will not be a significant deterrent. Recognizing this, the United States will hesitate to threaten that leader's government and the integrity of his state. I think missile defense is at least partly about preserving American hegemony into a future in which more small states have small nuclear arsenals.

Oddly, there is a corollary to this that impacts proliferation. Right now, one of the main motivations for a small country to aquire nuclear arms is to preserve its sovereignty in the face of American pressure. Now, one could discourage this by ending hegemonic policies. However, if you are in love with "empire-light", then you might want to build a limited missile shield to make such small-scale proliferation pointless.

Common Dreams needs to recognize that the impetus behind spending on missile defense is not simply Washington pork. It fits into America's overall strategy of projecting influence overseas. They should instead focus upon the propriety of violating the sovereignty of other nations and whether this capability is worth the probable cost (given the pace and expense of development), and especially whether it is worth deteriorating relations with Russia.

For general reference, here is a report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science that discusses military R&D spending since the Cold War.

Lastly, a kind word for military R&D: SDI, Ronald Reagan's missile defense program of the 1980's, ended up paying for the molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) machine I used for my doctoral work at UC Santa Barbara in 1997-2003. Call it "pork" if you will, but that MBE machine has helped train several tens of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers over the years, and it has advanced scientific knowledge in areas entirely unrelated to defense through thousands of projects. My own missile-defense-related work is also dual use -- I might end up solving the decoy problem, or I might enable quantum computing and faster communications. If you want to complain about pork, why not complain about re-distribution and entitlements?

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

$#*, here is where you and I part company. [...] In his farewell address Washington warned us to stay out of the entanglement of foreign alliances. Ditto the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Unless the vital national interests of the United States are directly threatened, then I stand with Pat Buchanan - and the very wise men who gave us this republic.

Raz, the erudite (and humble);)

PS. You are right about the upcoming election. I never thought I would say this, but Obama might do less damage in foreign relations than McCain. I plan to vote either Constitution Party or Libertarian.

Raz sorry for missing your message and not replying earlier. Is hard to argue with what you are saying because ... you are right. Unfortunately, the US leadership cannot keep out of overseas entanglements. This is not new stuff. The Marines' Hymn starts with:

From the halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;

Let me tell you that the mentioning of Tripoli doesn't have anything to do with Reagan childabusing Gaddafi in the Gulf of Sidra. The hymn was written somwhere in between 1820's and 1860's. Here is an explanation:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/19480.html

At the dawn of a new century, a newly elected United States president was forced to confront a grave threat to the nation: an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim terrorists. Worse still, these Islamic partisans operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states ruled by ruthless and cunning dictators.

Sluggish in recognizing the full nature of the threat, America entered the war well after the enemy's call to arms. Poorly planned and feebly executed, the American effort proceeded badly and at great expense resulting in a hastily negotiated peace and an equally hasty declaration of victory.

As timely and familiar as these events may seem, they occurred more than two centuries ago. The president was Thomas Jefferson, and the terrorists were the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, many of the easy lessons to be plucked from this experience have yet to be fully learned.
[...]
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, 'that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Sound familiar?...

Maybe you would be surprised that the US foreign policy in the Middle East hasn't been changed for more than a century and it operates by the same framework dedesigned by Samuel Longhorn Clemens .... yeah I'm talking about Mark Twain ... no wonder the US foreign policy in the ME is such a joke.

My point is that is impossible to avoid any foreign entanglements, therefore, at least, the sides we pick should be the right ones.

[tombat1913]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

I am glad that Poland has approved US missiles. Together with US radar in the Czech Republic, it will connect these countries even more to West (although NATO members already).

I hate to say it friend, but I think the US radar classifies the Czech Republic as a military target and undermines its national sovereignty.

Just the way I see it.

[Shakespear]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

My own missile-defense-related work is also dual use -- I might end up solving the decoy problem, or I might enable quantum computing and faster communications. If you want to complain about pork, why not complain about re-distribution and entitlements?

Ash, the dual use argument is a frequently used and often tough to negate when the one mentions that "it can save lives". However I will make a small effort to point out that defense spending over decades has been know to waist money like there is no bottom to the pork barrel. If the money were to be used to raise teachers salaries or perhaps to work on building a better mass transport system all kind of arguments would be found why this is not the place for gov. to be involved.

The problem is more along the lines of what we read here

One beneficiary is New Jersey-based DRS Technologies Inc., a multibillion-dollar maker of military electronics. The company entered Mr. Murtha's district a decade ago when it bought a small cable assembler. Since then, the congressman has helped fund nearly $400 million in contracts for the local DRS unit, building data-display terminals installed in Navy destroyers and submarines.
The Pentagon didn't ask for many of these contracts in its annual budget requests. Mr. Murtha assured the work would be done in his district by earmarking part of the program to DRS.
Paired with prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., the DRS unit helped build more than 4,000 display terminals in the past decade, some costing as much as $240,000 each. A former Murtha staffer, Paul Magliocchetti, helped get the funding through Mr. Murtha's committee. He was paid $3.2 million by DRS over the period for his lobbying efforts, federal records show. Since 1989, Mr. Magliocchetti and executives of Lockheed and DRS have given more than $377,000 to Murtha campaign committees.
Mr. Magliocchetti, who has built a lobbying business winning Murtha earmarks for dozens of companies, won't discuss his work. "No comment," he says. "I'm just a former staffer." A spokesman for DRS, Richard Goldberg, also wouldn't comment on Mr. Murtha. "We have a world-class manufacturing facility in Johnstown, and a skilled, reliable work force," he said. A Murtha spokesman says the program has saved money for the Navy by using commercial, off-the-shelf components.

Pure unadulterated WASTE :-)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...667975920.html

Here is a nice review of defense spending (first best one I found through GOOGLE).

Question is "How much of this is PORK?"

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...litarySpending

Here is an amazing link ( my favorite ice cream ) to see how education compares to the defense spending.

http://www.benjerry.com/americanpie/allocate.cfm

Working in an industry that is being criticized is not fun. One works in it and often does not have the luxury to jump the boat and become a Buddhist monk in order to save the world. I understand this. I work in the Petroleum Industry and at time ask myself what the heck I am doing.

At one time I was working in the middle of Borneo and saw how the jungle was cleared for kilometers around in-order to run seismic surveys and put in drilling pads. Access roads that were constructed by the oil companies were in turn used by logging companies to cut more trees to run their lumber industry. Action led to reaction which in turn led to other actions. This encroachment slowly spreading throughout Borneo to cut and cut and cut more trees. We see the result after decades of cutting in the weather system changes experienced by people completely unaware what was going on on Borneo. Their reading of the situation is "Guess the weather has changed."

What I saw was on a micro scale and thought it a bit extreme. Now I realize that on the macro scale this was all leading to a major disaster.

These were pure business decisions without respect for consequences. I, being a small cog in the larger machine executing this business decision.

Mother Nature will sort this out along with people like myself. :-)

With regard to entitlments and subsidies I have to say I am ignorent. I know what they are but do not know the details of this debate. I can tell you much more about issues of Peak Oil though.

However I gave a stab with GOOGLE. Here is what I found. One says it is not a big issue the other that it is.

What I found interesting in the first source, AARP, is this little line

Nearly half of tax entitlement benefits go to those with incomes of more than $100,000, and nearly three fourths go to those with incomes above $50,000.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/inb58_spending.pdf

The second has the following concluding remarks

The Census Bureau compiles the federal spending report each year with information from about 50 federal agencies, Keffer said. One purpose is to show how much federal money goes to each state.Classified dollars
The report excludes spending on foreign aid, international affairs and interest payments on the national debt, a total of about $200 billion in 2004, because those items do not go to individual states, Keffer said.
It also does not specify spending for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency because those budgets are classified, Keffer said.
Among the report’s findings:

• One third of all federal spending went to five states in 2004: California; New York; Texas; Florida; and Pennsylvania.
• California led all states with $232 billion.
• Wyoming received the least money, $4.4 billion.
• Alaska received only $8.4 billion. But with its relatively small population, it led the nation in per capita federal spending, at $12,885 a person.
• Nevada received the lowest per capita amount, $5,469 a person.
• Defense Department spending was highest in California, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Maryland.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/

If the $15 billion per month on Iraq and Afghanistan is a correct estimate than the above look like peanuts :-)

[ASH]

Re: Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

Ash, the dual use argument is a frequently used and often tough to negate when the one mentions that "it can save lives".

I suppose the validity of my argument actually rests on how cynical you care to be. I agree that the research-per-dollar which results from spending on military R&D is probably lower than what would result from direct spending on the sciences. However, that assumes direct R&D spending is a politically viable alternative. The way I see it, unless you posit a fundamental restructing of our system of government, your choices are between mushu pork, pork tenderloin, and Hawaiian pineapple pork -- not between pork and no pork. That being the case, we can only choose between evils, and I aver that while spending on military R&D may be an inefficient way of creating a public good, it is vastly superior to the re-distributive direct payments to individuals which produce no public goods. Moreover, spending on military procurement largely supports American manufacturing and what's left of our industrial base -- would you rather see the pork go to the service sector or FIRE economy?

With regard to entitlments and subsidies I have to say I am ignorent.

Well, you know, I'm "Captain Entitlements Rant" so allow me to present my unbalanced and gibbering perspective.

If you care to point a browser here you can skim the 2008 Annual Reports of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. There are two things I'd like to call to your attention. First, in 2007, the "assets" of all four Trust Funds totaled $2.6 trillion, and "increased" by $220.8 billion. Why the quotes? Because the supposed assets held by the Trust Funds are government account series (GAS) bonds, which is one of the components of the national debt. In other words, these entitlement programs added $220.8 billion to the national debt in calendar year 2007. (Note that the Trustees Reports calculate figures relative to the CALENDAR year ending December 2007, whereas most federal budget figures are calculated relative to the FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR which ends in September; this misalignment can lead to confusion when comparing numbers between different sources.)

Elsewhere, in Table S-2 of the 2009 Budget, we see that the off-budget appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during FY2007 totalled $173.6 billion on top of $498 billion in security spending (which includes DoD, Homeland Defense, and international affairs). Further down the page, in Table S-8, we see that Expenditures on Social Security and Medicare totalled $952 billion in FY2007.

So, the entitlement programs are adding to the national debt faster than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if you will allow 3 months misalignment between my two data sources). But here's the real hideous thing. Go back to the Trustees' Reports, and check out how much of the Trust Funds' "income" is "interest": $128.9 billion. One reason our national debt is rising is because part of it is compounding! The government borrows surplus payroll tax from the entitlement programs in order to finance its regular operations, and replaces the surplus tax revenue with GAS bonds. Then it "pays the Trust Funds interest" each year on the GAS bonds, by issuing yet more GAS bonds. How obscene is that? Whatever you may think of defense pork, it doesn't come with a built-in mechanism to compound itself... we have to actually borrow more money to make that part of the debt compound. In contrast, the entitlement programs have no use for extra income as long as they run a surplus, so by default their portion of the national debt HAS TO COMPOUND.

Sadly, the entitlement programs running a surplus is soon to be a memory. Medicare will tip over this year, and Social Security will do so in 2017. I'll wish I could rant about the surplus when the entitlement programs actually start to draw down the Trust Funds. Toward the end of the Trustees' Reports they say:

The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2017, net revenue flows from the general fund will total $449 billion (2.0 percent of GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2017 for OASDI, and in 2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the trust funds when assets are redeemed to help pay benefits in years prior to exhaustion of the funds. Note that neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

This is a reminder that the Trust Funds aren't an asset, but rather a liability, and ten years from now we'll have to cough up payments roughly equal in size to our present defense budget to pay down the part of the debt that the Trust Funds represent.

In fact, long-term, we have one and only one budgetary problem, and it is called Medicare. From a budget perspective, the present wars and even Social Security pale in comparison.