[quote]"...positioning for first strike capability with anti-missile technology [/quote]

An "anti-missile" technology engages incoming missiles--hardly a first-strike capability. The US has even offered to share the technology with Russia and offered them a partnership in the anti-missile system. 

I can see why that would make them nervous. 

Mike,

Taking out a 'defensive' riposte by another nuclear-armed country is part of the aim of the United States to make a nuclear attack with impunity.

Americas expenditure on war and the military is greater then every other nation on this planet combined.... a fact that most here will be very well aware, and I can provide links for those who are not.

That said.. it is is true that under Bush... the vast bulk of that expenditure has been funded not by American Taxpayers, but by "Borrowing" from Overseas "Investors" in treasury bills and the like, at the rate of nearly three billion dollars every day for the last five years ( Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see).

So it is true to say that in fact, America has the best equipped Military that China is willing to fund.

In the meantime, a few facts. America's much vaunted Airforce is composed of Aircraft whose average age is now 24.5 years .

It's navy is now one third the size it was at the time of the Korean War. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4c.htm

And it's Army is now routinely described by American generals ( retired and serving ) as "Over-stretched. "

Not value for money, Even if that money has been borrowed from the Chinese Government . America's Children and Grandchildren, will have slog to work for decades to pay that off.. with interest. Bush and Cheney have garunteed America's kids will grow up to be China's sharecroppers. I doubt they'll like it... but their parents and grandparents will be able to boast how they were once the only hyper-power on God's Earth.

DaveGood

Iron mike

You're economy is far from "stable".

" 

Your official unemployment levels are widely regarded as a joke.... Anyone who has walked a few blocks in most major American cities in working hours and observed the groups of men gathered on most street corners knows that.

Your "Steady decline" in the deficit still runs at well over two billion dollars a day which people like you refuse to believe you have to pay for....

You won't stump up the taxes for it , which means your kids and your grandchildren will have too.... plus the interest accrued.

And when you're outspending the Chinese and the Russians ten and twenty to one on arms and warfare...... I would hope that you were in a better position to meet global threats then your Russian and Chinese and counterparts.

But then, if that's true.... why do the Republicans keep going back to Congress and insisting on adding yet another one to two hundred billion every year,in emergency spending on top of an a military budget that has expanded every year and is already far more then the rest of the planet spends on warfare?

As for Aircraft age being "Unimportant"...

You of course will be booking your next flight with the airline which has the oldest fleet in service?

Too bad if you don't because it may surprise you to now that of all the major countries in the world, American commercial airlines now have the oldest fleets.

Your navy is one third the size it was in the Korean War.

Many of Your pilots have fewer years on the clock then the aircraft they fly.

Your army is described by your own generals as "Dysfunctional" and "Over-stretched"

And you're borrowing nearly three billion dollars EVERY day to keep this Catastrophe going. Which you can't do for much longer, eighteen months at the most. The rest of the planet aren't prepared to continue dumping their savings into an economy run as a giant Ponzi scheme (Enron, "Sub-prime morgatge" etc)...... Your children and grandchildren will spend decades of their lives trying to pay that off. Provided some greater catastrophe, currently ignored by the Bush\cheney Republicans doesn't intervene first I don't expect you to have a full grasp on Naval, Army or economic matters Mike.... But this is the CV You post here. "Retired US Air Force officer currently employed as a senior military analyst. Education: B.S Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati 1979, Masters Public Administration, University of Oklahoma 1989, Graduate, Air Command and Staff College 1998, Air War College 2003." I do expect you to have some grasp on the deteriorating condition of America's air assets if nothing else !

DaveGood.

"delaying activation of these sites until Iranian missile capability is proven AND STILL NONE HERE ON OD HAVE RESPONDED TO THAT FACT." Iron Mike

Which tribunal will decide if American claims are proven and any proposed action legitimate?

[quote] You might have attended any number of prestigious educational establishments Iron Mike.....but frankly, over here we have two sayings.[/quote]

Really...two sayings?  And quite profound they are too.  You must be very proud. 

[quote]You (Sic) arguement (Sic) is one of recripocity (Sic), essentially, you argue, that's what the USA will do, you are willing to allow Russia to do. [/quote]

Nope.  Grammar and punctuation aside (which I'd recommend you polish instead of turds), you confuse reciprocity with partnership.  The best way to dispel any misgivings over the anti-missile system is to provide Russia with complete visibility on the program and enlist them as partners.  Right now they are walking a tight-rope of diplomacy to maintain a relationship with the Iranians.  That's a temporary marriage of convenience.

[quote]As for it being "10" missiles... even though they don't work, and have cost dozens of billions delivered as profits to Republican\conservative corporations over the last thirty years. [/quote]

Geez...make up your mind.  If they don't work, there is no threat.  And if they DO work, 10 missiles is hardly a strategic threat.

Additionally, you need to do your homework.  There is a huge difference between an ICBM and an interceptor missile, so the Cuban missile crisis is not a comparable situation.  As for effectiveness, the THAAD recently noted its 30th kill in 38 tests.  For a missile in development, that's a pretty good record.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4046

"GWBs move to offer a partnership is a smart one because it exposes the Russians true agenda--which is economic, not defense." Iron Mike

The economy is the basis of military capacity. For this reason, the entire export gain of Iraq, 95% of the economy, was held under the control of the US/UK as leading members of the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee. It now remains under US control.

US military control is designed to provide fat benefits to the US military industry and associates. I'd like to have a look at Dick Cheney's net worth, before and after the US aggression against Iraq.

Eric,

No counter-argument to the obvious argument that we must change to meet emerging threats in a changing world of state-sponsored and non-state terror that supersede treaties signed 30 years prior? 

I know its easier to trot out tired rhetoric rather than actually engage on the issues, but your last post is unusually lazy...even for you.

First of all it is not the case that these sites in Europe are any significant military threat to Russia. Russia has been offered every visibility into what the capability would be, and it is not offensive. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that this is any real military threat to Russia. On the other hand, it is another pointer to Russia's diminished power in the world that such weapons can be placed on territory they previously controlled. To accept this would be politically damaging to Putin, and this must be obvious to GWB's advisors. It will have the effect of galvanising more home support for Putin, who now seems bent on reviving Russia's aging military might. I can't see this as a good thing overall.

Russia does wish to protect its trade with Iran, but I suspect that Putin's reaction is more to do with avoiding a loss of face when trying to give the impression of Russia's new found confidence. The siting of such a defence system is logical to the US military and would have been something on a list of requests. My suspician is that there would be a number of alternatives that could have avoided this confrontation. These decisions are not free from political maneouvering.

What country has over 700 military bases in 130 Countries around the planet?

( Hint, it's not Russia)

What country invaded and occupied two other nations and is trying to drum up support (Domestic and foriegn) for doing the same to a third?

(Clue, it's not Russian, or Communist. )

Ever seen a pair of F22's fly overhead at an air show?...... congratulations, you've just watched almost 700 million US taxdollars go by. two thirds of billion dollars. I bet you could build quite a few decent schools or even a good sized hospital for some city in America with that kind of money. You could repair a few bridges.....build some honest flood protection, ( Anyone here remember and mourn New Orleans? Or look forward to visiting the mickey mouse replacement Bush might eventually get round to rebuilding?)... fight fires...etc. Then you could consider what it could buy in the way of foriegn policy.....

For example, that's more then the entire Health budget of a small african nation like Malawi.

As for Malawi's education budget.... don't even ask, one quarter of it was spent last year burying teachers who died of Aids. Think about how much it would mean to one small nation that a country like America would dedicate the cost of just one of it's Aircraft to supporting them. But I forgot.."We" decided to "forgive" Malawi their foreign debt ( Taxdollars wrote that off)... thereby allowing "Vulture funds", Some of them headed by people known to Bush, to move in and strip Malawi of it's last remaining cash. Essentially, a straightforward transfer of tax dollars to Republican supporting Billionaires stopping only for the briefest of moments in Malawian coffers, ( If you want to know how your taxes, that you were told were going to help the poorest people on this planet making a dollar a day or less ... end up in the pockets of some of the richest people on this planet... follow the link below) http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=567474

And when it comes to the Bush "15 Billion fund for AIDS in Africa".... apart from the CEO's of Pharmaceutical Companies in the form of bonuses.... no-one's seen any practical use of it...... though there are a lot of pamphlets floating around which basically say "Don't F*ck anyone or you'll die!" in various African languages

Meanwhile...... the American taxpayer will be doing the following....(Courtesy of Bush and Congress)

Give 30 billion dollars worth of Weaponry to the Israeli's in the next ten years, Give about 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to the Eygptians over the same time period... and sell around twelve billion dollars worth to the Saudis.

Anyone else here think that the Republicans are using Taxpayer dollars to arm and fund both sides of the next, but one, major mid east War? Anyone here think the typical US taxpayer is ....aware of....has been informed about....or gave permission for ..... his or her tax dollars to be used in this fashion? Oh... and the Congressional Budget Office now state they expect the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to cost 2.4 trillion dollars..... Or 8,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America. When you take into account Bush and the republicans swear that money can't be found to take care of the medical needs of America's own children (SCHIP). All you can do is wish America luck in finding the 2.4 trillion for the Bush\Cheney wars. DaveGood

Richard,

How do you suppose this ailment will be cured? My suggestion has been that a little nuclear incident, with a few million killed, might be the necessary dose of reality to concentrate minds on taking steps towards peace. Do you have a better idea?

Iron Mike is a little off colour these days because he built a career as a US Airforce staff officer (Judging from his CV, he was piloting desks through most of it).

It must have looked a good choice twenty or thirty years ago when rivers of Gold flowed freely through the Airforce on it's way to the likes of Boeing for all those big ticket items and any average, or even below par, Air force staffer could take early retirement and be assured of top notch swilling at the publicly funded trough of some "Military contractor" or other.

Like former Air force Major General Earnest O. Robbins who, when asked by a congressional committee earlier this year why the Baghdad Police Academy (built at a cost to the US taxpayer of of 72 million dollars) by the corporation he chose to "work" for, was so shoddily designed and constructed that it was literally stained from top to bottom in human Sh*t and Urine?

Basically, the Air force General heroically told Congress he didn't have a clue, and gave a big fat "NO", in answer to the question of would the Corporation he now "worked" for would repay anything back to the US Taxpayer. Iron Mike dreams of the day he can be another Earnest O. Robbins and I look forward to reading Iron Mike's defense here describing the former Air force General as an example of a good American Patriot doing a tough job on behalf of the American people.

Iron Mike must now find it immensely galling that even though the US Airforce is grinding it's aircraft to dust with round the clock Sorties over desert terrains it was never designed for.... It's getting damn all in the way of funding these days.

The only projects The US Airforce has funding for now is a search and rescue helo.... The replacement for the tanker fleet ..... Which, for those who care about such things, has huge scandals, bribes, corruption, backhanders and high ranking USAF personnel doing time, surrounding it. Perhaps Iron Mike can fill us in on the details? (And If he won't, I can.) and the JSF, a small. light-weight, short range, fighter.

These days if you want funding for a big budget weapons program, you have to be able to slap Green paint on it.

Such as the Mine resistant Ambush protected Vehicles the Army is currently buying, 15,000 of them, costing twenty billion dollars, all of them thirty year old South African designs or derivatives there of... Oh... and the Army plans to Junk them real quick just as soon as they can get the replacement for the twenty year old hummer to kick in. Incidentally, price of a basic hummer to the US military in year 2001? Less then thirty two thousand dollars, price today? Over two hundred thousand.

Of course, these MRAP's won't fit on the Airforces C130 fleet (which is now worn-out anyway.) rendering the Airforce pointless in one of it's major roles.

Meanwhile ( And Iron Mike must find this real galling considering how long they've sucked at the Airforces engorged teat)... Boeing have run an endpass around the Airforce and gone straight to the Army offering them ( And with a straight face) their C17 Globemaster as a solution to the Armies dire need for a short take off and landing Cargo aircraft meant to operate off rough ground that can carry the MRAP's

No pilot I've spoken too believes a C17 ("Variable pressure tyre "modifications included) will survive more then three or four landings on short runways, rough ground. The c17's Undercarraige won't take it... that hasn#t stopped Boeing from trying to sell the US Army worthless kit at a cost of billions to the US Taxpayer though. I think Iron Mike would slot right in at Boeing.

Inter service rivalry can be a bitch and Iron Mike belongs to the service that has lived off the fat of the land for the last four decades but finds itself the runt of the litter now.

As for you Mr Richard Lawson.... Salute! :)... you have assessed correctly that I don't believe for one second that this bogus "GWOT" is the only or even most serious danger facing the The USA or the planet. and neither do the best brains at the Pentagon

I don't know if you ever read a report produced by a Pentagon think tank in 2004 headed by Andrew Marshall ?

It was suppressed by the US defence chiefs so Iron Mike wouldn't have seen it, it would have been well above his paygrade.

In Summary it stated that Global climate destruction was a far greater threat then Terrorism, that it would lead to Mass starvation, forced Migrations, and wars over dwindling resources that would cause an estimated 500 million deaths in the next thirty to fifty years. Something for us all to look forward too. PS. If "Iron Mike" isn't prepared to discuss the horrifying corruption that long ago engulfed the USAF weapons procurement process and the Republican Party? Too bad, I will.

DaveGood

Englishman,

Our very own Tony Blair is a case in point. I wouldn't contend that he was 'in it for the money", from the start. His finances have blossomed very satisfactorily, just the same. His prestige is burnished to a high shine, although not with everybody. His conscience, I feel, is clear, with a few dark spots where 'mistakes were made'.

As you say "the whole system that needs breaking down and rebuilding". It's very unfortunate that this is the case but, nevertheless, it is the case.

Dave,

why would IM post his resume? any idea?

Dave,

LOL. boy, you are good! :-)

Gosh...gone a few days supporting contingency operations and nice to see I've been missed.  :-)

Too many spears coming my way to field all in a single post.  But in response to questions and insults about my posted "resume," I have been up front in previous posts why I posted my background. I don't post it to brag, only to provide readers some context for my point of view.   

I am not yet satisfied with my professional accomplishments.  That's why I continue to serve in a senior analyst role, leveraging my expertise to military planning efforts.  Nor do I much care of others opinion here of my "resume."   I'm here to engage and learn from you.  I sharpen my arguments here and gain a cultural and political perspective different from my own.   I gain nothing by listening to a chorus from only my own side.

[quote]If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Sun Tzu[/quote] I don't suggest all of you are the enemy (well...except maybe Dave Good and Brendan). [Offered as a good natured jibe for you humorless liberals out there.] But you represent points of view that might be held by those whose intentions go beyond the arena of discussion. Disparage my "resume" if you will, but you do yourselves a disservice since it seems to discourage others from posting theirs.  I notice that very few of you have the courage to post your own.  Are you embarrassed...ashamed...gutless?  Frankly, I think it would be fascinating to see the context for YOUR posts.  I challenge you to post something of your education and professional background to give context to your rantings. :-) But don't expect me to treat your "resume" with disrespect as many of you have done with mine. Attacking someone's resume is a poor substitute for attacking someone's argument.

erm....

Does the post above read as anything more then vacuous complacency?

Specific questions concerning facts of which his "resume" implies he has some serious knowledge have been put to "Iron Mike".

Anyone see answers? Responses?

I thought "Iron Mikes" Absence might have been caused by a visit to his nearest branch of Testicles "R" Us to acquire the pair he's in need of. Christ almighty..... Even Civilians like Alan Greenspan had the courage to to go public about the real reasons for this war... and I quote... “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”... "Iron Mike" can't screw up the nerve to do that much :(

DaveGood PS... and if you want Quotes "Iron Mike"... try this one ... " The Sinews of War is Gold"... who said that? And don't look it up on the internet (Too late, you've already typed it into Google). Never mind, you can explain the significance of that quote to the rest of us, considering the fact that Cheney\Bush has to borrow almost three billion dollars EVERY GODDAMN DAY while fighting\losing two mid-east\Asian wars in small failed states against people armed with not much more then RPG's, and sandals?

[quote] Richard Lawson: 10 ABMs deployed in Location A, sure, no problem; but then another 10 deployed in Location B, and Location C. And then, uh-oh, the 10 in Location A has turned into 20. Then consider that a US nuclear first strike might destroy 90% of Russia's nukes in their silos. This is how things appear from the Russian side of this system of mutual paranoia.

That is why we feel that the Missile Shield is a dangerous move towards a nuclear war fighting strategy. [/quote]

C'mon Richard...you're not thinking this fully through.  Deploying missile systems is not like sowing wheat.  They just don't pop up in the spring.  It requires significant logistics and ultimately, if the Russians are party to the technology and operation of the system, they have a stake in how and where they are deployed and employed.  You fail to address this critical part of the equation and I really want to know how making the Russians a PARTNER is a bad thing. Transparency and partnership difuse the threat, not the politics driving the rhetoric.

BTW, Realists have a saying, "How ironic to live in fear of global heating, only to die of terrorism".  

Mike,

What's the source for thi