An exercise in absurdity?

Question

It seems Bush wants to deploy interceptor missiles to Poland and Czechoslovakia to protect the US against Iranian ICBMs.

Now, here's the situation:
1)Iran isn't going to have nuclear weapons for years, if ever.
2) Iran has no ICBMs-and won't for the foreseeable future, certainly at least 10-15 years.
3) Interceptor missles at that point would be useless--a missle launched from Iran wouldn't need to fly anywhere near there.
4) In light of othe above, the Russians are raising h**l--they simply don't believe Bush.

Anybody have any idea WHAT THE F BUSH IS TRYING TO PULL NOW?

"Big Super:" READ what I wrote--and actually do your research, instead of pretending. Iran has no nuclear weapons--certainly they won't have one they could put on a missle in less than a decade. And the Bush administration specifically said this is intended to protect the us, not eastern Europe--either way, the deployment is nonsense.

As for your alternate explanation, cutting to the chase, it boils down to Bush is lying--again, yet, still. And what particular bit of INSANITy makes you think its a "good idea" to restart the Cold War?

Answer 1

Yes I do. He is sending a message to Putin. and the message is "See, I am fu$^!@# crazy "

Answer 2

Actually, interceptor missiles are not a bad idea. The Russians are pissed because they believe that these missiles can be armed with offensive warheads; and by increasing the strength of US military relations with eastern European countries, it diminishes the relationship between those countries and Russia.

As for the distance of Iran's missiles, Iran has a IRBM, the Shahab-4, which has a range of about 2,800 KM, which puts it in range of eastern Europe, parts of Russia, parts of western Europe, India, Pakistan, north east Africa, etc... The payload of the Shahab-4 at 2,800 KM is about 600 lbs (or 290 KG), which is enough to deliver a nuclear payload, not to mention chemical or biological, or just a plain old conventional warhead.

No doubt that Eastern Europe is not at the top of Iran's list (one would think Israel, India, China, Diego Garcia, and parts of Western Europe have that distinction). However, the US, by stationing missiles in a new ally's country, is demonstrating our support and commitment to them.

As for when Iran will have a nuclear weapon, they certainly have the information. Nuclear physics is not restricted information (taught in most world universities), but actual bomb design is. A Q Kahn had a large amount of information regarding nuclear bomb design (from Pakistan, Russia, and several other countries), and was probably sharing it with Iran. In addition, the US developed the nuclear bomb from scratch in 4 years; Iran has all the information, but just needs to work out the details.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to politics. Russia is concerned that it's losing its influence in eastern Europe, and is being replaced by NATO. Since Russia has been invaded numerous times in modern history by aggressive countries marching through Europe into western Russia, their concern is understandable. The US is trying to improve its image in Eastern Europe, and nothing does that like some serious heavy military power.

Answer 3

so you're saying that Bush's actions seem to be based on a "spur of the moment" decision that in reality doesn't seem to have any real purpose at all if you think critically about it?

in other words... just another day for Bush in the White House?

that pretty much sums up his entire presidency...

Answer 4

The military industrial complex needs a new customer, George is just a middleman spokesmodel.

Answer 5

Won't have nukes for years? You're right - two years to be precise. And if they develop nukes, the rest of the middle east will follow.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm