Why does Bush want to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe and not in the US?

Answer 1

To piss off the Russians which he seems to be doing rather successfully.
And that is a really incredibly stupid thing to do.
We should be trying to work with the Russians instead of poking at them with a stick.
This is a blatant insult and a slap in the face to the Russians and no different than when they tried to put ordinance in our backyard of what was a former US territory i.e. Cuba.
There really needs to be some Congressional intervention here because this could seriously start something that we may not be able to finish.

Answer 2

The Russians is incredibly no longer confident that we've in common terms 10 missiles. the situation is that the missile interceptors are based the place they are able to hit the Russian missiles on the only time while they're incredibly vulnerable--throughout takeoff. American submarine-based missiles can annihilate Russia very almost with out warning; subsequently, if an American attack seems to be underway, the Russians have in common terms a couple of minutes to choose whether to retaliate. In 1995, the Russians perceived an American attack and aborted a retaliatory strike with in simple terms 4 minutes to spare. The organic tendency of any sane Russian chief under those circumstances is to "holiday out" the disaster, to attend and notice whether the attack seems to be actual, understanding that a minimum of a few strategic missiles will proceed to exist the onslaught and be available for retaliation. Our missile protection preserve will take that reassurance away. the element that make this occasion worse than ever is that Al Qaeda ought to simulate an American attack on Russia (fairly if Al Qaeda had nuclear bombs) and probable trick the two worldwide places into destroying one yet another.

Answer 3

By having the shields in Europe they are in a better location (they can intercept faster) missles from the Middle East and possibly Russia although Bush has downplayed any Russian influence on the shields.

Answer 4

I believe he's said that it's to protect against any threat of Iran or North Korea launching missiles at us or our European allies.

Also, we have missile defense in Alaska and California. Check the source for more details.

Answer 5

We've got one. Besides, why wait until missiles get here to stop them when we can stop them sooner? Also, we have a military presence in Eastern Europe. We need to protect that, as well.

Answer 6

Ballistic missles from Iran or other such nations in the region can reach Europe, or can be expected to, soon. Similarly, missles from the DPRK could reach Japan, so they're looking at a 'shield.'

The US is not yet threatened directly. Though, there are already some ABMs deployed, here, as well.

Answer 7

I saw an interview with a Chech official this morning. They like the idea of the protection from the middle east.

Answer 8

An even better question: Why concentrate on preventing a nuclear attack from a conventional source (a country with intercontinental ballistic capabilities) when we are fighting an enemy that uses unconventional warfare ( Al Qaeda)?

Answer 9

He's building one right now on the coast of California and Alaska

Answer 10

the speed in launching a counter-attack