White House To Scrap Eastern European Missile Defense Shield

This is not good news for nations that seek to ally themselves with the United States.

At what price, Obama didn't get anything back from Russia for cancelling it except the threat of Russia going against a US sponsored Iranian embargo.

Russia is still going to spread nukes around the world to its friends.

At the end of your story, is the Link: via The Wall Street Journal

Did anyone read the articl in the Wall Street Journal?

Or did Popsci just twist the story to support Popsci's Leftist leanings?

Ernie

PS With all the scientific articles available that debunk Global Warming, why doesn't Popsce ever print one? I think I know the answer!

@ernie

just do what i do and use the info on this site as ideas for wikipedea searches. information here is usually very brief, unless it has to do with a macbook or a new operating system. political undertones are a part of the internet and you cant let it get to you, this is a free blog, you get what you pay for. enjoy!

I read the link to the Wall Street Journal. I found this a bit more left leaning, but much more accurate. Currently Iran only has middle and short range missiles. The now scrapped ICBM shield deals with long range missiles. The Aegis deals with both middle and short range missiles. See a connection? Bush wanted the ICBM shield to intimidate Russia, not to protect against Iran. In fact, I bet the ICBM shield in Poland and the Czech republic would never actually be finished even if Bush was still in office. (Unless his defense company friends really wanted it to be)

The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, claims this move is “… leaving the Eastern United States Seaboard more vulnerable and less protected than the rest of the United States from long range ballistic missiles”.

Link here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6172-Alexandria-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d17-Missile-Defense-expert-says-missile-sh...

“… leaving the Eastern United States Seaboard more vulnerable and less protected than the rest of the United States from long range ballistic missiles”

That just proves my point.
{
Currently the only missiles Iran has are

Scud B: Medium range ballistic missiles
Scud C (aka Shahab 2): Short range ballistic missiles
Shahab 3: Medium range ballistic missiles

Iran can only hit countries in the Persian Gulf region
It cannot attack Southern or Eastern Europe.
}
All the information in the curly brackets I found at the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance's website at http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/threatmap.htm
The only "rogue nation" with the capability to strike Eastern Europe is North Korea, and the missile designed to do that failed its previous tests

I stand by my earlier assessment.

And I feel compelled to point out to those talking about the political ramifications: Wouldn't you rather rely on tried and true tech than the GBMD, which is unproven? It'd be kinda tragic is we were attacked and the Missile shield systems failed utterly.

In addition, Russian cooperation on Iran is no small issue. I see this less of a left vs right issue as a pragmatic vs political issue myself.

Oh com'n people! He is scrapping a less reliable, less cost effective system for a tried and PROVEN system that has already been deployed! Not to mention the mobility and range of these vessels! The fact of the matter is, these Aegis cruisers & destroyers work and work extremely well!

At least look at the facts before you start ranting about something you know nothing about!

this is a smart and yet unpractical move in a way from President Obama: if he placed the defense shields in Poland or some other country then those shields would be stationery and easier to protect but stationary which makes them less practical in other situations. however placing the defense shields on a ship is another smart but sometimes unpractical move. if the ship is attacked by another ship or a plane this defense ship wouldn't stand a chance because it is built for a completely different purpose. however making these defense shields on a ships makes them movable but at the same time much harder to protect unlike defense shields on land. the best thing would be to build the defense shield on both: land and ships. even on satellites! however this would cost billions of dollars ($) so it is also a bit unpractical.

@Ares

You should research the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers... They are in no way shape or form defenseless... not even close. Plus, you tell me what country could plausibly threaten any of our vessels? The Chinese, MAYBE could; but they are unwilling to come to heads with us. The Russians? The majority of their Navy is out dated. What about aircraft? The Aegis system is designed to track and destroy airborne targets. These vessels are more than able to defend themselves. In all practicality, a Kilo class sub MIGHT be able to threaten them, but it would take an extremely experienced crew to get the jump on one of these ships. BUT there are only a few countries in the Mid east that even have this Cold-war era Russian Sub export.