Obama to give Russia Missile Defense Secrets?
 

Hmm…, this appears to be the flexibility dear chairman spoke of… :(
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPMDGLbmdgo

Source: http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/nat...46e9c4224.html

I concur. Clearly what the POTUS had in mind when discuss missle defense and he forgot his mic' was on and said "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,"

...out of curiosity, whats in it for the USA ??

The president has some nerve. Diplomacy in this day and age!:rolleyes:

Giving away the secrets to the technology it cost us hundreds of millions to develop, to a challenging state, if not an enemy one (yet), in return for little or nothing, seems to me to be an act of appeasement.

I suspect that shortly after they get the tech, their systems, and soon after that, their client states, will have it on their missiles.

Now where did the NKs get long range missile tech from again?

Oh, yeah, our buddies the Russians gave them an SLBM to play with. :rolleyes:

TR

TR--

Which would Americans rather have: a functional missile defense system that deters regional powers from launching missiles with nuclear warheads or one that provokes Russia into, among other things, an arms race? Will our friends and allies in Europe and Asia be more secure or less if Russia believes America is rebooting the British vision of containment?

Maybe the "lessons of history" that are informing the discussion of sharing secrets with Russia are centered around Eastern European history and not the Churchillian version of British history.

MOO, strategic transparency remains a relevant tool when dealing with a state that has nuclear weapons of its own and has some influence in those regions of the world that are vital to America's interests.

YMMV.

The Russians, as did the Soviets, can be counted upon to act in their own self-interest and normally, in what they view as counterbalance to our own actions.

They are claiming, IMHO falsely, the our defense system is targeting their strike capability. I am not sure how a couple of dozen interceptors are supposed to be a threat to several thousand warheads.

Maybe it is because if they had it, they would try and build a total defensive system out of it against our missiles.

We both had a negotiated anti-ballistic missile program back in the 60s and 70s (see Safeguard), we chose not to build ours, but the Soviets did.

I think they are perceiving ill-intent when there is none, and are trying to gain advantage from the weakness of our leadership, which is more than willing to give away the goods.

I guess some called Chamberlain's actions diplomacy as well.

And what of value would we be getting in return? Another Nobel prize?

And IMHO, the Russians can ill-afford an arms race, if they choose to pursue one.

TR

Is it your position that

• the Reagan administration never took a step back to collect and to consider additional information,
• the U.S., during Reagan's presidency, did not shift its geostrategic priorities as circumstances change, or that
• Reagan, throughout his political life, wanted America to be strong just for the sake of being strong.

<<LINK>><<LINK2>><<LINK3>>

Rhetorically...

• Is Russia's assessment of America based upon intent alone or do America's capabilities play a role in its deliberations?
• Is the calculation of Russia's interests based upon geopolitics alone or do the personal, economic, and political interests of its leaders influence its conduct in world affairs?
• Have Russian autocrats never used a brewing rivalry abroad to deflect attention from domestic ills and political scandal at home?
• Could Russia afford its policies that called for expanded influence in Asia at the turn of the last century or the war with Japan that followed?

MOO, if the United States can handle the discussion of missile defense deftly (a big "if" given the skill set of the incumbent president) what might be gained is Russia not going out of its way to counter American influence in the Middle East and East Asia just because.

My $0.02.

My position is that Reagan made the USSR shift its geostrategic priorities by forcing a change in circumstances. It's a leadership technique that doesn't involve ingratiation, so-we won't see it happen for a few years.

Clearly we have different ideas of what diplomacy means.

...surrendering defense technology unless there is a BIG payoff to benefit the USA doesn't define diplomacy for me. If it was real diplomacy, why the 'cloak and dagger' delay until after the elections?

He clearly saw his "diplomacy" as something that would not be received well by his countrymen or else he wouldn't have had to wait until there was no recourse by the voters. If it is such a good idea, why not jump on it pre-election and ride his artful deal with the Soviets to an easy election victory?

...or we could cover up Benghazi, pinky promise a compromise of our defense technology, and get the IRS to help sell class warfare.

I'm not an educated guy, I dont understand the "enlightened" decision making process used by our elected officials so I just have to go with my gut.
My gut tells me "its bad for ya'"

I think the Russians are deluding themselves in rejecting the fact that they are no longer one of the superpowers, except for their nuclear arsenal.

Frankly, my opinion after 40 years of observing them, is that the current Russian leadership cannot be trusted, and will violate or abrogate any deal, at any time, without notification, for their own benefit.

Pretty much every autocrat in the world, to include our own, will use events to achieve their agenda. Wag the dog? But in this case, our Administration seems intent upon repeatedly showing goodwill by unilateral appeasement and disarmament, and getting little, other than an occasional slap in the face in return. What happened to the goodwill that was supposed to accrue from cancelling the deployment of the missile defense system to Poland (other than causing the Poles to wonder where our loyalties really lie)? Frankly, I think the POTUS' team could stand a good introductory class in the application of Machiavellian realpolitik to international relations. The current Administration seems to be completely unfamiliar with negotiating for advantage.

I would maintain that the Reagan Administration negotiated deals advantageous to the U.S. by doing it from a position of relative strength. Rational players beget rational policies, negotiations, and decisionmaking.

Maybe they should treat interactions with foreign powers the same as they do the Republican party.

The actions of the Czarists in the late 19th Century (Russo-Japanese War), the Soviets that followed (WW II), and the current Russian "elected" leadership of today (no open war, yet) WRT Asia could be the topic for a great discussion, but I am not sure of the connection to Obama giving the Russians the secrets to the missile defense system in return for questionable concessions by the current Russian regime.

TR

The good ol' days.

I agree on this point. For decades their formations were marketed as defensive measures, while patterning major maneuver formations & conducting exercises to execute fairly large-scale offensive operations based only on some single political trigger event. (Those things now have been declassified; stealing from the 7th Gp/60 Minutes thread, to think that the scorpion might not still sting the frog is imprudent in my view.)

Kinda sounds like our "political" class.

So if BO gives secrets to the Russians then PVT Manning will be vindicated.:munchin