Obama to give Russia Missile Defense Secrets?

[T-Rock]

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

US discussing giving Russia missile defense data

May 08, 2013 7:50 pm • Associated Press

The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency says that the Obama administration has discussed declassifying key data on U.S. missile defense in order to provide it to Russia.

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

[Box]

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 ??

[Sigaba]

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

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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

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.

TR

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

YMMV.

How Reaganesque.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

How Reaganesque.

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>>

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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

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.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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 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.)