tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post6714319800813665473..comments2023-10-28T12:01:47.929+00:00Comments on Edward Lucas: Missile defenceEdward Lucashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369936559712607693noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-7788889867294836082008-07-31T12:36:00.000+00:002008-07-31T12:36:00.000+00:00Weeellll, Mr Lucas, it isn't quite like that, is i...Weeellll, Mr Lucas, it isn't quite like that, is it? It is provocative and unnecessary. The Czech and Polish people are hardly demanding such a shield, are they? How about a referendum, rather than repeating the undemocratic ploys of the UK government (let us talk about Menwith Hill). Sounds to me like you are saying democracies can do no wrong becuase they are democratic. History, which isn't quite so neat or so shallow, tells us differently. It is wrong for the US to be provocative, it is wrong for Russia to be provocative (or Georgia). As Sols said, you can't have your cake and eat it ...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356813873980774562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-68752996799981130072008-07-26T09:06:00.000+00:002008-07-26T09:06:00.000+00:00If you read my book you will find sharp criticism ...If you read my book you will find sharp criticism of the MD plan, as an expensive technological boondoggle that benefits only American arms manufacturers. However, if American voters are willing to vote for politicians who will back it, and Czech voters will vote for politicians who will host it, that's their business. Cuba, by contrast, is a dictatorship.Edward Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11369936559712607693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-78171147185716805572008-07-23T07:11:00.000+00:002008-07-23T07:11:00.000+00:00Mr. Lucas, I am not going to read your book becaus...Mr. Lucas, I am not going to read your book because I don't think I will find anything new in it. Your arguments are too predictable (and, of course, biased and russophobic as you admitted) to waste time on them.<BR/><BR/>Your post seems quite contradictory: your article apparently doesn't express your views on MD even though you stated that The Economist is a "viewpoint" magazine. So, what happened to your "viewpoint"? Why didn't you say that you believe MD is the wrong answer?<BR/><BR/>Also, you didn't mention in this article one important point: very successful diplomatic maneuvering by Putin (very rare case) to show that Bush's stated intention for MD to protect against Iran is a joke. As you know Putin suggested to use a radar in Azerbaijan, however, Bush refused saying that it would be "too close". When I asked my Iranian officemate about what Iranian press writes about MD he said they didn't care about it because after Azerbaijan offer was refused everybody in Iran understood MD is designed against Russia.<BR/><BR/>Finally, if I continue the logic line from you post then I can say that if Iran wants to buy S-300 anti-aircraft system and is ready to pay for it, then it's Iranian business which has nothing to do with US. Why did US officials issued “bellicose rhetoric” and threats to prevent sale of such system? Or if Russian bombers are going to be re-fueled in Cuba, then again it's business between Russia and Cuba. Why would US military object it?solshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487434751300349268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-47547273661268885882008-07-19T19:19:00.000+00:002008-07-19T19:19:00.000+00:00If you read my book you will find some caustic cri...If you read my book you will find some caustic criticism of the MD plan which in my view is the wrong answer to any threat from Iran. However if America wants to pay for it and the Czechs want to host it, that's their business. It clearly is not a threat to Russia as currently conceived (indeed it is probably not a threat even to Iran).Edward Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11369936559712607693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-54130935946342125042008-07-19T03:10:00.000+00:002008-07-19T03:10:00.000+00:00The Economist is obviously no expert on missiles o...The Economist is obviously no expert on missiles or, moreover, on missile defense. However, even without much technical knowledge common sense can be used to at least avoid meaningless statements.<BR/><BR/>1) First of all, ballistic missiles are very complex and very expensive systems. It would be impractical and even stupid if they were designed such that they could not be re-targeted very quickly.<BR/><BR/>Statement like "threatened to target nuclear missiles on European countries" do not have much technical or military meaning because nuclear missiles can obviously be targeted very quickly to anywhere in the world. Such threats are issued by politicians to frighten naive populace but it doesn't make sense to repeat them for intelligent publication such as The Economist.<BR/><BR/>2) The statement "designed to deter any Iranian missile attack on America or Europe" is laughable. Again, you don't need to know much about missiles or missile defense to understand that ground-based middle trajectory missile defense (as it would be if it was designed to protect US or let's say UK) is practically useless.<BR/><BR/>The reason for this is again flexibility of missile trajectory. Exactly the same missile can be programmed to fly at much higher altitude above the ground and still to hit the same target on the other side of the globe. This means that in the middle of the trajectory the warhead will be very high above the ground: thousands kilometers (or miles if you wish). Trying to strike a warhead at such altitude is very hard and impractical.<BR/><BR/>The drawbacks of high altitude trajectory are: relatively longer flight time and lower accuracy. However, this is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the missile defense altogether.<BR/><BR/>3) The previous point raises the question of why W. administration is pushing so hard against the popular resistance. Obviously, it's hard to imagine Iran wanting to strike Poland (or neighboring Germany) even if it had the long distance missiles and the nukes. If Iran wanted to strike something, they would attack Israel or US targets in the Middle East.<BR/><BR/>I must admit that I don't have much intelligent to say here: obviously goals stated by W. administration don't make sense. People raised some good points: military Lobby, trying to open as many military bases as possible, etc. but it's all just a guess-work.solshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487434751300349268noreply@blogger.com