Originally Posted by perseus

However why should the likes of France or Germany and many other European countries get embroilled in a defence sheild against Iran to protect the UK and US after they have kept there hands largely clean of Middle Eastern controversy?

Link
Link
Link
Link

Western Europe is in more danger of terrorist attacks than some people seem ready or willing to admit. Besides, the Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe, so I ask you, why is Western Europe embroiling itself in this issue? I realize that Europe is a small place, but missile will be shot down over Eastern Europe and I am willing to bet the US will put boots on the ground ASAP to find these nukes because we don't want nuclear warheads falling into the hands of some crazed terrorist group or any of the governments of Eastern Europe.

Edit: Umm, I don't think the last link actually has anything to do with Western Europe as the targets, while in Germany, were Israeli and not German. But it happened in Germany so umm, how bout that weather?

I think ASTRALdragon made some good points, but he could have used a bit more tact. If I remember correctly, as a forum moderator or not, a lact of tact was used when telling me. and i quote that my comments were "annoying as hell".

No nukes for Lithuainia? Aw c'mon, they're totally West-oriented. I don't think they liked having their country plundered and forced to assimilate Russian very much.

Just having looked through some of this week's comments, I have the feeling this discussion is getting more political if not to say personal, rather than dealing with the military problems caused by unstable weaponry such as ballistic missiles.
Apart from Optio's mention of "Depleted uranium armour piercing shells" in Serbia which also caused radio active pollution, there of course the natural causes of Zyklotrons, which do not require a man made trigger. This would therefore underline the arguments of those who correctly point out, that the fragments of a warhead can also be most unpleasant.
Reading Damien435's comment " You guys over on the other side of the Atlantic need to test your water." With what he also writes about " We are ALLIES!, whether you like the current President or not," and so on, together with posts from other viewers who claim "any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also," I wonder how much Damien is nearer to the truth than he can really know.

It is my opinion that the poisoning or pollution of drinking water reservoirs, (for example), by the many radical Islamists already living inside Europe, is a far greater potential danger for us, than rocket attacks from the Middle East will ever be. They are more likely to come from the Far East or Russia after the West has weakened itself fighting enemies it need not have made.

To me it's a trade off between most likely to occur and most devastating. For example, a terrorist sneaking a bomb into one of our ports on board a cargo ship is much more likely than a nation launching a massive nuclear assault on the United States and our allies, however the latter option would be far more devastating as an entire country could be destroyed versus an entire city. We need to defend against both possibilities. This missile defense system may just be an attempt to use Europe as a shield, but even then when looked from the planet as a whole wouldn't it be better for a few thousand people to get radiation poisoning and possibly die against a few million people being vaporized? I wouldn't back this system if I thought it was merely causing the death of somebody else in my place, unless that somebody were the ones who launched the missiles. I don't see this system as being a "bring the missiles down on Europe instead of us." sort of thing but rather it's the closest point to the likely launch point that we can build in at this point (Whether it be the Middle East or Russia). Ultimately I think even this system is only a short term implement, the Air Force is putting a laser on a 747 that can destroy ICBM's mid-flight, how much longer till we figure out how to put these things in orbit? Personally I can't wait for the day when nukes are made obsolete, not by something more destructive, but by something that can neutralize an ICBM.

Lance Corporal, 'em if they can't take a joke.

Putin's headache 4
When bulldogg, (Milforum's Bouncer ) writes " Lance Corporal, em if they can't take a joke" one could ask what sort of humour he has.
Some might find it a joke, for example, that British soldiers fighting alongside USA forces, have more fear of friendly-fire than they do of the enemy. For those concerned, it is certainly no joke!
Its all a question of point of view.

Are you hijacking your own thread or is the painter next door using laquer thinner again? What's the subject here again?? Putin's headache, oh yeah, missile defense and your insinnuation about the US armed forces being incompetent... I fail to see the connection. Someone fire off some illumination rounds ASAP.

Originally Posted by LCPLSMITH

I think ASTRALdragon made some good points, but he could have used a bit more tact. If I remember correctly, as a forum moderator or not, a lact of tact was used when telling me. and i quote that my comments were "annoying as hell".

Heh my girlfriend tells me the same thing; I lack tact. Hey, what can I say, I'm a straightforward kind of guy .

Damien and Perseus

I don't know if any of you are aware of the shock waves Jacques Chirac comments caused last year when he said if Iran were to use terrorism against Europe he would respond with Nuclear weapons.

I think that is the most effective type of missile shield, it certainly sent a chill up Iran's spine.