> A cursory inspection on a globe of the world can show many places that are
> more optimum for defensive missiles, if the target is coming from Iran.  The
> island of Crete is directly in line with Israel (presumed target) and Iran,
> and provides a near head-on shot which is the best for missile defense.
> Crete was used by NATO forces to test-fire missiles, so there are already
> launch facilities there (but presumably they would have to be improved.)  A
> line drawn from Poland (for e.g.) goes directly over Ukraine and Russia and
> Turkey and...a long flight.  How about our friends in Turkey, right next
> door?  NATO had missiles there too.  How about Jordan?

> <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
> > I have been trying to work out a rationale as to why any of the countries
> > involved would be doing what they are doing, and saying what they are
> > saying, but I don't get it.

> > A cursory inspection on a globe of the world can show many places that are
> > more optimum for defensive missiles, if the target is coming from Iran.  The
> > island of Crete is directly in line with Israel (presumed target) and Iran,
> > and provides a near head-on shot which is the best for missile defense.
> > Crete was used by NATO forces to test-fire missiles, so there are already
> > launch facilities there (but presumably they would have to be improved.)  A
> > line drawn from Poland (for e.g.) goes directly over Ukraine and Russia and
> > Turkey and...a long flight.  How about our friends in Turkey, right next
> > door?  NATO had missiles there too.  How about Jordan?

> Other than purely geotechnical issues, there are serious geopolitical
> issues that need to be addressed in choosing the basing options.
> Since the bases require substantial investment and construction, a
> stable political environment is necessary. And an influx of US military
> personnel speaks to a need for a location where the locals are friendly
> to Americans. While "old" Europe has recently been changing it's collective
> mind about the US and is starting to get friendlier, eastern europe is
> still basking in the glow of (relatively) new freedom from soviet
> domination and rising economies now that they've ditched their
> command economy systems. They are happy to host a major
> development effort that will bring dollars to their neighborhood.
> You need to find a friendly country that can be relied on for some time.
> The actual optimum technical solution is not as important.

> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

>> By Michael Stott

>> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia successfully test-fired a new
>> intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple
>> warheads designed to overcome missile defense systems such as the
>> planned U.S. shield in Europe.
>[ SNIP ]

>Unless I miss my guess, none of the US defense systems in central Europe
>would have been particularly useful against older Russian systems. The US
>answer to Russian ICBMs is probably much the same as it has always been -
>take them out before they are fired.

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> Russia does not care about the fact that we are talking about basing
>> US missiles there as much as us having bases there in the first place.
>> They regard central Europe as being 'theirs' and feel that if those
>> countries have US bases they will feel too independent.

>I think if Russia started basing ABM's in Canada to protect them from a
>perceived future Mexican ICBM threat, we might look at it as a little
>provocative also. :-)

> Colin Campbell wrote:
>> Especially since the radar that guides those interceptors is pointed
>> south and cannot guide an ABM to a Russian ICBM.

> The European ABMs are supposed to be targeted against Iranian ICBMs.
> Last time I checked, Iran wasn't due south of Poland and the Czech
> Republic

> Pat

>> Pat

> Yeah, I didn't quite understand that either. Poland and the Czech Republic
> are very nicely positioned to handle IRBMs from Iran targeted at much of
> western and central Europe. But the radar to do that would not be pointed
> due south, unless there are worries about Libya.

> An ABM system set up in Poland and the Czech Republic to deal with ICBMs
> from North Korea (aimed at western and central Europe) is also not badly
> positioned. The radar to deal with that threat would also not be pointed
> south, as the GC route comes in over Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltic
> States, western Russia.

> Wherever the radar(s) is/would be pointed, it's not south.

> AHS

>>> Pat

>> Yeah, I didn't quite understand that either. Poland and the Czech
>> Republic are very nicely positioned to handle IRBMs from Iran targeted at
>> much of western and central Europe. But the radar to do that would not be
>> pointed due south, unless there are worries about Libya.

>> An ABM system set up in Poland and the Czech Republic to deal with ICBMs
>> from North Korea (aimed at western and central Europe) is also not badly
>> positioned. The radar to deal with that threat would also not be pointed
>> south, as the GC route comes in over Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltic
>> States, western Russia.

>> Wherever the radar(s) is/would be pointed, it's not south.

>> AHS
> what it would be pointed towards, in the case of Iran is the Krasnodar
> Krai, which contains Russia's only black sea ports.  They are very
> sensitive about that area, espeically since it borders some very violent
> places

> Vince