You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability. It's not like you rub a magic lamp or something, ffs.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nevertheless your govt chose to do absolutely nothing about a known and definite threat, which makes all this excitement about a non-existent Iranian threat all the more ridiculous and unlikely.FEOS wrote:
The threat was that AQ would use aircraft in some manner. The vulnerability they would exploit was unknown--was it commercial aviation, was it general aviation, what would be targeted, etc. Hence, the threat was known, but the vulnerability was unknown, therefore, the risk was indeterminate.
I can see why you don't like details...they derail your theories.FEOS wrote:
Like I said, you can argue about the detail all you like, its pointless.FEOS wrote:
Now you are somehow linking this particular installation to the 2002 withdrawal. The 2002 withdrawal was focused primarily on North Korea and setting up an ABM shield for the US proper. This installation came along later, as the technology matured and Iran's missile development became more of a concern.
Bottomline is:
US unilaterally withdrew from a treaty controlling ABMs
US unilaterally starts planting ABMs around the place - which would have breached said treaty if it were still in place - to counter a threat which doesn't exist.
Russians are suspicious and pissed off.
It would be a whole lot easier if the US could just stop being dickheads.
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular