November 19th, 2010
03:09 PM ET

NATO to create missile-defense system for Europe

NATO has agreed to create a missile-defense system to protect all of Europe, U.S. President Barack Obama announced Friday in Lisbon, Portugal.

Post by:
Filed under: Barack Obama • World
soundoff (79 Responses)
  1. Tom

    It is meant to protect Europe from a lot of countries whose name ends with -stan, as well as providing a defense in depth strategy for the U.S., particularly against Iran, Pakistan (you don't really trust those guys, do you?), Saudia Arabia (yes, we're frenemies now, but the US always sells arms to folks that like to hate us), and of course, Russia, whom we should trust less than the Iranians, at least they're honest about hating us.

    Of course, the Russians will get uptight about it, because they assume it's OK for them to reform a Soviet style bloc of nations and NATO isn't supposed to do anything about it.

    But let's be honest, this will never happen. Russia will get all emotional, threaten to cut off natural gas to Europe, sell more arms to anyone that hates the U.S., particularly countries in South America, and then we'll all fall all over ourselves to make them happy again, but only after wasting a few billion American taxpayer dollars just studying the idea.

    November 19, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mmmm

      Watching too many soap. The first strike will be against the most peaceful and most humble nation on earth.

      November 19, 2010 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mmmm

      So sad for the most powerful of nations will stand idle and do nothing...if anything send in dumb diplomats!

      November 19, 2010 at 7:37 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Steven - Fort Myers

    missiles from Iran, of course. A missile launched to the US would follow the great circle route to the east coast (over europe).

    The situation with IRAN is going to get worse before it gets better. That means that if we want allies, we are going to need to protect them from IRAN otherwise the IRANIANS will destroy Europe and Arabia and anyone else they feel will cause the American Economy to crash from the fallout. If IRAN achieves NUCLEAR capability, THEY WILL USE IT and OFTEN!

    November 19, 2010 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Anthony

    I think that the US should not worry so much about Europe's defense. If it is them paying for it I am all set with them setting up as many missiles as they want, but why should I the tax payer of the USA have to pay for something that the E. U. clearly wants but does not want to pay for. If they felt they needed it that badly they would have paid for it and gone ahead and done it anyway. They don't need our permission they need our money.

    November 19, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fig1024

      The issue of money is important. I definitely hope US is making at least some small profit from this and not actually paying for everything. I fear that what is likely to happen is that the defense contractors – who work on profit motive independently of the government interest, push the government to buy stuff for Europe – because they can't approach Europe directly or Europe doesn't want to pay the price. I worry that defense contractors are bankrupting this country and have too much influence over policy making.

      November 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
  4. kw

    comprehensive missile defense systems are already in place here in the us on both the east and west coasts as well as in alaska for arctic intercepts. the us only has to sell the existing systems to europe and enhance the current surveillance technology. it's up to the european countries to upgrade their infrastructure to the point where they would be able to support the system. besides, missile batteries would not be needed in every major european city, just at key points in order to cover their airspace

    November 19, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Fig1024

    It seems to me that in modern age of terrorism, it would be absolutely stupid for any country, rouge or not, to launch a nuclear missile. The most likely strategy is to sneak in a bomb and detonate without anyone knowing who did it.

    That's where defense money should go. We shouldn't waste millions building a shield against obsolete threat. It's about 50 years too late for this one.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Rick

    Where does it say that the U.S. is paying for this?
    We don't fund NATO, it is funded by all members.
    Some of you guys really need to read a history book or two.

    The only country that has developed a working system is the U.S.
    Guess who other NATO members will be buying the system from?

    November 19, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fig1024

      Can you find any sources that talk about where funding comes from? I really want to believe, but the government has screwed us too much. Please God, let it be European money!

      November 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Rick

    Hahaha and the paranoia runs rampant again. Are people really going to spend many billions of dollars (dollars you don't have by the way) for a system that might, I say MIGHT, be used once in its lifetime? And even if it does have to be used it will probably, miss or malfunction. I think it's safe to say the terrorists have won. They may not have destroyed the American hegemony physically but they certainly are on the verge of destroying it financially.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
  8. john

    Barny the purple dinosaur just came out with a new movie!!

    November 19, 2010 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
  9. phil

    The IAEA is keeping close tabs on Iran. The Iranian goverment allows for regular inspections. Not Israel though. Israel refuses to let inspectors in for decades now.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeremy

      I just don't understand people like you? In five years, Iran is going to have nukes... a country that is led by Islamic Fundamentalists, a lunatic president - which funds terrorist cells around the world. Either you are a terrorist in disguise under the name 'Phil' trying to spread hate towards the only TRUE democracy in the Middle East, Israel, or you are just a complete ignoramus.

      November 19, 2010 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rich

      Jeremy all people like you do is call people names when others make a point for which you can't provide a valid counter argument based in fact. Your response to what Phil said comprises solely conjecture and prognostication and insults but no fact. Here's a fact. Iran has NOT attacked (first and unprovoked) any of it's neighbors in centuries. Israel has. Israel attacked Syria on Sept 6th 2007 unprovoked. I gave you and example so that I am not guilty of what I am accusing you. You go around preaching that Iran will have nuclear weapons in 5 years. Proof??? You have none. You just feel so and that's enough for you and your ilk to call for war. By your logic Hitler was therefor justified in what he did, because he felt jews were a threat so. It takes more than just feeling someone is a threat – they actually need to concretely threaten you. You either have to PROVE Iran is making nuclear weapons, and enriching uranium is NOT proof.

      Any objective observer could easily see that the troublemaker here is non other than Israel. It's either attacking or calling for attacks even on countries that NEVER attacked it. It's always actively searching for the next war.

      Calling the government of Iran lunatic and fundamentalist is you stating subjective opinion. Your entire litany of arguments on this thread are based solely on opinion "oh Israel attacks unprovoked because it has to...yadda, yadda, yadda". If that was an excuse every murderer in the world would be free. Israel starts trouble because it wants to, because it has the upper hand for the moment and thrives in strife and chaos. Now it's talking about attacking Iran which has never attacked it.

      November 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  10. fearlessdude

    Only one country has ever used nuclear bombs to kill people – mostl civilians – in another county: the USA.
    Let's stop the finger pointing.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      Very well put,fearlessdude.

      November 19, 2010 at 9:01 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Daniel

    More billions,if not trillions of dollars being taken out of our national economy for absolutely nothing worthwhile. But I guess that the free spending,right-wing thugs in Washinton are having quite a field day over it. This is revolting indeed!

    November 19, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
  12. sofaking

    I've been reading alot of these blogs and just to let everyone know that a missle defence system won't help the United States at all against an attack. Most ICBM attacks against the USA would go by a North pole route.....so the europe system is for europe only.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:20 pm | Report abuse |
  13. phil

    I DIDN'T LIE....everything I posted is easily verifiable. Israel is in fact a bigger threat to world peace than Iran will ever be. Iran's nuclear program is entirely legal...Israel's is entirely illegal. Are you for law or not, in other words.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
  14. warprofit

    Very sad that the race has come to this. What a pathetic bunch of ignorant ghost worshippers we have become. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

    h

    November 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
  15. phil

    What good would an ICBM shield be against "terrorists" who simply wanted to poison our water? How hard would it be for several thousand of them to sneak in through our southern border. They could disguise themselves as illegal Mexicans and come right on in. My point? If the "terrorists" really wanted US DEAD, our domestic water would have been poisoned by now.

    November 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rich

      EXACTLY. They are more apt to sneak a suitcase bomb into some major city and not launch a missile strike whose origin will certainly be known. If the U.S puts any funds into this venture, whichever government officials vote to fund this should be jailed or worse. What's next? Building up Europe's interstate system?? Europe being threatened by Iran makes as much sense as Australia being threatened by Venezuela.

      November 20, 2010 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3