Germany Says U.S. Missile System Should Be Part Of NATO

Germany Says U.S. Missile System Should Be Part Of NATO

Source Link: english.people.com.cn

The proposed deployment of the U.S. missile defence system in Central Europe should become part of a wider NATO framework, German Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung said Friday.

After chairing an informal meeting of European Union defence ministers in the German city of Wiesbaden, Jung said, "I think the development of such a system should be integrated into the NATO military alliance."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
www.upi.com
www.tothecenter.com

Wow, the europeans are really warming up to the missiles defense system. I wonder why.

Wow, the europeans are really warming up to the missiles defense system. I wonder why.

Well because they are sold to the NWO? Especially Germany with Angela Merkel the stalinist/globalist/fascist. UK... Blair, don't need explications. At least Spain kicked out the NWO with the new leader.

Yeah funny when the cross hairs are settled. Im down with the change in attitude however. Its much more effective if everybody is on the same page. it may allow for more adventageous positioning or radars and silos etc.

I am not to sure what to think about the NWO being a driveing force behind this. But I do half to agree that its much more efective when everybody is on the same page with the idea.

I'm not surpsied by the change in attitudes. We've seen this slow shift over the last three years. Now that we've proven that it works sufficiently to be worth having, NATO would like to have it. Where-ever he is, I'm surethat Ronald Reagan must be proud.

The real question here is, will the U.S. be able to keep its proprietary holdings? My suspicion is that European defense contractors are going to lobby hard for a piece of the pie, which will include access to restricted or patented technologies. In purely nationalistic terms, we've done the work but they want the rewards.

Justin,
I am wondering where have we proven this system works?
Perhaps I just dont fully understand which system it is.

I suspect that's the real reason for it: the Europeans are now resigned to the fact that the US intends to deploy an NMD system, and they believe that if it's inevitable that elements of the system will be deployed in Europe, they want a say in it, as well as a piece of the pie. Pretty straightforward really...

Originally posted by RedGolem
Justin,
I am wondering where have we proven this system works?
Perhaps I just dont fully understand which system it is.

Yeah, it works providing they know where the missile is launched from, where it is going, the speed and trajectory and they can have a second go if it doesn't work first time round...

THAAD is now just accurate enough to be worth having. It's also worth noting that the Israelis have their own (Arrow), and the Chinese have been sucessful with their own ABM interceptor. Nowthat I've looked in to it, I have learned that Britain and Poland have pursured seperate talks wit the Unitned States to get THAAD in their countries.

I've been followingthe anti-missile tests as they've been carried out from Kodiak island here in Alaska, and the results have been promising. It's not a joke any more. From what I understand, software is the only thing holding them back from high-end accuracy. With so many countries pursuing their own varients on this system, I have no doubt that ABM systems will be "standard equipment" by the end of the next decade.

So, let me rephrase my original question. How long with the U.s. companies who built the thing be able to keep their proprietary edge? Yo ucan bet that European defense contractors are going to push for in-house production...even if it is under license...unitl they can play catch-up to make their own derivitive.

Oh, how nice of the euros. THe US builds the system, bears the brunt of the attacks and struggle against the very nations that the sheild would be protecting europe from, and now they want the sheild as part of their own system. Go figure. Maybe they can have missile sheild protection in exchange for NATO deployment to Iraq. Maybe we'll cover part of europe since they did cooperate on Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Well because they are sold to the NWO?

Yeah that must be it, not because Iran and other hostile states are developing long range missile systems. Must be the 'new world order'.

Especially Germany with Angela Merkel the stalinist/globalist/fascist.

Interesting. Communist Facists eh?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Oh, how nice of the euros. THe US builds the system, bears the brunt of the attacks and struggle against the very nations that the sheild would be protecting europe from, and now they want the sheild as part of their own system. Go figure. Maybe they can have missile sheild protection in exchange for NATO deployment to Iraq. Maybe we'll cover part of europe since they did cooperate on Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Well because they are sold to the NWO?

Yeah that must be it, not because Iran and other hostile states are developing long range missile systems. Must be the 'new world order'.

Especially Germany with Angela Merkel the stalinist/globalist/fascist.

Interesting. Communist Facists eh?

Sorry to curb your flag-waving MacPatritotism & fries but to point out this simple fact.

If the US did not have such disastrous foreign policy & relations then the need for such a system simply wouldn't exist.

This is simply the american mindset building something that no-one else has or indeed wants to prove a point. It proves to the rest of the world several things that we already knew.

I do agree with one thing the president says -"god bless america", at this rate you are really gonna need it.

ciewan,
so the U.S. does have bad foreign policy. So Europe wants the missile defence shield, and they want this shield because of bad U.S. foreign policy and the states that want to harm the U.S. will attack Europe?

Easy now. Let's play nice. What we have here is a disagreement on the importance of the missile shield. I don't agree with the assertion that it wasn't necessary in the first place. The mere fact that ballistic missile exits means that it would only be wise to have a defense agaisnt them, no matter who you are.

It's morally justifiable to say that by building a missile shield you'll encourage others to build more missiles...but...which is really better? to live in a world with missiles and no defense, or, to live in a world with missiles and a defense?