Is the idea of missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland justified?

  • Missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland are justified, because geographical vulnerability and nuclear threats justify plans for this defense.

    Poland and the Czech Republic are in the middle of a geographical area that has seen gargantuan changes in the last 100 years. There is some residual instability in some eastern European countries, and still Soviet-era intimidation from Russia, who has said that the government would move missiles closer to the Czech and Poland if the countries were to take up such defenses. The bigger threat comes from a rogue nation, such as North Korea or Iran, which is geographically close. This threat alone justifies missile defenses.

    Posted by: RudeRuben31
  • Missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic are readily justified.

    It is almost insulting to the people of Poland and the Czech Republic to ask if missile defenses there are justified, because self-defense is a universal right. The proper question is: are missile defenses a wise choice for Poland and the Czech Republic? That question more properly demands consideration of alternatives and of the implications of proceeding with any of the options. Clearly, missile defenses are justified as self defense, but it is up to the citizens of those countries to determine whether or not to proceed with that specific approach to self defense.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • I support the idea of having missile defenses in the Czech republic and Poland, to keep Russia and China honest.

    The world it seems is becoming even more volatile in the past few weeks, and even years. The future of many countries and their relationship with America and our allies is uncertain. For these reasons, it is imperative to keep missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland. Russia and China, just to mention a few countries, are countries that both proliferate and hold on to arms. For this reason, we need missiles for defensive purposes only.

    Posted by: MonserratC
  • Yes, because in those countries, missile defense is the best deterrent.

    Having missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland is good for all countries involved. Ever since World War 2, missile defense has been a great deterrent for war. It makes countries think twice before they act prematurely with unnecessary military action. Plus, it gives the USA the upper hand in bargaining for better peace.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • If they feel that it is then it is.

    While I wouldn't feel the same about missile attack systems there is no reason why missile defense systems should be limited. If these countries feel the need to defend themselves with a system of missile defense then they are right to do so. When I want to install a security system in my home, I don't need to ask my neighbor's for permission and the same thing applies in this situation.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Poland and the Czech Republic should be allowed to protect themselves.

    Poland and the Czech Republic are close to several dangerous countries, including the Soviet Union. They should be permitted to defend themselves from hostile nations. Missile defenses are not to be used against other nations; it's just to protect themselves. If a nation is in a situation where they feel they are in danger, they have every right to defend themselves and their people.

    Posted by: VasilBuddy
  • Missile defenses in the Czech republic and Poland may indeed be justified in an area that has always been politically tumultuous.

    Eastern Europe historically has proven to been a tumultuous area, fraught with unrest, invasion and rebellion. I support the implementation of missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland to act as a deterrent to future invasion or unrest. I support the right of any country to sufficiently and proactively implement a defense system along their borders.

    Posted by: R3n5God2iIIa
  • I agree with the need for missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland for international security reasons.

    It is critical that we have missile shields in place to protect the United States and European allies and countries from threat. With the ever present and growing danger from Iran due to its continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities, it becomes imperative to institute a better system of protection from these dangerous and radicalized nations.

    Posted by: g0ggleslife
  • I think it is justified to consider putting these anywhere.

    I can see where Russia would not like this idea at face value, but we need these systems in place. I honestly believe these are mostly to protect us from rogue nations in the middle east and north Africa, and not to protect from Russia for the most part. These young nations will feel a bit safer also. Europe has historical been a volatile place to be, and any form of protection should be welcomed.

    Posted by: 5h035Bow
  • There is no justification, just action.

    If the US is able to put strategic defenses in foreign countries with their consent, all they need worry is of local, and foreign retorts to the case. It may seem "unjustified" but its an act of future deterrence that it is setting out for the world. When done as so, the world can either fight, or layback from fighting.

    Posted by: Bear
  • The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and is no longer a threat.

    Depending on your view of history, the Communist empire fell between 1989 and 1991. There is no longer a threat of Russia marching across Europe in a red tide of oppression. China is the new cold war concern, if not Iran. If European nations wish to waste their money on missile defense, that is there choice. But, it's not likely to help them in a global economic war over resources or terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • Putting missile defenses in Eastern Europe only triggers more arms races.

    The threat of intercontinental missiles from rogue states in Asia does remotely exist, but it's not significant enough to justify the costs entailed with a global missile shield. Such a project immediately provokes Russia into feeling threatened, because American military concerns are taking place right on their borders, and well within their sphere of influence, triggering arms races that are counterproductive to an effort supposedly aimed at preventing violence.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The Czech Republic and Poland are members of the European Union, and they share borders with countries that are their allies.

    The Czech Republic and Poland have enemies, but they are located in such a way that allied countries border them. It seems like these missiles would represent a bigger threat if they came into the wrong hands, for the whole European Union, more than an efficient safety measure for these countries.

    Posted by: WakefulTristan35
  • I oppose the idea of missile defenses in Czech Republic and Poland, because the Cold War is over.

    The reason that the Czech Republic and Poland want a missile defense is because they fear an attack from Russia. I think this paranoia is unjustified. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has not shown aggressive behavior towards Europe. Also, these two countries don't actually intend to pay for the missile defenses themselves. They want the U.S. to pay for it, and the U.S. is currently in too much financial trouble to be wasting money on this.

    Posted by: UsefulJoaquin35
  • No, because we are not at war with Russia any longer.

    We are not at war with the Russians anymore. Missiles from North Korea will not approach from that direction either. I also really doubt terrorists will be able to launch nuclear-grade missiles capable of reaching the U.S. And, even if they could, it would be so secret, we would not find out until it was too late.

    Posted by: TickoNest
  • I don't think missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland are justified because these countries don't want us to be there.

    Both the Czech Republic and Poland are nervous at best about US missile defense systems in their countries. While protecting our interests and country from Iran and the Middle East are important, we aren't exactly winning popularity contests. We should not push our way into countries that don't want us. That is bad news for our soldiers. There has to be a better, less contentious way.

    Posted by: JayceC
  • Missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland are not justified because they are cost-prohibitive.

    While missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland may be capable of providing some defense, it won't be enough defense against Russia. And because the defense is not enough, it is simply a waste of money. These missile defenses will just increase tensions in the area, and that is the last thing we want.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • I disagree, because I don't believe in warfare.

    Anytime you place something like defense missile's in an area, you have already stated that you think they are an enemy. Anyone would feel threatened by the mere thought of missile's being set in any area. Not to mention, it's dangerous and reckless to place any type of gun's or ammo somewhere for no apparent reason.

    Posted by: 5c0rpi0nHam
  • Missiles should be kept in the United States, not putting other countries at risk for our benefit.

    Missiles that are meant to protect the United States should be in the US, not in other countries. Yes, we may say that they are there to protect the other countries and our interests in them, but they are ultimately there to protect the US. This puts the other countries at risk if there were an actual attack and also drives a wedge between them and their neighbors, like Russia, who accurately decided that the missiles are there to shoot at Russia.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Putting missile defense shields in those countries is very expensive and since the missile shield has never definitively worked, is an excessive waste of money.

    Missile defense shields, while a good idea, have unfortunately never proven effective. Also, the USSR collapsed in the early 1990s, nearly two decades ago. This means that deploying missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland will antagonize Eastern European and Asian countries, cost a significant amount of money, and are still likely to have limited effectiveness. Furthermore, even if these were effective, there are a variety of other nuclear threats and these two countries seem to be a poor choice for a front line defense.

    Posted by: P3rEver

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.