Do not underestimate radars. They gather a lot of intelligence, all the time. You can use that intelligence in many ways (by sending a Predator, a spy drone, or a diplomatic message, or by pointing a satellite into the area of interest.) Missile batteries can only fire missiles - and they usually don't.
In this particular scenario, the only thing a forward radar post would accomplish is give advance warning of a launch (maybe an extra hour, tops). A warhead will fall on Berlin/Paris/London regardless of whether it's seen, unless an ABM battery can intercept it.
To put it differently, what is more valuable to a common man - a handgun on the belt or magical glasses who highlight all attackers a mile away?
"All attackers?" No, you'd only be able to see the bullet coming at you, and you can't move fast enough to react. Knowing what direction it came from (even without considering the oh-so-small list of suspects) is only useful after you survive the sucking chest wound.
Operators, I'd guess.
Guessing is not an option. Who operates it pertains directly to the reliability of the information coming out of it. A radar installation where the operators are able (forget "willing") to withhold or even alter information is, at best, useless.
Since the idea was shot down by the USA, no further talks were conducted on details such as this.
The idea was proposed as an alternative to an ABM battery. The result would have been, at best, an extra hour or so of panic in a major metropolis before tens of thousands became permanent shadows.
Unless you also have to pay for Silverlight, Netflix streaming will work just fine.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has now divorced (a measure of) media player capability from the core OS. Isn't this what all the anti-trust suits were trying to accomplish, with the Europe's K/N/KN versions?
Except that the Russians tried to arrange a deal whereupon Russian observers would be in place on US missile defense bases, to ensure they cannot be used against them. The US refused.
Similarly, if the US proposed establishing their batteries in the Russian Caucasus, Russia would refuse.
The upshot is that ABM in eastern Europe does nothing to protect the United States from a Russian nuclear strike, which would go over (if not originate under) the Arctic Ocean. It doesn't even do much to protect the two European nuclear states, as they too would be vulnerable to trans-Arctic missiles from the Russian Far East.
Actually it is about us US defense and ONLY US, not Europe. You have to have time to detect/confirm the attack land launch intercepting missiles before they are going above your head.
And the Iranians would have to have a missile platform with a ~10,000 km range.
Isn't the solution obvious? Give the Russians the same defenses as Western Europe.
US troops manning US missile batteries on Russian soil: not happening. Russian troops being given the keys to a US missile battery: also not happening.
First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres?
For various reasons that can be and have been debated at length, Russia really feels threatened by the West and doesn't like NATO accepting new members in its former buffer zone of Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics.
As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.
Tank rush to the English Channel? Not so much, no. But whether or not they want to establish/maintain hegemony over Eastern Europe is another matter.
Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre. MAD was exactly that: "mad". Governments agreeing to *not* defend their respective citizens: truly mad.
A perfect defense means you have no reason not to launch an offense. A first strike becomes all reward with no risk.
The policy is nothing if not rational.
Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself
I as an American agree wholeheartedly, but Europe has a longstanding postwar habit of not spending more than €0.17 on defense and relying on the US to cover the rest (witness the Yugoslav Wars).
In any event, it's technically "NATO" we're talking about here. The balance of influence and responsibility within NATO can be treated as a separate matter.
I was speaking of the general case, in response to someone who said that HR is free to apply policy to labor capriciously. If a laborer gets fired for policy X violation, and can demonstrate that not all laborers get fired for a policy X violation, that laborer can then make a case that they were really fired for being a member of a protected class.
Considering that he kept that information in close physical proximity, he may simply have assumed that, if the information were compromised, he wouldn't be alive to care.
The US government says the files weren't encrypted. It's also possible they were encrypted, but the US doesn't want al Qaeda cells and/or the general public to know how long it took to crack.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if this passes, it's time to move out of the US.
After Nader's loss in 2000 and Kerry's in 2004, there's anyone left?
Do not underestimate radars. They gather a lot of intelligence, all the time. You can use that intelligence in many ways (by sending a Predator, a spy drone, or a diplomatic message, or by pointing a satellite into the area of interest.) Missile batteries can only fire missiles - and they usually don't.
In this particular scenario, the only thing a forward radar post would accomplish is give advance warning of a launch (maybe an extra hour, tops). A warhead will fall on Berlin/Paris/London regardless of whether it's seen, unless an ABM battery can intercept it.
To put it differently, what is more valuable to a common man - a handgun on the belt or magical glasses who highlight all attackers a mile away?
"All attackers?" No, you'd only be able to see the bullet coming at you, and you can't move fast enough to react. Knowing what direction it came from (even without considering the oh-so-small list of suspects) is only useful after you survive the sucking chest wound.
Operators, I'd guess.
Guessing is not an option. Who operates it pertains directly to the reliability of the information coming out of it. A radar installation where the operators are able (forget "willing") to withhold or even alter information is, at best, useless.
Since the idea was shot down by the USA, no further talks were conducted on details such as this.
The idea was proposed as an alternative to an ABM battery. The result would have been, at best, an extra hour or so of panic in a major metropolis before tens of thousands became permanent shadows.
Actually, Russia proposed to set up a radar station in Caucasus, and the USA refused.
Radar isn't a battery. At best, it would supplement a battery.
Additionally, who would have been operating the radar station?
Unless you also have to pay for Silverlight, Netflix streaming will work just fine.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has now divorced (a measure of) media player capability from the core OS. Isn't this what all the anti-trust suits were trying to accomplish, with the Europe's K/N/KN versions?
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system
This doesn't.
If the US has N interceptors gaurding New York City all Russia has to do is launch N+1 missiles at it
N=0
If history were to repeat itself, it seems logical that their response would be to set up a missile base near the U.S...
Easily accomplished. And they wouldn't be the first.
It's not about the US in and of itself, it's about Poland daring to deal with the US.
Except that the Russians tried to arrange a deal whereupon Russian observers would be in place on US missile defense bases, to ensure they cannot be used against them. The US refused.
Similarly, if the US proposed establishing their batteries in the Russian Caucasus, Russia would refuse.
The upshot is that ABM in eastern Europe does nothing to protect the United States from a Russian nuclear strike, which would go over (if not originate under) the Arctic Ocean. It doesn't even do much to protect the two European nuclear states, as they too would be vulnerable to trans-Arctic missiles from the Russian Far East.
Americans don't understand that Russia is intimidated by the United States.
Russians don't understand that the feeling isn't mutual.
New Zealand asked the US to leave. The US left. The end.
What's Europe's excuse?
Actually it is about us US defense and ONLY US, not Europe. You have to have time to detect/confirm the attack land launch intercepting missiles before they are going above your head.
And the Iranians would have to have a missile platform with a ~10,000 km range.
Then kick the US bases out. Please!
Isn't the solution obvious? Give the Russians the same defenses as Western Europe.
US troops manning US missile batteries on Russian soil: not happening.
Russian troops being given the keys to a US missile battery: also not happening.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe.
And that's why it's in eastern Europe and not northern Canada.
Dear fucking idiot: the earth is round.
Tell me, which country was supplying most weapons and breaking UN imposed sanctions, during "Yugoslav Wars"?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "Serbia."
No idea where you got that name, though, noone who lives here (or was involved in it) ever called it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars#Terminology
First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres?
For various reasons that can be and have been debated at length, Russia really feels threatened by the West and doesn't like NATO accepting new members in its former buffer zone of Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics.
As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.
Tank rush to the English Channel? Not so much, no. But whether or not they want to establish/maintain hegemony over Eastern Europe is another matter.
Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre. MAD was exactly that: "mad". Governments agreeing to *not* defend their respective citizens: truly mad.
A perfect defense means you have no reason not to launch an offense. A first strike becomes all reward with no risk.
The policy is nothing if not rational.
Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself
I as an American agree wholeheartedly, but Europe has a longstanding postwar habit of not spending more than €0.17 on defense and relying on the US to cover the rest (witness the Yugoslav Wars).
In any event, it's technically "NATO" we're talking about here. The balance of influence and responsibility within NATO can be treated as a separate matter.
I was speaking of the general case, in response to someone who said that HR is free to apply policy to labor capriciously. If a laborer gets fired for policy X violation, and can demonstrate that not all laborers get fired for a policy X violation, that laborer can then make a case that they were really fired for being a member of a protected class.
yeah they can, they can also be overlooked if someone is happy with the job you do.
really, if a company is looking for a reason to get rid of you they'll find a way
Termination for policy violation + history of applying that policy unevenly = lawsuit for wrongful termination.
CEOs can afford their own lawyers.
If he were labor, HR would have sent security to escort him out of the building before this even got to press.
That must be one hell of a golden parachute he's packing.
As opposed to Chrome-style distro releases every 90 days, breaking compatibility and EOLing the last version?
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.
They are. Server 2012 won't be RTM until early fall at the earliest, and they apparently needed something now.
... to anyone who doesn't remember Microsoft's acquisition of BSD-based Hotmail.
They're not going to migrate to completely in-house systems overnight.