Flaws found in U.S. missile shield

Discussion in 'Americas' started by WMD, Feb 10, 2013.

  1. WMD

    WMD Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    792
    Location:
    City of Temples
    Flaws found in U.S. missile shield

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Secret Defense Department studies cast doubt on whether a multibillion-dollar missile defense system planned for Europe can ever protect the U.S. from Iranian missiles as intended, congressional investigators say.

    Military officials say they believe they can overcome the problems and are moving forward with plans. But proposed fixes could prove difficult. One possibility has been ruled out as technically unfeasible. A second, relocating missile interceptors planned for Poland and possibly Romania to ships on the North Sea, could be diplomatically troublesome.

    The studies are the latest to highlight serious problems for a plan that has been criticized on several fronts.

    Republicans claim it was developed hastily in an attempt to appease Russia, which had opposed an earlier system. But Russia is also critical of the plan, which it believes is really intended to counter its missiles. A series of governmental and scientific reports has raised questions about whether it would ever work as planned.

    At a time that the military faces giant budget cuts, the studies could lead Congress to reconsider whether it is worthwhile to spend billions for a system that may not fulfill its original goals.

    The classified studies were summarized in a briefing for lawmakers by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' nonpartisan investigative and auditing arm, which is preparing a report. The GAO briefing, which was not classified, was obtained by The Associated Press.

    Military officials declined repeated requests to discuss the studies on the record, noting they were classified. Even speaking on condition of anonymity, officials declined to say whether the GAO accurately had reported its conclusions. But the briefing had been reviewed by several Defense Department officials and the revisions they requested were incorporated. There was no indication they had objected to how the studies had been described.

    The officials who spoke to the AP emphasized that the interceptor intended to protect the United States is in the early stages of development and its capabilities are not known. They said that the U.S. is already protected by other missile defense systems. Even if European-based interceptors are unable to directly defend the United States, they say they would protect not only European allies and U.S. troops stationed on the continent, but also U.S. radars there that are necessary for all U.S. missile defense plans.

    Missile defense has been a contentious issue since President George W. Bush sought to base long-range interceptors in Central Europe to stop missiles from Iran. Some Democrats criticized the plans, saying they were rushed and based on unproven technology. Russia believed the program was aimed at countering its missiles and undermining its nuclear deterrent.

    It might seem logical for the U.S. to want to have a defense against Russian missiles, but it's not that simple.

    A new missile defense system aimed at Russia could undermine the balance between the nuclear powers, leading Moscow to add to its arsenal and build up its own defenses. It would undermine prospects for further cuts in nuclear weapons, which are a priority for President Barack Obama, and could hurt U.S.-Russian cooperation on other issues of international importance.

    Obama reworked the plans soon after taking office in 2009, saying the threat from long-range Iranian missiles was years off. His plans called for slower interceptors that could address Iran's medium-range missiles. The interceptors would be upgraded gradually over four phases, culminating early next decade with those intended to protect both Europe and the United States.

    The plans have gained momentum in Europe with the signing of basing agreements in Poland, Romania and Turkey, as well as backing by NATO.

    Russia initially welcomed the plan, but now strongly opposes it, especially the interceptors in the final stage. Russia fears those interceptors could catch its intercontinental missiles launched at the U.S.

    It is that fourth stage that is now at issue.

    The GAO investigators said that the classified reports by the Missile Defense Agency concluded that Romania was a poor location for an interceptor to protect the U.S. It said the Polish site would work only if the U.S. developed capabilities to launch interceptors while an Iranian missile was in its short initial phase of powered flight.

    But the administration is not pursuing that capability because it does not believe it is feasible, according to one senior defense official.

    The military has considered deploying interceptors on ships, but the Navy has safety concerns that have not yet been resolved. The suggestion of attempting intercepts from ships on the North Sea probably would aggravate tensions with Russia. That could put it right in the path that some Russian ICBMs would use, further reinforcing Russia's belief that it, not Iran, is the target of the system.

    The GAO investigators also took the administration to task for not conducting studies earlier that could have revealed the problems. Reports by the GAO and scientific bodies advising the government have raised other concerns about the missile shield, citing production glitches, cost overruns, problems with radars and sensors that cannot distinguish between warheads and other objects.

    One report by the National Academy of Sciences recommended canceling the fourth phase of the system and deploying the interceptors to the East Coast.

    The GAO study was requested by Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, who until recently led a panel that oversees missile defense. He said he is concerned that the interceptor in development might be useless in protecting the United States.

    "This report really confirms what I have said all along: that this was a hurried proposal by the president," he said.
     
  2.  
  3. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    Trillion dollar missile shield against a country that has neither missiles nor warheads. Does the US think Russians are that stupid?
     
    Razor and spikey360 like this.
  4. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    Unfortunately the Yankees are stupid enough to think that the Russians are.
     
    Razor likes this.
  5. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    BMD system is technically not capable to counter Russia's nuclear capabilities, so it is not aimed against them.

    BMD system is a precaution against states like Iran or North Korea.

    It is also obvious for anyone who have at least some knowledge about weapon systems, that when the system is bigger and more ambitious the ore probable is that there will be problems with it. It is rather a sensatiolism article... but then again, today journalists are one of the most stupid beings on our planet, they hardly understood anything and keep searching cheap sensation.
     
    indian_sukhoi and Singh like this.
  6. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    BMD system even if it is not effective 100 percent puts some doubt in an enemys thoughts that their attack might fail along with the certain response of the USA called M.A.D. Total War, Extermination.
     
  7. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    :lol: You cannot guarantee a Russian extermination, but The Dead Hand guarantees a complete US extermination, even if you annihilate most of Russia.
     
  8. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Does not matter MAD is the USAs response. The USA does not consider Russia a threat any longer even though it seems sometimes that Russia doesnt realize the cold war is over and the USSR does not exist anymore and the Russian millitary is largely ineffective and decrepit.

    Russia’s military attempts building a 21st century fighter. But can it?

    Take a look at the level of Russian technology its even behind India. Technology index statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

    Thats the real world, not as we would want it to be.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
  9. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  10. Novice

    Novice Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    India
    You really believe this data? Going by technology index, China sitting at 60 is a no match and countries like Costa Rica fare better? Why then do you loose sleep over PRC?
    Nuclear armed countries China, Russia, India at 60 or below. Most laughable is the missing Korea, both :rotflmao:
     
  11. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    It seems a fairly decent source , thought its far from perfect, I would have not thought Russian technolgy to be on a lower level then India.

    But it seems to fit with my experiences in Russia and the USSR. Their are even other decent sources that pretty well confirms the one above.

    Outdated Technology

    Why is Russian productivity so low? "Why should it be high?" asks Boris Kuznetsov, chief researcher at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. "Let's look at the history. Very few big enterprises were constructed in the last 20 years, so the technology is old. In China, you have very cheap labor and up-to-date technologies because they were imported recently."
    Why Is Russia's Productivity So Low? - Businessweek

    According to one of the studies, by Strategy Partners, a Moscow management consultancy, Russia's average labor productivity is just 17% of the U.S. level. The amount varies by sector, from a low of 6% in machine building to a high of 22% in the natural resource industries.

    Something you might want to think about when buying from Russia
     
  12. farhan_9909

    farhan_9909 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    496
    Location:
    Abbottabad,Bannu
    Iran and North korea might soon get MIRV

    and most important IRAN already has a nuclear submarine project
     
  13. Novice

    Novice Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    India
  14. Razor

    Razor CIDs from Tamilnadu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    Location:
    ഭരതം (Bharatham)
    Truth is the US needs to realize that the cold war is over. Why is the NATO still around ?
     
  15. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    The USA consider the cold war over and we dont have a problem with Russia,, they are just not that significant economically or militarly now days. NATO is a a mutual defense and cooperative agreement in military matters even open to Russia.
     
  16. Dovah

    Dovah Untermensch Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    3,273
    Location:
    Modindia
    The same reason the biggest and the meanest guys in school band together to pick on little children?
     
  17. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    Perhaps because we, the NATO members decided that NATO is needed and it's benefits us as it's improves our security by making it collective defense. However some countries in NATO should be punished because they do not fullfill their obligations by reducing their military strenght to the ridiculousli low levels, thus making too much stress on other members that are forced to provide basic security not only for theirselfs but also other members that do not spend enough on defense.
     
  18. Razor

    Razor CIDs from Tamilnadu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    Location:
    ഭരതം (Bharatham)
    Exactly. Unlike some (the average dude) are suggesting, the US does consider Russia to be a threat to American dominance of the region.
    There is mutual benefit. For Europe, there is protection and shielding from possible Russian dominance and for the US it helps keep Russia from influencing it's neighbors too much. It also allows the US to keep it's nukes in various (6) European nations and thus further strengthen American dominance.
    So yes, NATO still exists for the purpose of security of Europe and maintaining US dominance, by preventing rise of Russia, which was it's purpose during the Cold War. So yes, the US is still in Cold war mentality, more or less.
    And missile shield for Iranian nukes, come on who are we kiddin' :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
  19. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    I have absolutely nothing against US dominance, well mainly because my nation knows what means dominance of Russia, and we as well as many countries from our region, do not experienced any attrocieties from US side.

    As for Cold War, sometimes Cold War is a good thing. And both US and Russia are in Cold War still, but colder than it was prior 1991.

    Currently it is aimed against Iran, as I said, technically BMD today does not have capabilities to deal with Russia's nuclear capabilities, in future though it might change, but when, it is not known.

    To be honest I feal more secure with BMD in Europe than without it, especially that Russia's goverment have a bad habit of threatening and aiming nukes at it's neighbours because they do not like that we improve our security.

    Seriously, aiming nukes at states that does not have their own nukes? This is just stupid.
     
  20. Razor

    Razor CIDs from Tamilnadu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    Location:
    ഭരതം (Bharatham)
    Well it's the choice of the Poles. I don't have a problem w/ that.
    I get it. Most European nations are incapable of standing up for themselves. So they have to choose a strong ally. Nothing wrong w/ that imo.
    As for the atrocities part, I mean yeah, I understand your fear and hatred for the Russians (Soviet Leaders to be precise), they did some regrettable stuff to the Poles, granted. But hey, at least you can thank your stars that you weren't born a Native American back in the day.


    You know how it works, dude.
    The British didn't exactly come to India proclaiming on the first day "We're gonna take over the Sub-Continent".
    Slow and steady, that's how it goes. Just the same way Islam is taking over Europe. :D

    Okay.
     
  21. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    The problem is also elsewhere. Americans actually respect agreements, problem with Moscow is that they mostly have one basic goal, complete submission of their... cooperants, and in the end you do not have anything significant to say.

    As for Russians, believe me, former soviet block countries and their nations do not have anything against Russians or other former Soviet Unions nations. Frankly I know some Russians and I really like them, as people.

    As for Native Americans, these were different times, different standards, and really it was more fault of Native Americans, they too much wanted to stick with their traditions instead of assimilating with stronger "neighbours". Sometimes assymilations does not need loosing heritage, it can also strenghten it.

    And currently their situation is not that bad, and will probably improve.
     

Share This Page