US drops key European missile defense component

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
US drops key European missile defense component


US soldiers stand in front of a Patriot missile battery at an army base in the northern Polish town of Morag

The United Stated is abandoning a key part of its Eastern European missile defense plan due to development problems and funding, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has announced. The focus, he said, will be shifted to perceived threats from North Korea.

Several interceptors in Poland and Romania, the deployment of which had been the source of heavy criticism from Moscow, will be scrapped.

Hagel told the press on Friday that the decision was made as part of an overall restructuring of the country's missile defense plans, with an eye to stopping perceived threats from Iran and North Korea.
However, the Poland- and Romania-based SM-3 Block IIB ballistic interceptors were only one component in a multifaceted missile defense program. While Phase 4 – the now-scrapped interceptors – are off the table, phases 1 through 3 are set to continue as planned.

"The missile deployments the United States are making in phases 1 through 3 of the European Phased Adaptive approach including sites in Poland and Romania will still be able to provide coverage of all European NATO territory as planned by 2018," Hagel said.
Phase One (2011) - Deployment of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)-capable ships. In 2011 the USS Monterey, equipped with proven SM-3 Block IA ballistic missile interceptors, was deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. Turkey agreed to host a land-based early warning radar. By 2012, the system was functional according to the program's timeline.
Phase Two (2015) – Deployment of a more capable ground-based SM-3 Block IB ballistic missile interceptor in Romania.
Phase Three (2018) – Deployment of an additional advanced ground-based SM-3 Block IIA ballistic missile interceptor in Poland.
Phase Four (2020) - Deployment of SM-3 Block IIB ballistic missile interceptors. Washington canceled this phase on March 15, 2013.
Kremlin concerns
The Kremlin has argued that deployment of the systems in its neighborhood was aimed at countering Russian missiles and undermining its nuclear deterrent, though Washington said the system was aimed at countering threats from Iran.

During initial negotiations with the George W. Bush administration, Moscow offered Washington the use of an alternative site in Azerbaijan in order to counter the Iranian threats evoked by the US.

The missile shield also faced strong domestic opposition in Poland and Romania, bringing the Obama administration in 2009 to announce that it was canceling its plans for the project.

But a reformulated scheme was announced a month later in October 2009, showing plans to place smaller, mobile SM-3 ballistic missile interceptors in the region by 2018.

Besides the placement of the interceptors, Russian officials have also opposed a radar installation set to be based in the Czech Republic. The base would enable US forces and their NATO partners to monitor activities in European Russian airspace.

Hagel stressed that other components of American missile defense plans in Europe would continue, and that Washington's commitment in Europe "remains ironclad," but made no reference to Kremlin objections to the program.

An anonymous senior State Department official told the AP that while Poland and Romania were informed of the decision ahead of the announcement, Russia was not.
Source: RT
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
'US anti-missile reshuffle, really, aimed at control over Arctic resources'

The primary goal of the US plans to bolster missile defense in Alaska isn't about tackling a North Korean threat, but putting a claim on the natural resources of the Arctic, former MI5 intelligence officer, Annie Machon, explained in an interview RT.

The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that development and funding problems have forced the US to give up a key part of its Eastern European missile defense plan.

The priority will now be given to efforts aimed at preventing a possible North Korean nuclear attack, which would require adding 14 new interceptors to the 26 already placed in Alaska.
Former intelligence officer for MI5, Annie Machon, believes that the North Korean threat is just as unrealistic for the US as the one from Iran, with control over natural resources once again being Washington's true aim.

RT: The Pentagon will put 14 more missile interceptors in Alaska, which is a roughly a 50 per cent increase on the current number. It blames recent nuclear threats from North Korea. But is it really likely that Pyongyang would launch a strike?

Annie Machon: It would be suicidal if you were to do that. What we're looking at – at this point – is North Korea being the 'useful idiot', a pretext for America to defend a resource-rich part of the world. When I was in MI5, the one thing we were always taught in terms of assessing the threat from any sort of source or a country: one – do they have the capability; two – do they have the intention. Now, of course, North Korea has very loudly said that they have the intention to try and attack America, but certainly doesn't have the capability at this point.
RT: Iran has been the main focus of US concern for years now, but has North Korea become enemy No.1 now?

AM: It has always been a puzzle as, of course, both countries featured on George W. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' list all those years ago. But North Korea has always been much more belligerent. I think Iran"¦ and this is the assessment of the entire US intelligence community, which came out in the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007, which was – Iran stopped developing any sort of nuclear weapon capability in 2003. And this has been stood up time and time again since 2007.

So, we all know that Iran isn't a real threat to America's interests. We all know it's not a threat to the West. And this fake shield they were trying to provide to Eastern Europe because they would be in range of any missiles Iran would be able to launch was just a fake ploy, I think. It was used as an excuse. So, it's interesting now that the focus is moving to an overtly aggressive, but very small and incapable country away from Iran. I hope it's not a feint to make people stop watching Iran, stop watching the US government's lies trying to find as excuse to attack Iran.

RT: Washington's aborted plans to use Poland for its missile defense due to spending cuts and development issues. How do you see the future of the European missile defense shield?

AM: It's true that America is effectively bankrupt as a country. And if they are beginning to cut military spending because they've militarily overreached – they're in serious problems because that's the one thing they've never cut before. And certainly in terms of what they're doing in Europe, we have a situation where they are practically admitting that Iran isn't a threat to Eastern Europe. And that's a problem. But the final point really on this one is looking at where the money goes when they're trying to develop a ballistic missile defense system. It has yet to be proven to work. Nobody knows if it works, nobody can make it work yet. So, effectively, ever since Ronald Reagan announced 'Star Wars' way back in the 1990s, what we've seen that this is threat is used as a cash cow, which is milked by the defense industry. Particularly, Boeing, I believe, and Raytheon, who made billions out of making these fake defense shields.

RT: How do you think the Chinese new government will react to the US increasing its arms around the Pacific?

AM: Well, that's going to be a very interesting question. It's almost like North Korea is a patsy, used to put up this new missile defense in Alaska. And the key part is that there's been this covert war to control the diminishing resources of the world, which is waged across continents – between, certainly, the US and China over the last decade. And what we're looking at now is, I think, a very careful geopolitical strategy to control and put bases in Alaska because anyone, who has Alaska can control the Arctic area. And, as the arctic area melts more quickly, more countries are going to fight for the resource-rich area as the ice recedes. America, by having these defenses in Alaska, will be very well-placed to protect its economic interest in that area.
Source: RT
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Moscow Unimpressed by Changes in US Missile Defense Plans

Washington's decision to scrap plans to place missile defense elements in Poland does nothing to address Moscow's national security concerns and will not affect its stance on the issue, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in an interview published on Monday.
"That is not a concession to Russia, nor do we regard it as such," Ryabkov said.
"All aspects of strategic uncertainty related to the creation of a US and NATO missile defense system remain. Therefore, our objections also remain."
Even a curtailed European missile defense system poses a threat to Russia's nuclear capability, he said, adding that the Foreign Ministry sees no grounds for reviewing its official position.
Moscow will continue to press for the signing of "legally binding agreements guaranteeing that US missile defense elements are not aimed against Russia's strategic nuclear forces," he said.
The Russian Deputy FM said the missile defense elements the US plans to deploy in Europe, both sea- and land-based, are very mobile and their location can be changed in days. As for the plans to put additional heavy interceptors in Alaska and California , the Russian official said this move would significantly add to the US capabilities in missile defense.
Russia and NATO initially agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile defense system at the Lisbon summit in November 2010. However, further talks between Russia and the alliance have floundered over NATO's refusal to grant Russia legal guarantees that the system would not be aimed against Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent.
Russia has threatened a range of countermeasures against NATO's missile defenses, including tactical nuclear missile deployment in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad and improvements to its strategic nuclear missile arsenal.
Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy think tank, Fyodor Lukyanov, also said that the changes in the US missile defence plans will not cause any major shifts in Russia's position on the issue.

He said that the persistence of the US authorities will only cause Russia to beef up its nuclear arsenals. "As the idea remains and there is no chance for it to be canceled, Russia would hold that it is necessary to possess a nuclear arsenal that is capable of penetrating through any US defenses. The bet is made on the modernization of arsenals with the necessary financing of this process. And it is most likely that Russia will not back off from this bet," Lukyanov stated.

Source: RIA Novosti and RT
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
----- Double Post, Consider Deletion----
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
China, Russia to Stand Together on Missile Defense in AsPac

BEIJING, March 19 (RIA Novosti) – Russia and China will coordinate their reactions to US plans to boost its missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Tuesday.
The remarks follow Washington's recent announcement this it has shelved plans for a European-based missile shield in favor of boosting its defenses in Alaska, which would give it coverage from a potential North Korean attack.
Beijing and Moscow oppose the deployment of missile shields, arguing that they undermine their own military strategies.
"The matter of missile defense has to do with global strategic balance, and China and Russia have similar views on it," Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheng Guoping said in Beijing.
"Russia and the People's Republic of China have been cooperating on the matter for years, and we will only be strengthening collaboration in this direction," he said.
Source: RIA Novosti
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
A chance emerges for arms control - FT.com


Socialists at The Economist have a wet dream.

This month, however, a ----- of light emerged. The US announced on March 16 that it was cancelling the final phase of a Europe-based missile defence system fiercely opposed by Moscow. The Obama administration made clear that its decision to abandon the system's fourth phase – which would have sited missile interceptors in Poland to counter any Iranian attack – was not prompted by Russian concerns...

It is therefore very good news that a new opportunity to pursue a fresh US-Russia accord to cut nukes has emerged. With one of its main security concerns pushed to one side, the hope is that the Kremlin will now seize the moment.
P.S. This is funny! The _____ of light in the quote is "c h i n k." Political correctness at DFI!

Definition of C H I N K
1
: a small cleft, slit, or fissure <a c h i n k in the fence>
2
: a weak spot that may leave one vulnerable <his lawyers found a c h i n k in the law>
3
: a narrow beam of light shining through a c h i n k
Origin of C H I N K
probably alteration of Middle English chine crack, fissure
First Known Use: 1535
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top