Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:48 pm

    But the current plans don't have missile interceptors in Poland, they have SM-3s in ships in the Med and the Black Sea.

    Putting S-500s in Kaliningrad as a counter wont work if those ships equipped with SM-3 sail from the Med and the Black Sea to Greenland and off Norway directly under the flight path of Russian missiles on their way to the CONUS.

    In fact with satellite early warning having US navy vessels fitted with SM-3 on either sea board of the US could be used to intercept warheads as they come in.

    ABM missiles on ships are incredibly mobile and easy to deploy globally... why wouldn't the Russians want that... and they are much more likely to get it if the US has it first.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:51 am

    Putting S-500s in Kaliningrad as a counter wont work if those ships equipped with SM-3 sail from the Med and the Black Sea to Greenland and off Norway directly under the flight path of Russian missiles on their way to the CONUS.

    In fact with satellite early warning having US navy vessels fitted with SM-3 on either sea board of the US could be used to intercept warheads as they come in.

    ABM missiles on ships are incredibly mobile and easy to deploy globally... why wouldn't the Russians want that... and they are much more likely to get it if the US has it first.




    GarryB ,as you well know for Russia the problem isn't absolutely represented by standard missiles versions mounted on naval unities ; this first phase of B. Obama's PAA missile defence plan for Europe,in fact, not only don't have any significance for Russia (knowing perfectly that the naval versions of SM-3s,not only those operative today, but also those still in work for the future, have literally zero chances to intercept even advanced Russian theatre ballistic missiles, such as actual Iskander-M .... Wink ) but has been used by Obama just to quench momentarily the russian rage on the Missile defence plan.

    The problem for Russiam analysts of the sector remain today and will remain invariably tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and so on for the next 10-15 years, Phase 4 and Phase 5 of this plan foreseeing the deployement of the ground based SM-3 Block IIB interceptor missile ; this ashore high end interceptor missile will have capabilities completely on another level in respect to any SM-3 version ship-mounted , in particular vastly increased adaptive remote guidance and ,above all, boost phase intercept capabilities.

    This in a simple article that can aid to clarify the question :


    http://www.defencetalk.com/sm-3-block-iib-development-program-33372/




    Those are some extract of interest :


    Phase Four will be complete by 2020, and will provide an early intercept capability against medium, intermediate, and Intercontinental ballistic missiles. In concert with the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) capability now deployed in Alaska and California for homeland defense, the Phase Four PAA architecture with the high-velocity, land-based SM-3 Block IIB interceptor missile and enhanced command and control and sensor network will provide an effective defensive capability for both regional and homeland defense by allowing multiple interceptors opportunities to destroy threat missiles of all ranges in the region from which they were launched.



    The SM-3 Block IIB is a hit-to-kill interceptor using the force of a direct collision to destroy its target. It will be launched from the Aegis Ashore weapon system (a land-based version of the Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system). The ability to intercept earlier in flight -- engaging targets in their ascent phase -- enables defenders to handle larger raids (salvos) and engage target missiles before they can take evasive maneuvers or deploy countermeasures. With a higher burnout velocity, flexible launch locations, and greater interceptor divert (steering) capability, the SM-3 Block IIB can also address intercontinental ballistic missiles, supplementing the GMD capability.



    Last edited by Mindstorm on Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Viktor on Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:But the current plans don't have missile interceptors in Poland, they have SM-3s in ships in the Med and the Black Sea.


    I know but these their current plans. Future may include GBI or KEI missiles witch are more dangerous to Russian ICBM. Unknown is what angers Russia cozz they have no idea what can be next.

    Besides as US does not want to sign anything meaning all they plans account for nothing.

    GarryB wrote:Putting S-500s in Kaliningrad as a counter wont work if those ships equipped with SM-3 sail from the Med and the Black Sea to Greenland and off Norway directly under the flight path of Russian missiles on their way to the CONUS.

    In that case SM-3 wont matter cozz flight attitude of Russian ICBM will be long way off may attitude reach of SM-3. But in the same scenario with KEI/GBI in Poland Grenland might be its interception point.


    GarryB wrote:In fact with satellite early warning having US navy vessels fitted with SM-3 on either sea board of the US could be used to intercept warheads as they come in.

    True and probably will but at that case they will have to deal with decoy also and changing flight trajectories of MARV warheads. Besides no matter what its always batter to have multiple options at your disposal.

    GarryB wrote:ABM missiles on ships are incredibly mobile and easy to deploy globally... why wouldn't the Russians want that... and they are much more likely to get it if the US has it first

    DF-21D is what introduces SM-3 on ships much faster but still makes no sense to park your SM-3 armed ship of the coast of China and wait for ICBM lounch, its mutch likely you will be struck with antiship missiles before and for sure thing for a much longer period of time you wont have ship able to carry KEI like missile on board being able to intercept ICBM in midcourse.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Shooting down US elements of US ABM system in EU by placing S-500 in Kaliningrad to make way for Russian ICBM on its way to EU or US.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:12 pm

    Hi Mindstorm... nice to see you have time for us. Smile

    You posted this excerpt:

    The SM-3 Block IIB is a hit-to-kill interceptor using the force of a direct collision to destroy its target. It will be launched from the Aegis Ashore weapon system (a land-based version of the Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system). The ability to intercept earlier in flight -- engaging targets in their ascent phase -- enables defenders to handle larger raids (salvos) and engage target missiles before they can take evasive maneuvers or deploy countermeasures. With a higher burnout velocity, flexible launch locations, and greater interceptor divert (steering) capability, the SM-3 Block IIB can also address intercontinental ballistic missiles, supplementing the GMD capability.

    The current plan is for it to be land based, but what exactly stops it from being fitted to ships.

    The ability to intercept earlier in flight -- engaging targets in their ascent phase -- enables defenders to handle larger raids (salvos) and engage target missiles before they can take evasive maneuvers or deploy countermeasures.

    How can land based interceptors offer interceptors the ability to intercept targets as they are climbing? ..unless they are deployed in Europe or Greenland/Iceland/UK?
    Or sea based... despite mention of a land based system.

    With a higher burnout velocity, flexible launch locations, and greater interceptor divert (steering) capability, the SM-3 Block IIB can also address intercontinental ballistic missiles, supplementing the GMD capability.

    Flexible launch locations? How flexible is a silo based missile?

    Compared, perhaps to a missile mounted in a large ship?

    The problem with the future US plans is that they are no set in stone and they are careful not to limit their plans in any way.

    They wont even sign a document declaring they wont be used against Russian weapons, and you think they wont mount late model SM-3s on ships?

    I know but these their current plans. Future may include GBI or KEI missiles witch are more dangerous to Russian ICBM. Unknown is what angers Russia cozz they have no idea what can be next.

    They have actually made public their plans and the block 4 stage of both the Bush poland 10 missile system and the Obama US ship based who knows how many missiles system, included changes that made both systems much more capable and dangerous to Russias nuclear deterrent.

    Besides as US does not want to sign anything meaning all they plans account for nothing.

    Means they really don't care about Russian fears or interests, and don't want to limit themselves with the systems they want to develop and build.

    In that case SM-3 wont matter cozz flight attitude of Russian ICBM will be long way off may attitude reach of SM-3. But in the same scenario with KEI/GBI in Poland Grenland might be its interception point.

    Actually it is against shorter range targets that ICBMs go really high, for max reach targets they don't actually fly very high at all.

    As an aside with all the space junk circling the earth it does not pay to use high trajectories for your warheads...

    True and probably will but at that case they will have to deal with decoy also and changing flight trajectories of MARV warheads. Besides no matter what its always batter to have multiple options at your disposal.

    Please don't get me wrong... I am not saying that the US would be completely safe with such a system in operation.
    We all saw the chaos after less than 3,000 people were killed in 11/9, and of course hurricane katrina showed what a large scale event can do, but in comparison even just one nuke hitting a US city would be crippling, and lets face it dozens or hundreds will change a country completely forever.

    My point is that these systems are unbalanced and destabilising and without any guarantee they will even work they are increasing the chance of a nuclear war rather than reducing it.

    It doesn't matter if you and I know it wouldn't save the US... they just have to think it could and they have a record of believing stuff that turns out to be wrong... which is never much consolation after Iraq has been invaded and hundreds of thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars wasted... in the case of WWIII the consequences are orders of magnitude worse.

    DF-21D is what introduces SM-3 on ships much faster but still makes no sense to park your SM-3 armed ship of the coast of China and wait for ICBM lounch,

    You wouldn't send it alone as a picket ship, it would be part of your task force... it protects the task force and the task force protects it.

    There is also another option... fit a small nuke warhead to a late model SM-3 and use it as an anti ship missile with extraordinary speed and manouver performance...

    I wonder whats the Venecuela idea of buying S-300V and not S-300PMU2.

    The S-300V series has tracked vehicles designed to operate with Army forces on terrain suitable for tanks.

    The S-300 series including the PMU2 are wheel based and mostly used by Air Force (PVO) and similar forces... often in more static roles like defending airfields and command posts that don't move very often.

    I remember reading on arms-tass.su interview with S-400 designer serval years back saying Russian 40N6 ( addressed "long range" missile) will have 185 attitude range. Export version will have 40-60 km attitude range.

    I can remember reading that same article and can confirm I thought he said 185km altitude too.

    I only wonder if they manage to increase radar range for S-300V4 or they have to build new radar, which could support similar range of 400 km for missiles.

    Weren't they building an AESA radar to operate with the S-400 battery with a range of something enormous like 2,500km or something?

    Certainly as they start to introduce AESA arrays the performance will increase, and as they extend missile range they will certainly have to introduce new support equipment like radar and sensors.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:11 am


    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:36 pm

    US missile defense a threat to the security of neutral states
    http://rt.com/politics/rogozin-missile-defense-threat-257/

    The planned American missile defense shield is “a copper basin” that will cover NATO states and pose a threat to neutral European countries, believes Russian Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin.

    “The Americans call the deployment of the missile defense system in Europe 'an umbrella'. It's not an umbrella, it's a copper basin that will cover both NATO member countries and neutral states,” Rogozin said in an interview with Echo Moskvy radio station. The Russian idiom “to get covered by a copper basin” is similar to the English expression, “to go out of the window”. In this context, what is going out of the window is national security.

    Rogozin, Moscow’s outgoing NATO envoy, also underlined that a defense shield should be limited to the territory for which the initiator of this shield is responsible.

    “But if it crawls into someone else’s territory, it’s no longer a defense, but an offense,” noted the Russian deputy PM who is in charge of the country’s defense complex. “What kind of defense system is it that spreads to the territory of states that do not want to be controlled by anyone and don’t want the range of any missiles to lie within their soil?” Rogozin asked.

    The planned deployment of the American-NATO defense system in Europe has long been a bone of contention in relations between Moscow and Washington. The Russian side is worried that the system, located close to Russia’s borders, may pose a threat to its national security as long as the US fails to provide any legally binding guarantees to the contrary.

    Dmitry Rogozin is confident that the system will be directed against Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. He noted that the aim of the deployment of the NATO fleet in Norwegian fjords is not to provide security from North Korea or Iran. “There is only the Russian Federation in this region,” Rogozin pointed out.

    “The very presence of such missile defense system’s parameters that are capable of shooting down exactly strategic missiles, and the very placement of these [military] bases, fleet and anti-missile weapons systems in northern seas point at one thing: a clear and practically uncontrollable anti-Russian nature of the missile defense,” he said.

    The former NATO envoy believes that measures that Russia will have to take in response to the deployment of elements of the American missile defense shield in Europe may lead to a new arms race.

    Meanwhile, US-Russian negotiations on the matter “are maintaining a low profile at the moment.” In fact, there are no talks, Rogozin said. The vice premier thinks it unlikely that there would be any breakthrough or development before the NATO summit in Chicago that is due to take place in May.

    Earlier, Washington invited Russia to send its military experts to missile defense system tests in the spring of 2012.Rogozin said that Moscow was not satisfied with the proposal. Sending Russian military officials to “a planetarium” in the Pacific Ocean to watch missiles and antimissiles being launched through binoculars “is not interesting.”

    “We need telemetry, telemetric equipment, which should be installed on the interceptor itself,” Rogozin explained.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:04 pm

    America is just pushing Russias buttons... muck around building something you actually don't care about and stir things up and then make a big deal about the major concession of giving it up in return for something you really actually want.

    Pretty clear that Russia needs to withdraw from the INF treaty and those 500kg range Klubs in the Iskander system can be replaced with the 2,000km range models.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    ABM in Europe

    Post  Viktor on Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:02 am

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:26 am

    Very Interesting... thanks for posting... gets my vote. Smile
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:06 am

    I was actually looking for this... Thanks Viktor btw I just got RT on Dish for free.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:09 am

    I have stopped watching other news channels now...

    I would like to see RT produce more science programs like technology update.

    Corrosion

    Posts : 190
    Points : 205
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Corrosion on Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:54 am

    Interesting.. Thanks for posting this.

    Sad to see a Polish village used as a pawn in all this. If I was a resident in that village I would sell my property and move out a at least 20 kms out of village. Anything can happen if or when $hit hits the fan.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia Tells Norway To Keep Aegis BMD System off Vessels

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:24 am

    Russia has warned Norway not to get pulled into a possible area of conflict by bowing to U.S. pressure to equip its naval vessels with Aegis ballistic missile defense system missiles. The warning came from Nikolai Makarov, commander of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Russia hopes to eliminate this threat through talks and greater transparency and military cooperation with Norway, said Makarov, adding that Russia will not accept U.S. vessels equipped with the Aegis system operating near its Arctic territories or in the Black Sea.

    “We are aware that the U.S. has been prompting Norway to install the missile defense system on its naval ships. Fortunately, Norway has taken a balanced position,” Makarov said on Feb. 16.

    It seems this article has generated a 7 page discussion at MPnet about bully Russia shouldn't be allowed to tell Norway what they can or cannot put on their ships.

    I put this story here in the Strategic Rocket section on purpose, because this story isn't about the Norwegian Navy or the Russian Navy.

    This story is about the US trying to get another component of its European ABM system into service.

    A Norwegian ship with AEGIS and SM-3 missiles based in the Arctic ocean could be part of an ABM shield against a Russian attack.

    But that should only be a problem for Russia trying to attack the US?

    Except that ignores the concept of MAD.

    Mutually Assured Destruction has kept the peace for half a century and it is really the only reliable peace keeper between the US and Russia. Both sides are tempered by the thought that if they cross the line the other side has the capacity to destroy them.

    With dozens of AEGIS cruisers with SM-3 missiles in the Artic ocean the US might reach a point where they think they have the capacity in a first strike to take out enough Russian strategic nukes that the remainder can be dealt with using land and sea based ABM systems around the place and then they might start being rather more reckless.

    In other words a strong ABM system makes nuclear war more likely.

    That is why the Russians oppose such things, not because they don't want to be stopped from launching lots of nuclear weapons at the US and the west, but because they prefer not to get into that situation in the first place.

    This leaves them with two real choices... to give up all their nukes and be dominated by the west, or to ensure their nuclear deterrent remains a real deterrent.

    Looking at the effects of western influence in its former colonies I would say the latter is the only real choice.

    Norway has a right to put anything they want on their ships, but if that includes strategic ABM system components then they can expect a reaction from the Russians.

    If Norway wants to be part of the problem that is totally their choice, but if they want good relations and cooperation from the Russians then they need to make very careful choices.

    The irony is that as shown in the part of the article above:

    “We are aware that the U.S. has been prompting Norway to install the missile defense system on its naval ships. Fortunately, Norway has taken a balanced position,” Makarov said on Feb. 16.

    Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120222/DEFREG01/302220012/Russia-Tells-Norway-Keep-Aegis-BMD-System-off-Vessels?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:38 am

    Of course the whole situation highlights Russias problem with NATO and its ABM shield.

    Russia says to x European country not to fit Mk41 launchers in their ships as such launchers can carry SM-3 missiles and therefore when those ships are operating in the Arctic ocean they become a strategic threat to Russias nuclear deterrence.

    Norway in particular has many claims to potential mineral and energy wealth in the Arctic waters and therefore will have its vessels spending a lot of time in that area, and with ABM capable missiles on board it becomes part of the ABM system, and therefore something the Russians need to be able to counter to retain a credible deterrence.

    Clearly the Russians need to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons to their Navy fleet including on torpedoes and anti ship missiles... nothing would disrupt an ABM system quicker than a few nukes hitting ships carrying interceptor missiles when an enemy first strike is detected.

    In addition a withdrawl from the INF treaty will allow a range of land based options to hit targets in Europe and China without needing to waste ICBMs which could all be directed at targets more than 5-6.000km away.

    It would allow nuclear and conventionally armed cruise missiles to be land based in Europe.

    Cruise missiles are cheap and easy to make in very large numbers and in many ways are even easier to make and use than UAVs.

    It is really the only practical way to counter potentially thousands of SM-3s on most NATO vessels.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:01 am

    I think this article sums things up nicely:

    Moscow doesn't Trust US Missile Defense
    F. William Engdahl - Dec 02, 11
    December 2, 2011
    GlobalResearch.ca

    Most in the civilized world are blissfully unaware that we are marching ineluctably towards an increasingly likely pre-emptive nuclear war. No, it's not at all about Iran and Israel. It's about the decision of Washington and the Pentagon to push Moscow up against the wall with what is euphemistically called Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).

    Missile DefenseOn November 23, a normally low-keyed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the world in clear terms that Russia was prepared to deploy its missiles on the border to the EU between Poland and Lithuania, and possibly in the south near Georgia and NATO member Turkey to counter the advanced construction process of the US ballistic missile defense shield: "The Russian Federation will deploy in the west and the south of the country modern weapons systems that could be used to destroy the European component of the US missile defense," he announced on Russian television. "One of these steps could be the deployment of the Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad."1 Those would be theatre ballistic missile systems. The latest version of Iskander, the Iskander-K, whose details remain top secret, reportedly has a range up to 2000 km and carries cruise missiles and a target accuracy to 7 meters or less.

    Medvedev declared he has ordered the Russian defense ministry to "immediately" put radar systems in Kaliningrad that warn of incoming missile attacks on a state of combat readiness. He called for extending the targeting range of Russia's strategic nuclear missile forces and re-equipping Russia's nuclear arsenal with new warheads capable of piercing the US/NATO defense shield due to become operational in six years, by 2018. Medvedev also threatened to pull Russia out of the New START missile reduction treaty if the United States moves as announced.

    Medvedev then correctly pointed to the inevitable link between “defensive” missiles and “offensive” missiles: “Given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New Start treaty could also arise,” he said.2

    The Russian President didn’t mince words: “I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and control systems” of the US shield, Medvedev said. “These measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.” Russia has repeatedly warned that the US BMD global shield is designed to destabilize the nuclear balance and risks provoking a new arms race. The Russian President said that rather than take the Russian concerns seriously, Washington has instead been “accelerating” its BMD development.3

    It was not the first time Medvedev threatened to take countermeasures to the increasing Pentagon military encirclement pressure on Russia. Back in November 2008 as the US BMD threat was first made known to the world, Medvedev made a televised address to the Russian people in which he declared, “I would add something about what we have had to face in recent years: what is it? It is the construction of a global missile defense system, the installation of military bases around Russia, the unbridled expansion of NATO and other similar ‘presents’ for Russia ­ we therefore have every reason to believe that they are simply testing our strength.” 4 That threat was dropped some months later when the Obama Administration offered the now-clearly deceptive olive branch of reversing the BMD decision to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Russia is threatening to deploy its Iskander anti-BMD missiles in Kaliningrad

    This time around Washington lost no time signaling it was in the developing game of thermonuclear chicken to stay. No more pretty words about “reset” in US-Russia relations. A spokesman for the Obama National Security Council declared, “we will not in any way limit or change our deployment plans for Europe." The US Administration continues to insist on the implausible argument that the missile defense installations are aimed at a threat from a possible Iranian nuclear launch, something hardly credible. The real risk of Iranian nuclear missile attack on Europe given the reality of the global US as well as Israeli BMD installations and the reality of Iran's nuclear delivery capabilities, is by best impartial accounts, near zero.

    Two days earlier on November 21, Washington had thrown a small carrot to Moscow. US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said that Washington was ready to provide information about the missile's speed after it uses up all of its fuel. This information, referred to as burnout velocity (VBO), helps to determine how to target it.5 That clearly was not seen as a serious concession by Moscow, which demands a full hands-on partnership with the US/NATO missile deployment to insure it will never be used against Russia. After all, given Washington's track record of lies and broken promises, there is no guarantee the speeds would even be true.

    After the early October Brussels NATO defense ministers meeting, NATO head Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in regard to the nominally NATO European Missile Defense Program, “We would expect it to be fully operational in 2018." Spain just announced it plans to join the US-controlled missile program, joining Romania, Poland, the Netherlands and Turkey, which have already agreed to deploy key components of the future missile defense network on their territories.6

    The concerns of Russia are caused by the dramatic improvement of an entire system of missile defense by Washington, which is taking the form of a global BMD system encircling Russia on all sides.

    Full Spectrum Dominance…

    The last time Washington's Missile Defense "Shield" made headlines was in September 2009 early in the Obama Administration when the US President offered to downgrade the provocative stationing of US special radar and anti-missile missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. That was a clear tactic to prepare the way for what Hillary Clinton ludicrously called the "reset" in US-Russian relations from the tense Bush-Putin days. However the strategic goal of encircling the one nuclear potential opponent in the world with credible missile defense remained US strategy.

    Barack Obama announced back then that the US was altering Bush Administration plans to station US anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic. The news was greeted in Moscow as an important concession.7 Subsequent developments clearly show that far from ditching its plans for a missile shield that could cripple any potential Russian nuclear launch, the US was merely opting for a more effective global system, whose feasibility had been proven in the meantime.

    To assuage the Poles, the Obama Administration also agreed to provide Poland with US Patriot missiles. Poland’s Foreign Minister then and now is Radek Sikorski. From 2002 to 2005 he was in Washington as a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a noted neo-conservative hawkish think-tank, and executive director of the New Atlantic Initiative, a project to bring as many former communist countries of eastern Europe into NATO as possible. Little wonder Moscow did not view US missiles in Poland as friendly, nor does it today.

    In May 2011 the Obama Administration announced that the missiles it would now give Poland consisted of new Raytheon (RTN) SM-3 missile defense systems at the Redzikowo military base in Poland (see map), roughly 50 miles from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, a unique piece of Russian real estate not connected to mainland Russia, but adjacent to the Baltic Sea and Lithuania. That puts US missiles closer to Russia than during the 1961 Cuba Missile Crisis when Washington placed ICBM’s at sites in Turkey aimed at key Soviet nuclear sites. 8

    The new Raytheon SM-3 missile is part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System that will be aimed at intercepting short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Kinetic Warhead intercepts incoming ballistic missiles outside the earth's atmosphere. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors developed the Aegis BMD Weapon System. The SM-3 comes from Raytheon Missile Systems.

    The Polish SM-3 missile deployment is but one part of a global web encircling Russia’s nuclear capacities. One should not forget that official Pentagon military strategy is called Full Spectrum Dominance—control of pretty much the entire universe. This past September the US and Romania, another new NATO member, signed an agreement to deploy a US-controlled Missile Defense System on the Deveselu Air Base in Romania using the SM-3 missiles.

    As well Washington has signed an agreement with NATO member Turkey to place a sophisticated missile tracking radar atop a high mountain in the Kuluncak district of Malatya province in south-eastern Turkey. Though the Pentagon insists its radar is pointed at Iran, a look at a map reveals how easily the focal direction could cover key Russian nuclear sites such as Stevastopol where the bulk of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet is stationed or to the vital Russian Krasnodar radar installation.9

    The Malataya radar will send data to US ships equipped with the Aegis combat system that will intercept “Iranian” ballistic missiles. According to Russian military experts, one of the main aims of that radar, which targets at a range up to 2000 kilometers, will also be the surveillance and control of the air space of the South Caucasus, part of Central Asia as well as the south of Russia, in particular tracking the experimental launches of the Russian missiles at their test ranges.10

    Further, the US-controlled BMD deployment now also includes sea-based “Aegis” systems in the Black Sea near Russia’s Sevastopol Naval Base, as well as possible deployment of intermediate range missiles in Black Sea and Caspian region.11

    But the European BMS deployments of the US Pentagon are but a part of a huge global web. At the Fort Greeley Alaska Missile Field the US has installed BMD ground-based missile interceptors, as well as at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. And the Pentagon just opened two missile sites at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. To add to it, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force has joined formally with the US Missile Defense Agency to develop a system of so-called Aegis BMD deploying the SM-3 Raytheon missiles on Japanese naval ships.12 That gives the US a Pacific platform from which it can hit both China and Russia’s Far East as well as the Korean Peninsula. These are all a pretty long and curious way to reach any Iranian threat.

    Origins of US Missile Defense

    The US program to build a global network of ‘defense’ against possible enemy ballistic missile attacks began back in March 23, 1983 when then-President Ronald Reagan proposed the program popularly known as Star Wars, formally called then the Strategic Defense Initiative.

    In 1994 at a private dinner discussion with this author in Moscow, the former head of economic studies for the Soviet Union’s Institute of World Economy & International Relations, IMEMO, declared that it had been the huge financial demands required by Russia to keep pace with the multi-billion dollar US Star Wars effort that finally led to the economic collapse of the Warsaw Pact and to German reunification in 1990. With a losing war in Afghanistan, collapsing oil revenues caused by a 1986 US policy of flooding the world market with Saudi oil, the military economy of the USSR was unable to keep pace, short of risking massive civilian unrest across the Warsaw Pact nations.13

    This time around the US BMD deployment is designed to bring Russia to her knees as well, only in the context of a US creation of what military strategists call “Nuclear Primacy.”

    Nuclear Primacy: Thinking the Unthinkable

    While the Soviet era armed forces have undergone a drastic shrinking down since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Russia has tenaciously held on to the core of its strategic nuclear deterrent. That is something that gives Washington pause when considering how to deal with Russia. The potential for Russia to deepen its military and economic cooperation with its Central Asian partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, above all with China, is something Washington has gone to great lengths to frustrate. Such a strategic cooperation is becoming increasingly a matter of life-or-death for both China and Russia. China’s nuclear arsenal is not yet strategic as is Russia’s.

    What the Pentagon is going for is what it has dreamed of since the Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles during the 1950’s. Weapons professionals term it Nuclear Primacy. Translated into layman’s language, Nuclear Primacy means that if one of two evenly-matched nuclear foes is able to deploy even a crude anti-ballistic missile defense system that can seriously damage the nuclear strike capacity of the other, while he launches a full-scale nuclear barrage against that foe, he has won the nuclear war.

    The darker side of that military-strategic Nuclear Primacy coin is that the side without adequate offsetting BMD anti-missile defenses, as he watches his national security vanish with each new BMD missile and radar installation, is under growing pressure to launch a pre-emptive nuclear or other devastating strike before the window closes. That in simple words means that far from being “defensive” as Washington claims, BMD is offensive and destabilizing in the extreme. Moreover, those nations blissfully deluding themselves that by granting the Pentagon rights to install BMS infrastructure, that they are buying the security umbrella of the mighty United States Armed Forces, find that they have allowed their territory to become a potential nuclear field of battle in an ever more likely confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

    Dr. Robert Bowman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Air Force and former head of President Reagan’s BMD effort of the 1980’s, then dubbed derisively “Star Wars,” noted the true nature of Washington’s current ballistic missile “defense” under what is today called the Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency:

    "Under Reagan and Bush I, it was the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). Under Clinton, it became the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Now Bush II has made it the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and given it the freedom from oversight and audit previously enjoyed only by the black programs. If Congress doesn't act soon, this new independent agency may take their essentially unlimited budget and spend it outside of public and Congressional scrutiny on weapons that we won't know anything about until they're in space. In theory, then, the space warriors would rule the world, able to destroy any target on earth without warning. Will these new super weapons bring the American people security? Hardly."14

    During the Cold War, the ability of both sides—the Warsaw Pact and NATO—to mutually annihilate one another, had led to a nuclear stalemate dubbed by military strategists, MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction. It was scary but, in a bizarre sense, more stable than what Washington now pursues relentlessly with its Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, Asia and globally in unilateral pursuit of US nuclear primacy. MAD was based on the prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation with no decisive advantage for either side; it led to a world in which nuclear war had been ‘unthinkable.’ Now, the US was pursuing the possibility of nuclear war as ‘thinkable.’

    Lt. Colonel Bowman, in a telephone interview with this author called missile defense, “the missing link to a First Strike.” 15

    The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for "a missile defense umbrella that says 'Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16

    That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees - from the United States - that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.


    Notes:

    1 David M. Herszenhorn, Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense Plan in Europe, The New York Times, November 23, 2011.

    2. Ibid.

    3 Ibid.

    4 Misha, Medvedev: Russia will Deploy Iskanders in Kaliningrad to Neutralize New US Missile Threat, Misha’s Russian Blog, December 30, 2008, accessed in
    http://mishasrussiablog.blogspot.com/2008/11/medevev-russia-will-deploy-iskanders-in.html.

    5 RIA Novosti, US ready to provide Russia with missile shield details, Moscow, November 21, 2011, accessed in http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111121/168883920.html.

    6 RIA Novosti, NATO's missile defense program to be fully operational in 2018 – Rasmussen, 5 October, 2011, accessed in http://en.rian.ru/world/20111005/167417252.html.

    7 CNN, U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans, September 17, 2009, accessed in
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html

    8 Kenneth Repoza, Obama's Cold War? Raytheon Missiles On Russia's Border By 2018, Forbes, September 15, 2011, accessed in
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/09/15/obamas-cold-war-raytheon-missiles-on-russias-border-by-2018/

    9 Missile Defense Agency, News and Resources various press releases and program descriptions, accessed in http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html

    10 Sergey Sargsyan, Turkey in the US Missile Defense System: Primary Assessment and Possible Prospects, 13 October, 2011, Center for Political Studies, “Noravank” Foundation, accessed in
    http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6051

    11 Ibid.

    12 Missile Defense Agency, op. cit.

    13 F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, Wiesbaden, 2010, edition.engdahl, p. 145.

    14 Robert Bowman, cited in F. William Engdahl, op.cit., p. 161.

    15 Ibid., p. 162

    16 RIA Novosti, Nato Is Figleaf, November 1, 2011.

    Source: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/moscow-doesnt-trust-us-missile-defense-4548

    The European ABM system has nothing to do with Iran and it has nothing to do with Europe, it is just a game the US is playing to make Russia spend money on things it wouldn't otherwise need.

    The amusing thing is that these ABM systems will not be cheap and at some stage China will wise up and start dumping the US debt it owns before the US can do to China what it did to the Soviet Union.

    The huge irony is that US relations with Communist China show they never had a problem dealing with a communist country, the problem was that the Soviet Union was a potential economic rival to US global domination plans...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:57 am

    BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.

    The body language says it all doesn't it?

    A small box with a button on it the size of your hand and for the photo both hold the reset box and while Lavrov reaches in with two fingers to press one side of the reset button old hillary puts one whole hand covering his under the box to control him holding it and with her other hand all four fingers over the top of the box covering both the button and both of Lavrovs fingers...



    What does that tell you about the reset... a change for the US to take control of US/Russian relations.

    In other words where both sides agree Russia will cooperate with the US, and where Russia and the US do not agree the US will do as it pleases... I can see why they suggested it. Mad

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:50 am

    GarryB wrote:BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.

    The body language says it all doesn't it?

    A small box with a button on it the size of your hand and for the photo both hold the reset box and while Lavrov reaches in with two fingers to press one side of the reset button old hillary puts one whole hand covering his under the box to control him holding it and with her other hand all four fingers over the top of the box covering both the button and both of Lavrovs fingers...



    What does that tell you about the reset... a change for the US to take control of US/Russian relations.

    In other words where both sides agree Russia will cooperate with the US, and where Russia and the US do not agree the US will do as it pleases... I can see why they suggested it. Mad

    I sort of see it like this." I'll take this silly box, and decide when I use it. Now you clear off, love. Do some housework, cook some cakes, maybe Bill wont play around so much".

    She's just Mrs "I could have been president if we'd won in Iraq and decided we'd go for Iran too".

    The perfect example of silly American "democracy". "You can have anyone you want provided their dad or the husbnad was president, or they do exactly as 200 people tell them to do"

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:11 am

    Some analyst had said this and I agree.

    US and Russia cannot be real friend in true sense because their relationship are based on purely MAD concept , its like two people pointing guns at each other and wanting to be best buddies.

    At best of times their relations will be good and at worst it would be a working one.

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:34 pm

    I just cant understand why we haven't seen new Ru bases in Venezuela and Cuba etc.
    I'm sure the US Mil-Industrial Complex is saying "if there aint a threat, lets make one"

    I think America is nervous that the EU is realising they dont really need the US so much anymore, atleast not unless there's a global mega crisis. All too often the US feeds on fear and mischief making. Europe is big enough to stand on its own feet. And no reason why Russia couldnt become a closer ally at some point.

    America wouldnt be too chuffed about Chavez or Castro planting ABM bases next door to America would they?

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:38 pm

    Austin wrote:Some analyst had said this and I agree.

    US and Russia cannot be real friend in true sense because their relationship are based on purely MAD concept , its like two people pointing guns at each other and wanting to be best buddies.

    At best of times their relations will be good and at worst it would be a working one.

    I think its all about America trying to hang onto the Washington Consensus economic system. They used to be WAY ahead of Europe in living standards, but over 20 or 30 yrs, they dont much better off than many other places. I genuinely believe their debt situation will trouble them once we see a more multipolar financial system. It looks a lot like Britain in the 20s, the waning superpower.

    Militarism is their hope of staying as a key power. But it is utterly delusional.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:06 pm

    America has already stated it doesn't have friends... it has interests.

    Look at the extradition treaty the US has with the UK.

    The UK has to provide evidence of guilt to the US, the US just needs to ask...

    Trying to be buddies with the US is a waste of time for any country.

    Normal balanced trade links is the best you can hope for, but you will need to fight hard to make sure they are balanced.

    For instance here in New Zealand some medications are very very expensive, so we have a program where the government subsidises the cost for those that need them.

    In negotiating a free trade agreement with the US the US companies making the pills want this to stop and they want everyone to pay full price.

    Who wants a free trade agreement under those sort of conditions and how can the result be called "free".

    I want good trade relations with all countries but not at any cost.

    (Note the US drug companies don't object to the subsidies as such, they object to the process where our government decides which drugs get subsidies and which do not.)

    I just cant understand why we haven't seen new Ru bases in Venezuela and Cuba etc.
    I'm sure the US Mil-Industrial Complex is saying "if there aint a threat, lets make one"

    As Russia expands and restores its navy it is going to need foreign bases to minimise the costs of that Navy operationally. Having a base in Cuba or Venezuela means it could keep ships and subs operating near the US for much longer periods because instead of heading all the way back to Murmansk or the Black Sea or Baltic sea ports the trip to sunny Cuba or Venezuela will be much shorter and cheaper.

    Buy some local food and fuel to stock up and then head back, you will be sailing for days instead of weeks to get back to port... and shore leave... Smile

    I am sure they will want a base in Brazil too... just for shore leave with those women! censored

    Corrosion

    Posts : 190
    Points : 205
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Corrosion on Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:BTW have you looked at the video taken when Hilary Clinton offered Lavrov the reset button.
    Actually that thing looks like an Emergency stop button. Reset button is usually green under most standards around the world. Maybe there was some secret message given by the Americans. Suspect

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:45 pm

    Too much is being said and made in media as to what they did with the button or what was written over or or what colour it was and what did the leader say while pressing reset button.

    What really matters is what did they do in past 4 years that can be termed as reset , its been a mixed bag , Russia and US agreeing in New Start and WTO entry of Russia has been positive , Missile Defence and usual politicking by US against Russian interest like Georgia , Syria has been negative.

    I think Obama was still better then George Bush Jr who promised a lot to Putin post 9/11 but did nothing on ground but was hawkish towards Russia typical Republican style.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:19 am

    Well I think the result if the US refuses to sign anything binding to either limit the ABM system or to promise not to use it against Russia is that Russia has fairly limited choices to retaliate.

    They will need to make the west think using it against Russia in a surgical pre emptive strike would be counter productive.

    That means they undermine the capabilities of the system, or they make the west think the consequences of building the ABM system will result in Russia doing something that will be even worse for the west than the minor, almost non existent threat from Iran.

    The huge irony is that this is all a self fulfulling prophecy because external pressure on Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program it doesn't have will most likely have the effect of making them realise the only real protection they will get from the international community (ie the west) is to actually have nuclear weapons.

    The second irony is that the reaction by Russia to a US ABM system in Europe will make the US rather less safe than it is now, and will certainly include the likely upgrade of the two Akula (NATO TYPHOON) subs into arsenal ships carrying large numbers of anti ship missiles like Onyx and Klub and eventually Brahmos II plus the likely retrofitting of Onyx to all previous Granit platforms, but more importantly the likely withdrawl from the INF treaty and the range extension of the Iskander family of ballistic missile.

    The current situation with potential missile sites in former Soviet republics means that the INF treaty doesn't make sense because a 500km range NATO missile in Latvia is a strategic missile that can hit much of western Russia while a Russian ballistic missile with a 500km range barely covers eastern europe let alone threatens the US.

    I would also suspect they will withdraw from the new Start Treaty and start producing more ICBMs to regain the parity that document is supposed to achieve by adding ICBM warheads to compensate for the number that could potentially be intercepted.

    gloriousfatherland

    Posts : 98
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 25
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:42 am

    I just listened to NATO's commander in chief President Obama, it seemed he was very unaware of Russia's serious stance of pulling out of START...He mentioned ABM once and said that he seeks "cooperation"{we know how that goes} but :
    NEVER once made it clear that the shiled in to protect against the non existant threat of a "nuclear armed Iran"

    I have a few question for my amerikanyets firends on here.
    1. If Iran is attacked, would ABM still go through as this threat no longer existant even though it is non-existant atm.. THIS WAS YOUR STATED AIM FOR THE SHILED. Shouldn't it be halted and reversed as it would cease to exist?
    2. Or Would you call the shiled nescessary to protect against rogue threats as North Korea?


    I hope our amerikanyets comrades answer the question. It would be really interesting to hear their response.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:14 pm