Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia's response to NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe

    Share

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:48 am

    Don't you feel uneasy in writing all this Sad
    For the same reasons if Russia is launching nuclear missiles at the US it will be expecting to be wiped out by the reply so it will likely also target countries like Japan and China to ensure the "love" is shared to all those countries that supported Russias enemies or acted like Russias enemy.

    ...no point in destroying the US several times over if the conventional forces of China and Europe then march in and take over the ashes of Russia.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:00 pm

    Thats the logic applied by both nuclear superpowers.

    If Russia/US goes to nuclear exchange, in a matter of hours both countries will reduce each other to dust and its population/economy etc would never ever be able to

    catch other countries no matter how far you look in to the future. For that reason in order to ensure its supremacy in post nuclear world all others countries must also

    be reduced to the dust so all world starts all over from the scratch now in postnuclear world and US / USSR would have chances to rise again to a same lvl as they are

    now.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:58 pm

    Don't you feel uneasy in writing all this

    I don't like it any more than you do, but I hardly think the Russians want to wipe out the US and be 90% wiped out by the US response only to find that the Chinese, with their forces largely intact because they kept quiet have started moving into Russia looking for useful stuff and slave labour and the EU is doing the same from the west.

    Civilisation broke down in New Orleans when flood water filled a part of the city and for the most part the people there waited for outside help to come and solve the problem. People were sitting on motorway overpasses in the sun 100m from the stadium officials told them to go to for help but they wouldn't or couldn't swim 100m? Not that conditions in the stadium were that much better after a few days.

    Then you look at Africa and some guy carries his mother in law 200 miles over a mountain range to get to an aide station.

    People in the west are getting very soft and if a global catastrophe happens like a nuclear war or an asteroid impact I think most of the so called civilised western world will just fall to pieces. Without electricity most western cultures would fail after about 2 weeks. In some cultures on this planet they would do something about it as a community, but in the west it is more about me me me.

    Besides if everyone things a nuclear war will just involve Russia and the US destroying each other then a large section of the world will look forward to such a thing. If they realise it will actually effect everyone then they will not be keen to see it happen.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:48 pm

    There is no reason for a nuclear war between US-Russia. If it came up for a vote today most Americans would elect Putin as US President.

    Both countries are facing huge population loss from Baby Boomer Generation which created nuclear arsenals....all dying off.

    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    1/3rd of US will be dead by 2020. Russia and US will have to join together to survive Chinese Century of domination. We both will be minority countries in the world soon.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:10 am


    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their
    economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive
    trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US
    people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    This is something else that bothers me about civilised western culture... they see old people as a burden.
    Families with both parents working pay hundreds of dollars a week for childcare, in other cultures the grandparents share in the upbringing of the grandkids.

    Things need to change.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:11 am

    Pervius wrote:There is no reason for a nuclear war between US-Russia. If it came up for a vote today most Americans would elect Putin as US President.

    Both countries are facing huge population loss from Baby Boomer Generation which created nuclear arsenals....all dying off.

    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    1/3rd of US will be dead by 2020. Russia and US will have to join together to survive Chinese Century of domination. We both will be minority countries in the world soon.

    what

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:17 pm

    @GarryB
    Families with both parents working pay hundreds of dollars a week for childcare, in other cultures the grandparents share in the upbringing of the grandkids.

    Like typical Asian cultures of India & Pakistan. Really Grands can play a brilliant role in upbringing kids while parents including mothers can go on with their professional life while children being cared within the hands of ones own relatives. Though I do admit mostly here women aren't meant to work its regarded as something unIslamic but in real there isn't any thing like that in our religion [but present in our culture]. Sorry if I am off-topic

    So Grry you a Grandfather yet?? tongue

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:46 am

    So Grry you a Grandfather yet??

    Not that I know of... Embarassed

    It is my understanding that in Russian culture the grandparents often filled that child care role... hey if they brought you up OK then they should cope with your kids... and how can you know how a baby sitter will cope?

    Especially as most babysitters are teenage girls with no experience of bringing up children... unlike grandparents.

    I think the west has a lot it can learn from other cultures and respect for older people is one of them.

    Here in New Zealand we spend enormous amounts on Prisoners each year and not nearly as much on the elderly or disabled.

    Sorry for off topic.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:48 pm

    My observation is the women should take care of child and family while men should/go to work , the old ways works best , all this men and women working creates long term problem for the child and its upbringing. In a way I like the Asian cultures compared to western ones on this topic.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:52 pm

    Source Military Parade, No. 1, 2011, page(s): 12-15

    EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS AND OPTIONS

    Author: Andrei Mikhailov

    Andrei Mikhailov, special correspondent of the Military Parade magazine

    Addressing the entire international community, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a crucial statement during his visit to India in late 2010: "Any curtain, any wall, whether ideological or technological, is dangerous." The ideological wall collapsed just over two decades ago, simultaneously with the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, the technological barrier, which prevents partnership integration of the countries to strengthen security, remains intact.

    Mikhail Gorbachev was the first to use the term 'partnership' with regard to defence during Soviet-American negotiations. At first, the attitude to this word was extremely wary. Two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall the-then US President Ronald Reagan, making a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, had urged Mikhail Gorbachev: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace... tear down this wall!" Nowadays, the appeal to 'tear down the wall' is made in reverse - addressing the NATO-Russia Summit in Lisbon in November 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and 28 NATO heads of state to get over the mistrust and become equal partners: "If Russia takes a corresponding part in the NATO missile defence programme, participates in the dialogue, plays a certain role in developing a joint missile defence system..., it will be acceptable for us."

    This appeal was primarily addressed to the US, since Europe is as concerned as Russia about the terms and conditions of deploying the global missile defence shield. At the 11th Missile Defence Conference, hosted by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) in 2010, head of the US Cevasco International, a company specialising in defence cooperation and aerospace defence, Frank Cevasco pointed out that, according to experts, outsourcing of the global missile defence deployment, with European states playing a secondary role of hosting US missile defence system elements on their territories, would make Europe subordinate to the US, deprive it of its voting right, and fail to solve the entire range of European security problems. Europe has its own missile defence potential and invests in new projects, though they are less ambitious than those of the US.

    However, while the US and Europe have managed to overcome the legacy of previous wars and become allies, the Russian brass have yet to erase the German Fulda Gap, a section of territory between the former East German border and Western Europe, from their maps. History proves that it was fear, rather than goodwill, that launched the process of nuclear arms control and partnership. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 became the critical moment. The-then US President John F. Kennedy ordered the US Armed Forces to be put on Level 2 combat readiness (DEFCON 1 (defence readiness condition), i.e. preparations for nuclear missile launches).

    Addressing a round table meeting on the US-Russian nuclear arms control at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, in 2009, chair of the meeting, former Deputy Secretary of State (1994-2001) Strobe Talbott called on nuclear powers to take on greater responsibility, team up their efforts, and establish defence cooperation. To make a pun on the acronym of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III), signed this year, let's say the process got off to a good start. It is the beginning of a new stage, the motto of which should be 'trust' between Russia and the USA, and Russia and NATO, because otherwise missile defence integration will be next to impossible.

    Three Points of European Missile Defence Development

    How to start deploying a joint missile defence system, given the ever increasing threat of surprise ground-, sea-, air-, and even space-based ballistic missile strikes, involving nuclear, chemical, or biological WMDs? Will this process be based on the principle of complementarity, or will the parties remain counter-partners?

    At the present time it is dramatically important not only to define the missile defence deterrence strategy, but to choose the best option after examining
    all aspects, all possible threats and challenges. This is exactly what NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy James Appathurai talked about at a news conference in Moscow in February 2011. He outlined three points of development in the ongoing international discussion of the specific European missile defence structure.

    The first 'point of development' is the most complicated issue of reaching a consensus on the best technical and organisational algorithms of taking a decision on engaging a target within the framework of the joint information component of the NATO and the Russian missile defence systems, including their transparency.

    James Appathurai underlined that there would be completely independent, though mutually coordinated, NATO and Russian missile defence systems. He added that the best solution should be arrived at, and that NATO would be defending its territory, and Russia its own territory. "It is only NATO's responsibility to defend its territories and we cannot pass this responsibility to anyone else. It is clear that Russia is going to protect its territory itself and will not give up this duty. It would also seem strange if Russia asked the other part for permission to defend its territory," he pointed out, stating that the best missile defence system structure should not undermine the defence potential and the sovereignty of any country, involved in the joint missile defence.

    The logic of averting a missile threat consists in detecting and knocking down an incoming missile as soon as possible. However, experts started disagreeing on whether NATO or Russia should, for instance, knock down ballistic missiles, posing a threat to Europe, over the territory of a non-member state, for example, Russia, Ukraine, or Georgia?

    NATO has already embarked on developing sophisticated automatic command and control (C2) systems, based on top-notch technologies, for the joint Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system. It tests interoperability of different national air command and control systems so that they could function as a single C2 centre, given a decisionmaking time limit of less than one minute. NATO expands the number of allies, integrated into the revamped missile defence system, adds mobile components, based wherever possible, and exchanges tactical and intelligence data. As a result, every national C2 body will get access to a more complete and updated digital map, facilitating defence against a wide scope of missile threats.

    The new NATO joint missile defence command structure, the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC), incorporating C2 systems of five allies, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the US, and France, was opened in Germany earlier this year, with the ceremony attended by NATO Deputy Secretary General, Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero. In December 2010 NATO tested its new ALTBMD C2 system. The tests were aimed at checking command and control over the multinational coalition's weapon systems and sensors during a missile interception operation. Claudio Bisogniero officially confirmed that NATO had begun shifting to a new TMD configuration, since the CAOC became operational. Under the decisions, adopted at the Lisbon Summit, the new theatre missile defence system will constitute the backbone of the future strategic European missile defence. The US-French Thales Raytheon Systems was appointed principal technology integrator in the international missile defence market.

    Within the framework of the NATO Air Command and Control First Level of Operational Capability (ACCS LOC1) programme Thales Raytheon Systems is to replace NATO's existing air command and control systems in Europe; set new standards of interoperability for air operations by providing a single, integrated approach, including sensor and weapon system configuration, detection, identification, early warning, monitoring, coverage, air and missile track processing, display, management, and engagement. Interoperability of revamped national C2 systems will lead to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The next stage of the theatre missile defence extension, headed by the ALTBMD Programme Office, is slated for 2013. The ultimate configuration of the upgraded and integrated TMD system is to cover the entire territory of NATO member-states (Final Operational Capability).

    Balanced Defence


    The second 'point of development' in the international discussion of the European missile defence is the partnership network of its participants. What should the logic of partnership be? What should the format of cooperation within the framework of the joint missile defence system be? NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy James Appathurai emphasised that in order to establish NATO-Russia partnership within the framework of the joint missile defence it was necessary to clearly realise the goal of and the reason for the project. He said that the main political message of joint missile defence efforts was that NATO did not expect Russia to deliver a nuclear strike, and neither did NATO have such plans. James Appathurai stressed that the European missile defence system was not designed to undermine

    Russia's deterrent potential, and that NATO and Russia should jointly counter increasing missile threats. He also called on the Russian side not to resort to resounding statements on counter-measures during negotiations and not to attempt to define the last steps when the joint work had only started.

    Only two countries possessed nuclear missiles in the early 1970s. At the present time in excess of 30 states either have or seek to develop missile technologies, while 44 countries enjoy a nuclear-power engineering capability. Nuclear-capable China and India combined are thrice as large as NATO in terms of population. At the same time India is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor a permanent member of the UN Security Council, where only five nuclear powers - the US, Russia, the UK, France, and China - seat on a permanent basis. Therefore, India is maximally distanced from the partnership negotiations. Pakistan and North Korea have not signed the NPT Treaty either. For instance, according to some sources, North Korea possesses more than 1,000 ballistic missiles. Generally, according to data presented at the 11th RUSI Missile Defence Conference, nuclear powers that are not included in the 'Nuclear Five' have a combined total of about 6,000 sub-strategic (non-strategic or theatre) ballistic missiles, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the target specified in four (maximum 40) minutes.

    The European missile defence sys tem is considered to be a defensive potential against the threat of nuclear proliferation outside NATO member-states and partner states, involved in the project. In other words integration of missile defence potentials of these countries means that they do not expect missiles strikes against each other and believe that this threat is only posed by those outside of their partnership. It is a fundamental shift in thinking, which on the one hand will lead to a gradual involvement of all nuclear powers in the partnership (otherwise they will be on the list of threats to NATO's security), and on the other hand it will boost development of missile defence technologies in partner states that have yet to acquire such technologies.

    The problem of global defence against a surprise nuclear ballistic missile attack from an unpredictable corner of the compass already prompts the military lobby to develop the best defence option - a stratosphere- or a space-based missile defence system, radar-carrying warships, and modular interoperable missile defence facilities (the so-called 'building blocks' principle) (the latter envisions global integration of the military cooperation market). For instance, the UK has designed the Zephyr High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), powered by solar batteries, featuring a flight altitude of over 20,000 m, and designed to be used as part of a missile defence system.

    Experts also discuss a possibility of deploying nuclear weapons into orbit - a nuclear warhead may be built into an ordinary satellite (in this case the early warning time will decrease dramatically). Therefore, special attention will be paid to countries capable of launching spacecraft.

    In light of missile defence technologies, development of laser weapons capable of destroying orbital satellites (anti-satellite weapons, ASAT) has seen a significant boost. Ground-, air-, and sea-based laser systems have been tested since the late 1990s. Such projects are pursued by Russia, NATO, and China.

    The third 'point of development' in the international discussion of the European missile defence consists in striking a balance and preventing an arms race, refining international laws on non-proliferation, and preventing escalation of technological rivalry in the defence cooperation market, which may result in negative political consequences. It will be impossible to adequately develop the European missile defence without progressing to the so-called McNamara's figure (US Secretary of Defence Robert Strange McNamara, the Pentagon's famous reformer during the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1961-1968), i.e. reducing the number of nuclear warheads possessed by each side down to 1,000. The world no longer has economic resources for an unrestrained arms race. As far as the global missile defence is concerned, the US does not have enough resources to cover the whole of Europe; Europe does not have enough resources to build a European missile defence system on its own; Russia does not have enough resources to cover its entire territory; and CIS member-states rely on partnership assistance even more than NATO member-states.

    Robert McNamara once calculated that it would take mere 400 nuclear warheads to completely destroy the US or Russia. Strategic nuclear weapons are just the tip of the iceberg, sub-strategic weapons pose an event greater problem. Theatre nuclear weapons (TNW) have been reduced to a certain extent since the Cold War: NATO has cut its TNWs by 85% (about 240 nuclear warheads are left Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey), Russia by 55% (the number of warheads exceeds 12,000), the US operates over 9,000 TNWs, the UK - 250 pieces, France - up to 400 pieces, China - about 500, India - around 100, and Pakistan - approximately 100.

    James Appathurai pointed out that nuclear arms reductions would only be effective if agreement was reached on missile defence. He said that when talking about nuclear arms reductions it was worth mentioning that there were more nuclear weapons in the world than necessary. However, both NATO and Russia would maintain their nuclear deterrence capabilities so long as nuclear weapons existed, he emphasised. The international community should seek a nuclear-free world and create every necessary condition to this end, he added. Prudent and controlled nuclear arsenals reduction would be the most sensible way to go, he stressed.

    Such a comprehensive approach to the nuclear threat problem is nowadays called "balanced defence". In addition to the balance between offensive and defensive missile technologies, the balanced defence also includes cyber security (cyber attacks can disable missile defence systems, nuclear power plants, etc.), as well as the fight against international terrorism in general (including denial of access to TNW storage facilities).

    The sum vector that will shape the ultimate configuration of the future global missile defence of the XXI century will comprise a great many viewpoints of experts, representing various schools of thought on missile defence and tactical decisions on deploying missile defence system elements, national defence and economic interests of the Allies and the partner countries, and fundamental political views on the progress in WMD non-proliferation and missile threats.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:42 am

    Austin wrote:My observation is the women should take care of child and family while men should/go to work , the old ways works best , all this men and women working creates long term problem for the child and its upbringing. In a way I like the Asian cultures compared to western ones on this topic.

    Economy & financial constraints as is faced at present may play havoc with your otherwise PROVEN idea

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:06 am

    The modern consumer economy demands the family must have everything... now. We know because advertisers tell us it is so.
    To afford to live in such a society both parents must work and to create jobs must pay someone to look after their children.
    These people must have teaching degrees/qualifications and cannot just monitor the children to make sure they are still alive... every waking moment the children must be entertained, engaged, and educated.

    The irony is that as laws and requirements for care givers become more ridiculous (in Australia they have passed a law to ban caregivers from giving a child a time out or isolating them by sending them to a corner or separate room to cool down... don't even think about physical options.) fewer and fewer people are going to want or be able to do it and the costs will just increase to the point where no one will be able to afford it.

    I know that in the past the woman has brought up the kids and dad has gone to work, but I like the idea of being part of the "bringing the kids up" for the dad. Otherwise the wife gets the short end of the stick because she has to work 24/7, and just as importantly dad misses out on enjoying his kids... and they are his kids too.

    I guess there are no right or wrong answers, but I am not really happy with western solutions so far.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:04 am



    Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield
    02:12 29/04/2011


    Commander of Russian Space Forces Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko outlined on Friday Russia's proposals for the future European missile defense network.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called Euro missile shield during the Russia-NATO Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system with full-scale interoperability.

    "We are ready to develop together with NATO experts on missile defense the architecture of this [joint] network, from the concept and selection of the best sites for the deployment of radars and interceptors to the set up and operation of joint data processing and control centers," Ostapenko said in an interview with Izvestia daily newspaper.

    The general said it would be logical and efficient to create a network of "sector" defenses where each member state or group of states would assume responsibility for intercepting and destroying ballistic missiles over assigned territory.

    Russia is ready to provide a "missile shield" over Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, the Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea, Ostapenko said, adding that a decision to deploy missile defenses must be coordinated by a joint command center on the basis of information provided by a joint data processing center.

    "In order to ensure a reliable and uniform exchange of information it is necessary to set up a joint data processing center which would obtain, process and relay target data to a joint fire control center," he said.

    Russian military specialists must be part of teams operating these centers on rotation basis, the general added.


    © Photo The Russian Federation Ministry of Defence
    Commander of Russian Space Forces Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko
    Ostapenko stressed that Russia had no plans to place interceptor missiles outside its territory.

    Russia has retained staunch opposition to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. NATO and the United States insist that the shield would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia.

    Ostapenko said a joint missile defense network would alleviate Russia's concerns over potential missile threats from NATO.

    "In case of a joint missile defense network, there would be no need to place missile systems on the territory of the countries protected by the Russian missile umbrella," the general said.

    In addition, cooperation in the framework of the European missile shield would allow all the participants to cut the expenses on the project because NATO will need to protect less territory on its own, Ostapenko said.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110429/163762332.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:12 am

    FAS: The Technical Basis for Russian Concern over NATO Missile Defense

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:12 am

    Indeed the future development of what is supposed to be a defence system to protect from rogue launches from Iran or North Korea clearly shows progression to an all purpose ABM shield to protect from all sorts of missile types from practically anywhere.

    The fact that the West will not put in writing that the system will not be used against Russia missiles clearly shows that verbal promises that this system will not be used against Russia is like the promises made earlier like no NATO expansion beyond the integration of East Germany into NATO etc etc.

    It is fairly clear that Russia should no cooperate and contribute to a system that will ultimately work against Russia and it also should take steps now to counter the system as it takes shape.

    That includes withdrawing from the INF treaty, developing long range models of Iskander for domestic use, and developing an even longer ranged replacement and basing them in Kaliningrad when ABM missiles are installed as a counter.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:57 am

    First conceptual images of new generation of Russian air defense systems (S-500, etc]

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:44 pm

    Thanks.

    Have used these pics here:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t750p60-russian-air-force-receives-first-10-new-air-defense-systems#10889

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:16 pm

    Does Russia have any concern this could be a tactical weapon and part of the missile defense shield or even a tactical weapon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

    Could it's massive mirrors take the suns energy from 900,000 miles from Earth and then direct that energy beam at another satellite or even the Hubble Telescope to fire directed energy down at Earth?

    I think this has a Defense use rather than "scientific". Maybe why they worked so hard on figuring out an orbit that will keep it in the same orbit as Earth. Constant capability.


    Many Americans have been unemployed so money could be freed up to make that weapon. If it was for "science" such a project should have been funded by the UN to make sure it couldn't be used as a weapon.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:00 am

    Does Russia have any concern this could be a tactical weapon and part of the missile defense shield or even a tactical weapon:

    It would be a very inefficient weapon.

    An easy target.

    Early telescopes used shaped glass to bend light to magnify the image and make it appear closer. As the bits of glass got bigger however to make the image appear closer and closer it was found that there is a problem with bending light with glass.

    Any glass prism will show that white light is made up of all the colours of the rainbow and when you shine light through glass the light tends to separate into its separate colours so images got colourful halos of bright colours.

    The solution was to use a mirror so the light coming from a long way away comes into an open tube with no glass at the front to hit the bottom of the tube which is lined with a large flat mirror which both reflects and focuses the image back up to about half way up the tube to a small mirror that redirects the focused image sideways out of the tube to a small lens that can be used to adjust the focus to get a sharp clear image.

    In big powerful telescopes replace the small mirror half way up the tube with an incredibly expensive CCD light sensor with a 100 mega pixel or better performance.
    The sensor blocks some of the light so the mirror in the bottom of the telescope might have a bare centre, but to look at things as close as 100km away or as far away as distant galaxies you need to be able to very accurately flex the mirror to the correct focal length to properly focus the image. Because of the huge range of distances the CCD detector might move up and down the tube a bit as well, but the point is that the long tube in front of the mirror will make it very very difficult to catch sunlight and redirect it at something on the Earth... especially as the telescope itself will be zipping along at orbital speeds.

    In this system however the mirrors are exposed and shielded from sunlight by a large shield.

    The CCD sensor will be mounted somewhere on the craft and the mirrors will be angled to direct a view of the target into the sensor.

    The system will be located near a Lagrange point to avoid entering the earths shadow... which is perfectly normal for a solar powered satellite

    A Lagrange point is an area of zero real gravity.

    In Earth orbit an object like the ISS is subject to Earths gravity... it keeps falling in a curve but because it is going so fast it misses landing on earth, or conversely it is trying to fly away from the earth but keeps falling back towards it enough so that its distance from earth never increases.
    On board the ISS everything is "falling" at the same rate and appears to be weightless, but from an energy point of view every once in a while the engines need to be fired to maintain its orbital height.

    To explain a Lagrange point it is a point of balanced or doubled or halved gravity. Think about the Earth and the moon.
    Both have their own gravity though the Earths gravity is more powerful than the Moons gravity because the Earth has more mass.
    If you were to move in a direct line from the Earth to the Moon for the first three quarters of the trip the Earths gravity would be the dominant force on you so if released or suddenly stopped in relation to both objects you would fall to Earth and not the the Moon.
    As you get closer to the moon however the effect of the moons gravity will increase and the effect of the Earths gravity will diminish because gravity is directly related to the square of distance. Eventually you will reach a point where the earths gravity equals the moons gravity and they balance out. If you stopped there you would stay there and not fall towards either the moon or the Earth... the gravity of the Earth would stop you falling toward the Moon but the gravity of the Moon would stop you falling toward the Earth.
    That is a Lagrange point.
    Lagrange point 1 actually.
    Lagrange point 2 for the Earth and the moon would be beyond the moon the distance where the gravity of the moon and the earth are equal again.

    In this case L2 for the Sun and the Earth is shown on this diagram:



    As anyone knows the closer to the sun the faster an object needs to go to prevent falling into that sun, so an object at the L2 position will be in about an 800,000km larger radius orbit than the Earth is... so if it wasn't an L2 point... if it was ahead or behind the Earth it would rapidly fall behind Earth. In the L2 point however it has the Sun and the Earths combined gravity to nudge it along and keep it in place so only a tiny amount of energy will be needed to keep it in place.

    It is a bit like Cyclists using slipstreaming in a bike race to reduce the amount of energy they need to burn to hold position by getting in behind another cyclist. Of course this works because the cyclist in front is doing work pushing through the undisturbed air, which is work the cyclist behind does not have to expend energy doing. In space there is no air.

    There is a stable Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun though the passage of Venus and Mercury will upset an object at that point.

    This satellite will orbit the L2 Lagrange point so it will fly in a circle around the L2 point. It is called a Halo orbit because from the ground looking directly up at the L2 point the satellites orbital path looks like a circle around that point.
    At the L2 point the Earth would be constantly blocking some of the sunlight, but flying a halo orbit around L2 gives you all the gravity boost advantages of the L2 point plus the constant sunlight to the solar panels.
    The sunshield also never needs adjusting because the telescope will always point away from the Sun (and Earth).

    Personally I think if they really wanted a space based energy weapon they wouldn't put it on anything so public.

    Equally space based energy weapons are overrated. A laser weapon will suffer about a 1mm divergence per metre of travel, so from 100km up the laser when it hits the ground will be 100m across... which is pointless for anything except ranging.

    A over 1 million kms past Earths orbit this system (ie the CCD sensor and mirrors) would be damaged by exposure to the solar wind and the intense heat of direct sunlight.
    To retain its shape the mirrors need to be kept at a constant temperature... shining sunlight on them would unevenly heat them leading to warped and useless mirrors till they were cooled down again or fully heated to an even max temperature. That even high temperature would probably melt or damage the mirrors which will normally be kept cryogenically cool to observe deep space objects.

    It is designed to take light coming from millions of kms or trillions of light years and focus it on a point within the area of the spacecraft itself... it says it has a focal distance of 131m which means focusing on targets on Earth would be impossible anyway. At 800,000km away from the Earth and facing away from the Earth and the Sun there is zero chance this system could be used against anything on Earth or the Satellites in Earth orbit... even geostationary objects are much lower than this.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:36 am

    Missile Defense: Old Problem, No New Solution
    Aleksandr Stukalin, Kommersant publishing house

    The signing of the New START treaty and US President Obama’s decision to review the previous administration’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans had given rise to hopes that Russia and the United States could reach a compromise on this very sensitive issue. But after a year of fruitless “consultations” it is becoming obvious that the two sides’ positions on a new missile defense system for the 21st century are incompatible. The very idea of the Western and Russian missile defense systems being “interoperable” or “integrated” is facing a crisis. That crisis could well spill over into other areas of the strategic balance, as well as the two sides’ military doctrines and their relationship as a whole.

    New problems

    The reasons for the incompatibility of Russia’s and America’s positions on the new BMD and EuroBMD are twofold. On the one hand, Washington is convinced that new missile threats are real, or will become real in the very near future. It is determined to have in place a system that would guarantee protection from such threats. On the other hand, the Russian military and political leadership is certain that the new BMD system, including elements of EuroBMD, have the Russian strategic deterrence capability in the crosshairs. Both sides are making earnest and very public attempts to dissuade each other of their respective fundamental beliefs. It appears that these attempts have monopolized all the energies of the negotiators taking part in the ongoing “consultations”.

    The arguments used by the Russian military leadership – i.e the General Staff and its key departments involved in the formulation of the Russian position at the negotiations – are especially interesting. Up until recently, voicing the Russian stance on the BMD issue was the remit of the president or senior Foreign Ministry officials. But in the past few months the generals have been increasingly talkative. It appears that the General Staff, rather than the political officialdom, is now formulating Russia’s stance at the 2010-2011 “consultations” on missile defense. The truth of that assumption was amply demonstrated in May 2011 during the open scientific and practical conference headlined “The Russian position on EuroBMD”. The event was attended by the head of the General Staff, Army General Nikolay Makarov; his deputy, Col Gen Valeriy Gerasimov; the head of the Main Operational Directorate, Lt Gen Andrey Tretyakov; and the deputy head of the Main Intelligence Department (GRU), Lt Gen Vyacheslav Kondrashov.

    Russian generals do not deny that the “potential threat from the south” really exists. But they insist that the threat is very vague and uncertain, and that it does not require any urgent countermeasures. Neither Iran nor North Korea has any delivery systems with sufficient range. Neither has any hope of acquiring them any time soon. That is the official position of the GRU, which has never made such public forecasts before. The Russian generals believe that creating long-range missiles will require many years and many test launches, which will not go unnoticed. When that happens, that will be the time to react, they say.

    In terms of technology, no-one is saying that the first ICBM created by the “problem nations” will be on par with the Topol-M or the Trident II. These nations are developing technology that is fifty, forty or thirty years old. The intercontinental delivery means such technology can offer are simple, but reliable. From the military point of view, the argument that the threat is not urgent does not hold water. Once the problem nations have built their first ICBM, it will be too late to develop an BMD system in an effort to catch up with the situation. The best way to deal with threats is to anticipate and pre-empt them, not play catch-up.

    But the Russian generals have got it into their heads that America’s new BMD system and its EuroBMD segment are aimed against the Russian ICBMs. All attempts to persuade them to the contrary are falling on deaf ears.

    Ever since the first (now abandoned) plans were announced to station heavy silo-based GBI missile interceptors in Poland, the Russian generals have argued that these interceptor sites could become a serious threat to the Russian ICBMs stationed in the west of the country. It is true that the flight paths of the missiles heading from Bologoye or Kozelsk to the Eastern seaboard lie in the same general area, not directly over Poland but to the north of it. If official US information is to be believed, however, the location of the interceptor sites in Poland is a far better match for the flight paths originating in Iran, not Bologoye. In order to pose a threat to the Russian ICBMs, the GBIs stationed in Poland must be able to intercept missiles launched in their near vicinity. That requires either a lightning-fast response time or enormous acceleration plus mind-boggling trajectory to catch up with the Topol ICBMs.

    Such incredible specifications of the GBI interceptors (i.e. lighting-fast response time and the interceptor’s ability to reach any point of the threat missile’s trajectory with lighting speed) would mean that United States has achieved a technological breakthrough on par with the invention of the nuclear bomb. The GBIs have been abandoned – but now the same implausible specifications are being ascribed to the SM-3 missile interceptors, the core of the new-configuration EuroBMD system.

    The real (rather than imaginary) capabilities of the proposed American BMD system still remain an open question. Washington is being quite honest about the projected numbers of interceptors - although the figures can of course change. The need for honesty here is explained by the budgetary and congressional procedures, the obligation to inform NATO partners, and the long-standing general principles of America’s defense policy. Moscow, meanwhile, has always accepted that in the currently proposed configuration and scope, the new American BMD system is a much better match for the Iranian type of threat. It will not be able to neutralize the entire Russian strategic deterrence capability, even once the Russian nuclear arsenal has shrunk to the size specified in the New START treaty, i.e. 700-800 delivery systems and 1,550 warheads. Countering that type of threat would require a far more complex BMD system, with thousands of interceptors and probably dozens of interceptor launch sites. The validity of these considerations has always been recognized in Moscow - but they have never been seen as proof that America’s missile defense system is not aimed against Russia.

    Old thinking

    The Russian generals’ firm rejection of the very idea of an American missile defense system, in whichever shape or form, informs the entire Russian negotiating position. First, Moscow demands “legally binding guarantees” that the BMD system will not be aimed against Russia. And second, it proposes that a joint system should be built instead of a purely Western one, with each side responsible for countering missile threats in its own geographic sector.

    The notion of unilateral “legally binding guarantees” seems to be a curious new invention by the Russian negotiators, since there are no historical precedents of such guarantees. Why didn’t Leonid Brezhnev simply ask America for “legally binding guarantees” that its nuclear missiles are not aimed against Russia? Why did he choose instead to spend all that time and effort on the strategic arms limitation talks? And what about Brezhnev’s own unilateral “legally binding guarantees”, given of his own free will to the world, that the Soviet Union would never be the first country to use nuclear weapons? Why did the international community view such guarantees as nothing but an empty political declaration?

    How exactly are the “guarantees” demanded by Russia supposed to work? Will Moscow be satisfied by a declaration that “the United States will never use its missile defense system against Russian missiles”? How much would such a declaration be worth, exactly? Even in peacetime the principles of sovereignty make it possible for any country to withdraw from any of its international commitments. In the event of war or a real and imminent threat, such guarantees are worth precisely zero. If, on the other hand, Moscow requires more specific commitments, with restrictions on the numbers, capability and geography of the interceptors, then it must understand that such guarantees cannot be issued unilaterally. By rights they should be part of a new treaty about a new missile defense system – but that is not the subject of the negotiations now under way.

    Russia’s sectoral BMD proposal stems from its fears about the launch sites in Poland, as well as in the Baltic region and northern Europe in general. Moscow has already said officially that it would not really care about BMD sites in Romania. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the region Russia wants to be assigned to its own sector of the proposed sectoral BMD system includes Poland, the Baltic states and Scandinavia. That poses a number of intractable problems. First, why exactly should the NATO member states in the region entrust their defense to Moscow? Russia may be a partner of the alliance, but it is not a member. Second, can these countries ever accept such an arrangement as sovereign states? And finally, will Russia actually have the technical capability to protect from missile threats the region it wants assigned to its sector?

    The Daryal-type early warning radar in Gabala (Azerbaijan) is Russia’s first proposed contribution to the EuroBMD system. It must be said that the radar would be a valuable asset as it covers the southern areas where the potential missile threat might originate. The radar can be integrated into a joint BMD system – but for reasons of its original design and specifications, it will not actually be able to guide American or Russian interceptors to their targets. Theoretically, Russia could also contribute the Don-2N multirole surveillance station near Moscow. The station, which has a 360 degrees field of view, would have to be upgraded before it can be integrated into the joint BMD system. But the Don-2N is part of Russia’s own missile defense system that covers the area around Moscow, so it is not clear whether Russia would be prepared to share that vital facility in any capacity.

    Be that as it may, there is nothing else Moscow could usefully contribute. It has an advanced Voronezh-DM early warning radar in Armavir, which many commentators include in the list of the proposed joint BMD system’s potential Russian assets. But it is not at all clear whether that would be possible and, more importantly, necessary. According to open-source information, the edge of the Armavir radar’s field of view runs along the middle of the European continent from east to west. In the east the line runs from Armavir to the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, then on to Turkey, Syria and further south. In other words, the radar’s field of view includes part of the Middle East, the Mediterranean and almost the whole of North Africa – but not Iran, which is shielded from the radar by the Caucasian Mountains. Another Voronezh-DM radar station now being built near Kaliningrad is even less useful, since it is directed towards Europe. In any event, all these radars can potentially be used as elements of a missile attack warning system, but not of an actual missile defense system.

    The situation with interceptors and guidance radars is even less certain. After Russia specified the boundaries of the sector it wants to claim for itself in the proposed “sectoral” BMD system, the commander of the Russian Space Troops, Lt Gen Oleg Ostapenko, made a sensational statement. He insisted that Russia can defend that sector without actually stationing any of the interceptors or guidance radars on its territory. How exactly Russia is supposed to pull off such a feat is a mystery. All its existing BMD systems, both strategic (around Moscow) and tactical, are built on the opposite principle.

    What little is known about the Russian missile defense efforts from official documents and open sources suggests that the available financing is woefully inadequate, given the monumental scale of the task. More information is available about the missile defense capabilities of the advanced S-500 SAM system now being developed. But it is not clear when that system might be ready or how many units the Russian defense industry can realistically deliver. Given that Russia is still struggling with the less complex S-400 (SA-21) SAM system, the prospects for the S-500 do not look very rosy. The bottom line is that it is not clear what exactly Russia could contribute to the EuroBMD system, other than one or two early warning radars.

    Another thing to consider is that Russia’s threats to station missiles near Kaliningrad or to start building intermediate range missiles again if America stations elements of its BMD system in Europe run counter to the very idea of joint missile defense. The crisis is compounded by the rhetoric which only serves to unnerve the opposite side even further. One way or another, both sides are demonstrating that they are not ready for meaningful cooperation on an issue which both of them have declared as vital. A return to the Cold War, or at the very least a major chill in the relations between Russia and the United States over the BMD crisis now seem a distinct possibility.

    The obstinacy, suspiciousness and mistrust over missile defense contrast sharply with the spirit and letter of the New START treaty, which was a real breakthrough in terms of openness, compromise and mutual trust. It appears that the generals and the conservatives in the diplomatic community have been given too much say in the ongoing missile defense “consultations”. The talks urgently need a major political impulse at the highest level from both sides, similar to the impulse given to the New START talks at their final stages. Unless that happens, chances for meaningful progress are slim. Whether the meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barak Obama in Deauville has provided such an impulse will become clear in the coming months.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:38 pm

    """Will Moscow be satisfied by a declaration that “the United States will never use its missile defense system against Russian missiles”? """"


    Only if they are fools. What's that USAF spaceship been doing up there? Has Russia countered that with one of their own yet??




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:25 am

    The west has a long post cold war record of making all sorts of promises and with a change of government they break those promises because it was verbal and not written on paper.

    Is it any wonder that the Russians now ask for written promises regarding ABM systems in Europe?


    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Does Russia have any concern this could be a tactical weapon and part of the missile defense shield or even a tactical weapon:

    It would be a very inefficient weapon.

    An easy target.


    How many missions has Russia sent to Mars that failed? 30? 40? Deep Space isn't Russia's forte.

    Any asset you put out there is pretty safe. The laser on the moon could zap any attempt to get out there.

    "an inefficient weapon"?

    Pick up a book:

    ""An introduction to atmospheric radiation"" By Kuo-Nan Liou. The suns emissions if focused with a mirror could overload your satellites ability to release heat. Hence why Satellites have gone offline the last year. The sun alone took those satellites out. Now imagine you had a mirror setup able to focus that energy onto an ant...I mean satellite....burn baby burn.

    Have another satellite able to re-direct that energy to Earth.....and you sir have THE most powerful weapon.

    One has already been fired at Earth. It was more powerful than they expected. October .....come on who knows the year?


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:34 pm

    How many missions has Russia sent to Mars that failed? 30? 40? Deep Space isn't Russia's forte.

    Actually Russia has only really had failures in regard to the red planet.

    Its successes with Venus have been impressive with the atmosphere of Venus being a much more challenging environment to operate in.

    The laser on the moon could zap any attempt to get out there.

    What laser on the moon?

    There are reflectors on the moon that you can bounce a laser off, but the signal on Earth is tiny... a few photons that require large telescopes to detect.

    ""An introduction to atmospheric radiation"" By Kuo-Nan Liou. The suns emissions if focused with a mirror could overload your satellites ability to release heat. Hence why Satellites have gone offline the last year. The sun alone took those satellites out. Now imagine you had a mirror setup able to focus that energy onto an ant...I mean satellite....burn baby burn.

    L2 is 4 times the distance from Earth as the Moon... it would be much more efficient to get a 6 metre diameter mirror on Earth to shine light up at satellites to knock them out.

    Have another satellite able to re-direct that energy to Earth.....and you sir have THE most powerful weapon.

    As I said the mirrors need to be kept cryogenically cool to keep their shape and look at deep space objects. Shine sunlight on them and they will warp and will not focus anything anywhere. They will be useless till the entire mirror is a uniform temperature again and the difference in temperature between cryogenically cold and the temperature of sunlight in open space would crack the mirrors and make them useless... that is why it needs a sunshield... to protect the mirrors.

    The telescope has a focal length of 135m. The pieces of the mirror will not be able to focus the sun to a small point at any distance other than this distance.

    Hold a magnifying glass at its focal length distance from an insect... you can determine that distance but moving the glass till the sunlight forms the smallest sharpest bright circle you can manage. That is the focal distance and it is fixed by the shape of the glass.

    It is the same for the telescope except its focal distance is fixed by the curve of the mirror segments.

    Using the telescope as a weapon is like trying to use that hand held magnifying glass to focus light 100m away... physics wont allow it as its focal length is fixed by its physical shape.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

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

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:10 am






    Ukraine ‘ready’ to join Euro missile shield project agreed with Russia
    © RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev
    22:44 06/10/2011
    KIEV, October 6 (RIA Novosti)




    Ukraine is ready to contribute to the creation of the European missile shield if the program is developed in cooperation with Russia, Ukrainian envoy to NATO Igor Dolgov said on Thursday.

    “It is obvious that this project would be of a special interest for Ukraine if the NATO system is built together with Russia,” the Ukrainian Unian news agency quoted Dolgov as saying in Brussels.

    “If a system is built that would cover parts of Europe on either side of Ukraine,” the diplomat added, “this is in our natural interest.”

    Dolgov said there had been no full-fledged talks between NATO and Ukraine on the country’s participation in the project because the final configuration of the European missile shield “had not yet been defined.”

    He said, however, that “information exchange” took place between Ukraine and the alliance, which was intended to acquaint NATO officials and member states with Ukraine’s opportunities in this sphere.

    “It’s in our common interest to continue this information exchange, especially at subsequent stages,” when NATO clarifies its missile shield plans, Dolgov said.

    NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that the European missile defense system would become fully operational by 2018. The statement came as Spain announced its decision to contribute to the project by allowing four U.S. warships equipped with Aegis interceptor missiles to be deployed at the U.S. naval base in the southern port of Rota by 2013.

    Besides Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands and Turkey have agreed to host key components of the future missile defense network in their territories. Rasmussen said he would not be surprised if there will be "further announcements in the comings weeks and months as regards new inputs from other countries."

    Russia strongly opposes the deployment of NATO missiles near its borders. The Russian Foreign Ministry warned on Tuesday that by refusing to provide legal guarantees that its missile shield would not be directed at Russia, NATO could miss the chance to “turn anti-missile defense from an area of confrontation into an area of cooperation.”

    http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20111006/167449648.html

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:05 pm