WH lays down Euro missile-defense plan

WH lays down Euro missile-defense plan

The United States scored a big victory this week for its plan to help build Europe’s missile defense shield: Turkey said it has agreed to station a key air defense radar on its territory less than 500 miles from the Iranian border, adding not only a key new part of the sensor net but also sending a signal that it wants to play ball with Europe and the U.S. going forward.

The radar station will irk Iran and it will infuriate Russia, which has been jerking the West around for years about the missile defense shield. It has some good reasons, from its perspective: Russia’s hollow conventional forces don’t play in the big leagues anymore, so it needs to rely on its nuclear deterrent to feel secure, and it worries a European missile shield could spark an “arms race” as Russia builds new weapons or missiles to circumvent it. The American boogeyman also appears to be endlessly useful to Russian politicians, who have gotten great domestic mileage out of rowing back and forth on the missile defense network since the second President Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2001.

President Obama tried to mollify the Russians by changing the direction for the Euro-missile shield, but it didn’t really work. Still, he and Europe are going ahead with it, and the White House reaffirmed its long-term goals for the system on Thursday. Per the official announcement, here is the latest top-level picture for how the missile-defense shield will go into place:

• Phase One (2011 timeframe) will address short– and medium-range ballistic missile threats by deploying current and proven missile defense systems. It calls for the deployment of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)-capable ships equipped with proven SM-3 Block IA interceptors. In March of this year the USS Monterey was the first in a sustained rotation of ships to deploy to the Mediterranean Sea in support of EPAA. Phase One also calls for deploying a land-based early warning radar, which Turkey recently agreed to host as part of the NATO missile defense plan.

• Phase Two (2015 timeframe) will expand our coverage against short– and medium-range threats with the fielding of a land-based SM-3 missile defense interceptor site in Romania and the deployment of a more capable SM-3 interceptor (the Block IB). This week, on September 13, the United States and Romania signed the U.S.-Romanian Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement. Once ratified, it will allow the United States to build, maintain, and operate the land-based BMD site in Romania.

• Phase Three (2018 timeframe) will improve coverage against medium– and intermediate-range missile threats with an additional land-based SM-3 site in Poland and the deployment of a more advanced SM-3 interceptor (the Block IIA). Poland agreed to host the interceptor site in October 2009, and today, with the Polish ratification process complete, this agreement has entered into force.

• Phase Four (2020 timeframe) will enhance our ability to counter medium– and intermediate-range missiles and potential future inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) threats to the United States from the Middle East, through the deployment of the SM-3 Block IIB interceptor. Each phase will include upgrades to the missile defense command and control system.

The White House concludes its statement thus:

Moving forward, the administration will continue to consult closely with Congress and with our NATO allies to implement the vision the president set forth in September 2009.  We will also continue to rigorously evaluate the threat posed by ballistic missiles and the technology that we are developing to counter it.  The United States remains committed to cost-effective and proven missile defenses that provide flexibility to address emerging threats.

This reaffirmation of support for the Euro-missile shield is telling: Despite the obligatory mention of “cost effectiveness,” there is no mention here of the need to wait for DoD’s “comprehensive strategic review,” or concessions to “tough fiscal realities,” or any other code for “we might not do this because of budget cuts.” The Obama administration is locked into European missile defense, which implicitly means that everything is not “on the table,” vis a vis budget reductions — the Navy’s Aegis warships, Lockheed’s radars, Raython’s SM-3 missile family, the work of the Missile Defense Agency? All that has just been quietly taken off the table, because the U.S. needs it to fulfill this commitment.


Join the Conversation

I’m sure Europe is grateful. Great to see the US helping economic competitors and the world’s largest regional economy, the EU, militarily through our ever more dwindling tax base. At least male airmen will have a good time in Poland.

Building ballistic missile defense sites in Poland and Romania, and ballistic missile defense radar sites in Turkey is Really sending the wrong message to the Russians. However, the Russians disregarded the BMD treaty long ago and have deployed missiles and sites of their own. But, in today’s world of missiles being built in North Korea, China and Iran,and that technology being sold to other countries abroad, it seems we need ballistic missile defense sites built here in the USA…not other countries near Russia.


Obama starts cold war arms race 2.0!

Cool — it doesn’t work and pisses off the Russians! Let’s borrow more money from the Chinese to spend on this so that Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing executives can take vacations to St. Petersburg and check out the Hermitage and score some Russian tail, all paid for the US taxpayers and their kids who will have to re-pay the Chinese. Congress is definitely working.…their children will be speaking Chinese.

What he said.

Who is paying for this? The EU? Don’t make me laugh.

This is a world of “proxy actors” and NATO has legitimate inteests (large investments in infrastructure) and trade routes to protect, world-wide. This is a granular, scalable, mobile and modular solution that should progress with all the resources we (all) can muster. Resources are dwindling and populations are exploding, while despots look for scape-goats and distractions from internal problems they are often powerless to address (solve).
At worst, GBMD is source of stimulus, cooperation, and technical advancement. It also makes it very difficult for enemies and competitors to outflank NATO, strategically. I vote YES … DO this now (with frantic fervor) … Put as many Burke hulls in the water as we can (parallel production) and put all (test) failed parts into dummy missiles and decoys. Also develop robust, well defended, networked, Stratospheric LTA, for sensor footprints.

Lots of buzz words you managed to put in there. Do you work for Raytheon?

They never disregarded it actually, the treaty allowed them to be built to guard their capital. We just didn’t bother.

Pretty much a tacit admission we are going to let the Iranians build nuclear missiles I think.

jka is right — yes, it is granular, scalable mobile disaster:

Could be a good deterrent according to the NDU:

In name of europe thank you US for the free umbrella. rofl .…

Id bet on Northrop.… :-)

Of course we MIGHT both be right and he just sits in the PEO! LOL!

I happen to feel that missile defense is a very good investment for us, AND for NATO, but.… it was getting a bit deep.… .… .:-)

True, but… it might be cheaper than a 21st century Marshal Plan to clean up Europe after the Iranians (or whoever else might play) nuke Brussels, Copenhagen or Berlin because of some cartoonist’s foray into political satire. :-) Letting them pay a bit more of the tab might not be a bad idea though.… …

Deterrence only works with predictable, logical and sane enemies. The USSR, for all of its issues, did fill that role pretty good during the old Cold War. With the potential “bad guys” out there today, Id say that any missile defense system must be deployed with the full expectation that it WILL be used and any potential deterrent factor just left on the table.

EU isn’t paying for jack. The EU/NATO nations have a responsibility for theater air/missile defense of their nations, what they are calling “short range” ICBM defense. The USG is solely funding the “long range” ICBM defense of those missiles going over the EU nations.

I must of missed that whole protect the people and property of other richer nations at any cost while we collapse from theoretical threats even though asymmetric threats are
more likely to occur part of the
constitution. The risk matrix also says we have an extremely low probability of an asteroid strike but with catastrophic cost, I hope on behalf of all earth’s combined GDP, that the US spends another trillion for that with another 500 billion for the inevitable cost overruns.

You are reading the same Constitution as I. The fact of the matter is that “not a bad idea” was intended to suggest that while we COULD carry some of the technical load, .… . the EU SHOULD consider paying for what they get. :-)

I was just trying to be nice about it!

plus 200 billion for making the instructions manual availale in 5 different languages.

We bothered. We built out a site around Grand Forks but after 7 months realized it was a waste of time and money. The Russians have continued to spend on maintenance and upgrades.

In the US you guys don’t get one thing. Europe will only grow up to their military responsibilities if the US leaves the bases empty and people start asking who will protecting them .… untill then my father (gen –1) me (gen 1) and my son (gen +1) will always said …don’t worry, the US is there in the corner … they will pay for it.

So, there is no point in having Gates saying that NATO sucks and at same time having the US and the UK undermining all efforts to build up an european common brigade as fast reaction force.
Go ask Clinton and Bush and Cameron how many times did they killed all initiatives for europe to “grow” up to their responsabilities.
cheers on that !

Now is Poland that is pushing again for that, and guess who’s puppet from the US is barking against it!!

If Russia is upset with NATO building a Anti-Missile Defense System. Maybe it should have supported NATO an much of the free world. Who have tried to contain such countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, etc. etc. As a matter of fact everytime the West has tried to contain such countries. It seem Russia (and China) put up a road block via the UN.

At least this massive project cannot be as expensive as Iraq, I guess that’s the new benchmark on how not to blow resources.

I’m putting money that this thing goes way over budget, not to mention forex (this isn’t the 80s, the dollar is not the almighty) difficulties and Polish/Romanian “sole source” government-private industry cooperation-tax.

Totally unnecessary project, If Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, et al feel threatened by Iranian missiles let them build or buy their own defense systems. Not one dollar for foreign military aid to countries that are not broke like us. I’ve never heard of these countries expressing concern over this issue, only american politicans imposing their wishes on soveriegn countries and the American taxpayer. Nobody wants this “so called” solution to a non-problem, other than the usual suspects(Lock-Mart, Boeing, Raytheon) and their bought and paid for political croonies in Washington.

The big fear is that Europe wont step up and waste the money we want to waste.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.