NATO summit brings BMD details into focus

NATO summit brings BMD details into focus

Europe has “interim operational capability” on its American missile defense shield, alliance leaders agreed on Sunday. They also answered some — but not all — of the pressing questions about how it might actually work in practice.

The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, said in Chicago that the Euro-shield won’t reach “initial operational capability” until 2015, but for now, American Aegis warships and an alliance radar station in Turkey will do the job if there’s a crisis.

Daalder also described how the alliance may have solved one of the trickiest problems with the Euro-shield: Command and control. In the early days, it wasn’t clear how NATO, the world champion of bureaucratic ossification, would handle a mission that can require decisions and orders in less than a second. This weekend, NATO’s heads of state agreed that giving a launch order would not require a plenary session; instead, that job will fall to one of its top commanders.


Said Daalder:

We agreed to a set of command and control procedures for ballistic missile defense. We designated the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, Adm. Jim Stavridis, as the commander for the ballistic defense mission. We have tested and validated the command and control capability by all 28 allies. We have agreements with four countries — Spain, Turkey, Romania, Poland — to host U.S. missile defense assets. Allies themselves have committed to invest over $1 billion in command and control and communications infrastructure needed to support the NATO ballistic missile defense system. And the president has directed the transfer of the operational control of the radar in Turkey to NATO. U.S. missile defense ships are already in the Mediterranean and they are able to operate under NATO command — under NATO operational control when necessary in a crisis.

Those last words are important: We’ve heard American officials say before that the U.S. warships that will provide missile defense for Europe will keep their multi-mission capability, so they won’t just have to sail in figure-8s with their radars running. As Daalder has phrased it, “when necessary in a crisis,” it sounds like the four Aegis destroyers that will be based in Rota, Spain will spend most of their time doing other missions, and only handle missile defense occasionally.

That’s until the Aegis Ashore stations are up and running on the Continent, but in the meantime, the Navy — to its initial surprise and subsequent delight — will be doing the heavy lifting. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert has welcomed the chance to put four DDGs in Rota; it’s one of the points on his go-to PowerPoint slide about the Navy’s “bases” and “places.” Navy, Pentagon and White House officials weren’t always so open and cheerful about the BMD mission; in the early days, they wouldn’t even specify that it was being build to defend against an Iranian threat.

But here’s what Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said on Sunday:

With respect to Iran, when we took office we took a hard look at our missile defense planning and we redesigned a missile defense system that we felt was focused on a careful threat assessment. And it was our assessment that the greatest ballistic missile defense — or ballistic missile threat to the Alliance and to the United States and our interests was from Iran, for instance. And so we have designed a system that will be focused on threats emanating from that part of the region and particularly from Iran. And that is a system that, of course, is going to continue to come online.

OK — and just how much of Europe does this “interim” phase of the shield cover? Explained Daalder:

Right now, it is a part of southern Europe that will be able to be covered. After — we right now have only ship deployed that is possibly dedicated to NATO. We have the radar in southeast — in Turkey. As over time, as more ships come online — and by 2014 we should have about four ships into the Mediterranean — that footprint for the defense will extend to larger and larger parts.

IOC relates to the command-and-control capability of the NATO system. By 2015, we have said we will deploy land-based Aegis SM-3 interceptors in Romania in 2018; by 2018 in Poland. As you deploy more capability, interceptor capability and more ships with radars, the ability to protect more and more of Europe will increase with the threat moving from short– to medium-range missiles today to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and in phase four of our system to intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020.

He declined to identify the specific countries covered by BMD today (“that’s an operational decision we won’t go into,” he said) but Daalder did say that because the system is “mobile,” it can move in response to the threat.

Join the Conversation

The Europeans need to start funding their own defense, including BMD.

Aster Block 2.

The Europeans dont want the BMD but they relise that America behaves like petulant teenagers when they are told the truth. So they have to pretend some half assed ship based BMD is the way to go.

Of course the major news at the NATO summit wasn’t about BMD which was a minor detail it was the europeans walking away from the Afghanistan disaster and the massive reduction in Afghan forces that is going to result. The afghan army will have to be cut by 30% simply because there isnt enough money.

Its unlikely that NATO will ever get involved in another American adventure given the size of the route that is looming in Afghanistan. Amougst the foriegn press the bets are in on who will capture the iconic picture of the war — a V22 crashed and burning on the roof of the US embassy. The lucky photographer of that one will make a fortune.

Europeans are doing what they do best. Cutting and running at any sign of difficulty. I am not surprised that France is running as early as possible when led by a socialist who has the mindset that everyone owes him something and he doesn’t have to do anything to earn it. Some of our “real” European allies are still hanging in there. The issue wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the media is showing it to be if Obama would have stuck with his generals advice on the surge. Now the media is playing it up to attract more readers and slowly helping to make it worse. The Europeans DO want BMD but when someone like Russia pounds their chest, the Europeans see that thing called difficulty we know they don’t like and back down. It takes someone with meatb-alls like Poland and Romania to say we can take it and we don’t care what Russia says. I am proud of my German heritage but they get scared too easily. Their Nuclear power backtracking is an example. NATO’s summit was really about budgets and austerity. France is really going to have problems with that now. Anyone ever wonder if Russia acted all interested in the French amphibious ship to make a better environment for the socialist running for President because they could see the budget issues coming to a head?

I am all for the NATO alliance but I agree they use it as an excuse to not fund their military’s well so they can spend it on big government social programs. I think we need to have something for NATO similar to the UN improvement or reform bill.

maybe its time to bring back Mcarthyism to counter your percieved ‘Red’ takeover of Europe. While I accept that most European nations are Unenthusiastic about defence,The Aster missile system will be recieving upgrades to make it Anti-Ballistic and germany has Patriot Missille Systems So for you to say that the USA Is paying to defend Europe as its Governments spend on their ‘Marxist’ provision of basic support to all of their people is unfair.

Rota is the pits, a real cesspool. I feel bad for the troops having to be stationed out of there, I was so glad when they shut it down in the 80’s.

According to the conservative America haters we are just schmucks for paying for BMD. Of course they dont want BMD costs reduced they want to expand it. I guess that makes them bigger losers than the rest of us.

We’re not losing anything by not having NATO or the UN involved. What is NATO without the US anyway?

I hope we stop getting involved in UN adventures. Problems in Syria? Go ahead UN. You couldn’t even handle Libya without US C2 aircraft so good luck. Ooops Obama didn’t want to admit we were involved? Naturally.

The Europeans (except Britain) are unenthusiastic about defense because they haven’t had to defend themselves since 1945.

How mixed up things are we give Europe its BMD defense and spend millions on a faulty system. We build one on US soil and its going to axed from the budget. Be easier to set one of each on US west and est coasts and let Europe fend for itself.

I like the idea of having one on each coast and letting the Europeans fend for themselves.

The problem is that then entire world economy is so interconected that no one can afford to let any major players go down this includes europe.

Are we really providing BMD for Europe or is this the “smoke and mirrors” for the gullible peasants? BMD appears to be forward deployed operational assests that can mitigate or intimidate the “Whackos” in the Middle East that would jeopardize our oil supplies. The justification for locating them to “protect” the “simps” in europe is at best an average cover story. Whatever the reason, keep the “knee in the neck” on those hell bent on disturbing our economy/ peace and tranquility. God Bless Texas

European missile defense is a scam simply because the SM-3s haven’t the range to hit long-range missiles. They reach maybe 130 miles high, whilst missiles from Iran or Russia would arc 300 miles high. G2mil had details on this awhile back.

The primary threat to Europe is short and medium range missiles. The SM-3 is well capable of intercepting these missiles. The only country who could effectively defeat and SM-3 based system

is Russia and Russia is no longer a threat to most of Europe. I am not saying all but most. Iran and most of the Middle Eastern country’s are. (Sorry about the split message. It was an error on my part)

They defended themselves for another 45 years after this during the cold war between the USA and the USSR.

Since 1945 what threat has knocked on the USAs door?

Admiral Jim Stavridis is a great man and an outstanding Commander.

Little thing called the Cuban missile crisis.

Yes but they are determined to go down regardless of what we do. If they want social programs instead of defense then they should reap the benefits thereof.

Fine, then they should figure out how to defend themselves from those threats.

I’m all for leaving Europe out to dry(maybe they’d learn something about priorities) but when you think about it we have little choice. If we don’t play ball with them, they find other people to play ball with. Namely, the Russians and Chinese, and I don’t think anyone wants THEM to have more influence over the world. Not only does this give us politically palatable opportunities for forward deployment, it keeps us as their principle military partner.

If Europe defended itself after ’45 –what the hell was I doing there in the mid 50s and all those who were there before and after me? The French is a part of NATO in an administrative capacity only, they took their combat troops out of the picture when I was in Germany.…The Brits (God bless their little bottoms) have been the only “European ” ally we’ve had since they got run out of France in 1940 and I’m OK with standing by them! I forgot about Germany and the Bundeswher. They got up and running as fast as they could after the end of the occupation. The rest of the Europeans were “defending” themselves, with the “help” of the USSR against us!

Here are some of the door knocks we have answered: Berlin 1947, Greece 1948 Korea 1950—53, Hungarian Revolution, 1956 etc. etc.

It is time for the troops to come home from Europe and Asia it’s been near 70 years and it’s time enough they came home. Besides they could be put to better use in the good old USA!

Yea pathetic isnt it in comparison.

BMD was always just a ploy to keep us in Europe. Since the end of the cold war our influence is slowly withering away. To the point where we cant even put some largely symbolic radars on the ground anymore.

The big advantage of putting them on the wets and east coast of the US is that that they would never be used under any realistic operational situation. Thus they would never have to be operational.

Why isn’t the UN disbanded? The UN is as useless as a fart in a tornado. It is nothing more than a den of muslim thieves.

*required

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 | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.