Thread: UK not part of anti-missile defence plans

Originally Posted by Ray

Highseas,

Can you not give abbreviations?

Sheesh, that's a little hard to do, Ray. I'm happy to clarify when asked, but this is the Internet, lol.

PMRF- Pacific Missile Range Facility (Kekaha, Hawaii)
GBI- Ground Based Interceptor
VAFB- Vandenberg Air Force Base
THAAD- Theater High Altiture Air Defense
LOL- Laughing Out Loud

Originally Posted by MarquezRazor

So I guess for practical purposes chance of US-China military confrontation doesnt exist in near future?

As long as they don't go storming the beaches of Taiwan, I would say that's a pretty safe bet...

Originally Posted by MarquezRazor

Russian ABMs can intercept aircrafts.Even PAC-3 can intercept aircrafts.

But what characteristics do the Russian ABMs have? They might be able to intercept bomber formations, but I doubt they are equipped to intercept low to medium altitude fighter/bomers. Russian ABMs are usually there to intercept ICBMs using nuclear warheads. At least the ones based around Moscow were.

PAC-3 is a SAM with capability to intercept incoming ballistic missiles, and probably not ICBMs. PAC-3 is not an ABM that also intercepts aircraft. That's my understanding.

German push for US missile talks

Germany says the US should include its Nato allies in discussions on the possible deployment of a missile defence shield in Europe.

The German Defence Minister, Franz Josef Jung, said "we should discuss developing such a defence measure within a Nato framework".

The US is negotiating with Poland and the Czech Republic over the deployment of a radar and 10 missile interceptors.

Russia has condemned the US plan and says it is developing new missiles.

Mr Jung said Russia's concerns should be addressed at an existing forum, the Nato-Russia Council. He was speaking on Friday after an EU defence ministers' meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany.

Caucasus plan

The head of the US Missile Defence Agency, Lt Gen Henry Obering, said in Brussels that a US "forward deployable radar" might also be set up in the Caucasus as part of the defence shield.

Russia reacted coolly to his comments.

"Let them deploy it. It is their problem. We have everything we need to respond to all these deployments in a commensurate way," Russian air force commander Vladimir Mikhaylov told Rossiya TV.

Moscow has warned Poland and the Czech Republic that they risk being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host the US defence system.

The US says it wants the shield as protection against missiles that might be fired one day by a "rogue" state such as North Korea or Iran.

The Czech and Polish governments have given their approval in principle to the deployment on their territories of the defence system.

But the political situation, especially in the Czech Republic, is very delicate, as Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek has no majority in parliament and on Friday a poll showed that three-fifths of Czechs were opposed to having the US shield on their territory.
BBC NEWS | Europe | German push for US missile talks

The rationale for missile shield indeed appears to be very shady!

If it is to shield Europe from a rogue missile from Iran, it obviously should be organised after consultation with the Europeans, and that too an important European country as Germany.

If Germany has not been consulted, it is natural to believe others have not been consulted except for the countries where the infrastructure is to be set up. And even there, one would not be surprised if these countries have been merely informed, forget about consultation!

One may claim that UK is in the loop, but Blair is said to be a poodle and so it is nothing extraordinary.

Indeed, it is mysterious that Europe is not consulted for any action that is aimed to save Europe!

Could it be that the US is more concerned about Europe's safety than the Europeans themselves?

Originally Posted by Ray

Could it be that the US is more concerned about Europe's safety than the Europeans themselves?

Europeans tend to believe there is no such thing as an undeterrable State. Therefore, as long as they posess the deterrent, they are safe (ironic that for the past 50 years, the deterrent has mostly consisted of the US).

The US doesn't believe in the power of deterrence against certain players, so we place more emphasis on defense directed to the percieved threat.

If Germany doesn't want to be defended by the US ABM system, that is her prerogative. But I don't see why Poland or the UK should suffer for it.

And it's not like this is something out of the blue- we've been openly planning this for the last 2 or 3 years, and everyone has been consulted, including Russia.

Originally Posted by highsea

As long as they don't go storming the beaches of Taiwan, I would say that's a pretty safe bet...

Taiwan could very well be the "testing ground" to see the reaction of the US. China has been threatening to take back Taiwan in the last few years. Dont put any money on this safe bet

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Dont put any money on this safe bet

Dave- What issue other than Taiwan do you think will cause the US and China will come to a military confrontation?

The true picture of the ABM shield unfolds.

Nato chief warns of split over US missiles

By Daniel Dombey in Brussels

Published: March 11 2007 22:19 | Last updated: March 11 2007 22:19

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary general, has warned that the alliance risks being split between countries that would be covered by the US’s proposed missile defence programme and other member states left exposed to missile threats from Iran.

Nato officials say the US programme would protect almost all of Europe, but not the southeast, which would need an extra, shorter range system because of the closeness to Iran.

“When it comes to missile defence, there shouldn’t be an A-league and a B-league within Nato,” Mr de Hoop Scheffer said in an interview with the Financial Times. “For me it is indivisibility of security that is the guiding principle.”

The Nato chief’s comments open a new front in the debate about the US’s plans for missile defence, which has been dominated by Russia’s objections to the Bush administration’s request to install bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Several western European countries have expressed reservations, given that the scheme may antagonise Moscow. Last week, Jacques Chirac, French president, declared that the US initiative risked returning Europe to the tensions of the Cold War.

But Nato officials argue that Washington will proceed with its plans and that although the system is designed to protect the US, many western and central European countries would benefit.

The officials say it would be both feasible and affordable to extend the protection to countries otherwise exposed – such as Turkey, Greece and Italy – by the beginning of the next decade.

Mr de Hoop Scheffer suggested that the US programme could be complemented by existing Nato plans to put a battlefield missile defence system into operation by 2010. “We are already moving forward with developing systems to protect deployed forces, rather than population centres and territories,” he said. “There could be at a later stage a relationship between the two systems.”

Many western European leaders have been sceptical of the cost-effectiveness of the US system. It is designed to shoot down a small number of missiles and would be overwhelmed by a large scale strike. The system, which costs more than $10bn a year, has had an uneven test record.

A 10,000-page study by Nato last year concluded that it would be feasible to establish a Europe-wide missile defence system based on the US plan. The study put the cost at less than $10bn without taking into account the Polish and Czech bases.

Nato officials say the bases will cut costs further, since the Polish interceptors and Czech radar will cover almost all of Europe. Southeastern Europe could be protected by Patriot missiles and Aegis ship-born radar.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

FT.com / World - Nato chief warns of split over US missiles

Back to the Cold War!

What started for protection of Europe from Iran will slowly turn into a Russia - US powerplay and Europe will experience missile proliferation!

The non armed jockeying will now turn armed jockeying!

Peace was too much of a luxury to imbibe!