Thread: US 'shelves Europe missile plan'

Originally Posted by Steezy

Oh you're right Iran is hell bent on launching missiles towards Europe prompting a NATO response like no other and a probably destruction of the entire nation for a very long time.

Yeah, that makes complete sense. I guess some people think that any launch into Europe from Iran would mean Iran would instantly win the war and Europe would convert to Islam.

Get real. People have been fed so much bullshit so that they can hate it's almost insane. How could anyone even think that Iran would initiate a war with NATO. It's beggars belief.

I can understand hysterical paranoia about the USSR during the Cold War, and modern day Russia, China. But Iran?

All these words like Rogue States and Axis of Evil, it clouds people with so much hate that their judgement ceases to be relevant and they can't think straight, I guess you can't blame some people for being easily misled, it happens all the time throughout history. Especially if people are being groomed to hate, there's nothing easier, nothing easier in life than grooming people to hate, especially when it comes to foreign entities.

Okay genius,tell me why the Obama administration is spending billions encircling Iran with a system to contain short and medium range missiles when by your summation there is no threat?

What do you know that they don't?

Originally Posted by astralis

pari,



2009 NIE, which is currently classified.

Okay, i'll shut up on the matter

Would an open source report help?

Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Potential, A Joint Threat Assessment by U.S. and Russian Technical Experts

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Would an open source report help?

Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Potential, A Joint Threat Assessment by U.S. and Russian Technical Experts

It was a good read and thank you but doesn't discuss solid-fuel rockets, only liquid ones. The state of the solid fuel systems are the ones at issue.

I suppose most of you already know this response from Moscow.

Russia abandons plans to deploy missiles near Poland

The move comes in response to Obama's decision to scrap proposed missile defense systems based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

20 Sept [LATimes] Moscow - Russia will drop its controversial threat to deploy missiles near Poland in a reaction to shifts in U.S. missile shield plans, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Saturday.

After President Obama decided last week to scrap the U.S. plan for missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, Moscow was widely expected to follow suit and abandon its threat to deploy Iskander missile systems in the far western Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

"Naturally, we will cancel the measures that Russia planned to take in response to the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems," Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio. "Common sense has finally prevailed over ambitions."

Obama's move to scrap plans for the missile facilities, which the Kremlin viewed as a menace, removes a stubborn sticking point from U.S.-Russian relations. The timing suggests it might have been intended to woo Moscow into growing more helpful on the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions. ...

Originally Posted by Parihaka

It was a good read and thank you but doesn't discuss solid-fuel rockets, only liquid ones. The state of the solid fuel systems are the ones at issue.

(Edit: which of course may be the point)

If you want a look at Iran's current solid-fuel capabilities (that they've displayed) take a look at the photo I posted a while back.

The SHAHAB-E was the one that launch the satellite. It stands to reason that this is their only ICBM capable project at this time.

The SEJJIL at 2000kms would classify as an IRBM.

SECDEF gates' new op-ed in the times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/op...agewanted=1&hp

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe

By ROBERT M. GATES
Published: September 19, 2009
Washington

THE future of missile defense in Europe is secure. This reality is contrary to what some critics have alleged about President Obama’s proposed shift in America’s missile-defense plans on the continent — and it is important to understand how and why.

First, to be clear, there is now no strategic missile defense in Europe. In December 2006, just days after becoming secretary of defense, I recommended to President George W. Bush that the United States place 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic. This system was designed to identify and destroy up to about five long-range missiles potentially armed with nuclear warheads fired from the Middle East — the greatest and most likely danger being from Iran. At the time, it was the best plan based on the technology and threat assessment available.

That plan would have put the radar and interceptors in Central Europe by 2015 at the earliest. Delays in the Polish and Czech ratification process extended that schedule by at least two years. Which is to say, under the previous program, there would have been no missile-defense system able to protect against Iranian missiles until at least 2017 — and likely much later.

Last week, President Obama — on my recommendation and with the advice of his national-security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leadership — decided to discard that plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles — weapons that are growing in capability — in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe.

The second phase, which will become operational around 2015, will involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors. This will be a far more effective defense should an enemy fire many missiles simultaneously — the kind of attack most likely to occur as Iran continues to build and deploy numerous short- and medium-range weapons. At the same time, plans to defend virtually all of Europe and enhance the missile defense of the United States will continue on about the same schedule as the earlier plan as we build this system over time, creating an increasingly greater zone of protection.

Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan. The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan. Even so, our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up.

Moreover, a fixed radar site like the one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now plan to use. These systems provide much more accurate data, offer more early warning and tracking options, and have stronger networking capacity — a key factor in any system that relies on partner countries. This system can also better use radars that are already operating across the globe, like updated cold war-era installations, our newer arrays based on high-powered X-band radar, allied systems and possibly even Russian radars.

One criticism of this plan is that we are relying too much on new intelligence holding that Iran is focusing more on short- and medium-range weapons and not progressing on intercontinental missiles. Having spent most of my career at the C.I.A., I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated. As Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a few days ago, we would be surprised if the assessments did not change because “the enemy gets a vote.”

The new approach to European missile defense actually provides us with greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede. For example, the new proposal provides some antimissile capacity very soon — a hedge against Iran’s managing to field missiles much earlier than had been previously predicted. The old plan offered nothing for almost a decade.

Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing. This shift has even been distorted as some sort of concession to Russia, which has fiercely opposed the old plan. Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. Of course, considering Russia’s past hostility toward American missile defense in Europe, if Russia’s leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected — and welcome — change of policy on their part. But in any case the facts are clear: American missile defense on the continent will continue, and not just in Central Europe, the most likely location for future SM-3 sites, but, we hope, in other NATO countries as well.

This proposal is, simply put, a better way forward — as was recognized by Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland when he called it “a chance for strengthening Europe’s security.” It is a very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe — iron-clad proof that the United States believes that the alliance must remain firm.

I am often characterized as “pragmatic.” I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.

I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of new technologies to combat future threats.

The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.

Just to clear something up in my head, how long did it take for the Soviets to get an operational ICBM force after Sputnik?