NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

Clinton Says US Considers 'Defense Umbrella' to Deter a Nuclear Iran
By David Gollust
Phuket, Thailand
22 July 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday the United States may offer a "defense umbrella" for U.S. allies in the Gulf, to deter Iran if it acquires nuclear weapons. Clinton, in Thailand for a regional dialogue with ASEAN foreign ministers, also says the United States is concerned about possible North Korean nuclear aid for Burma.

Clinton says the United States has not given up hope that Iran can still be persuaded by world powers to scrap a uranium enrichment project the United States and European allies believe is weapons related.

But she says, if the negotiating track fails and Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capacity, the United States will respond with "crippling" actions and is prepared to offer regional allies a "defense umbrella" to prevent Iranian intimidation.

Appearing on Thai television, the secretary's comments were some of the most pointed by any American official, thus far, about what Washington would do if Iran does acquire nuclear arms.

She says there is still a lot of opportunity for Iran to be dissuaded from its apparent course, through negotiations with the permanent U.N. Security Council member countries and Germany (P5 +1), who have offered Iran incentives to curb its nuclear activities.

If such efforts fail, Clinton says the United States will take action that would limit a nuclear Iran's ability to bully its neighbors.

"We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment that, if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," she said.

Clinton says the negotiating track remains open but says the P5 +1 powers are "not going to keep the window open forever."

Officials traveling with Clinton in Thailand say her remarks on a defense umbrella reflect no change in American policy and that the United States has long been concerned that a nuclear Iran might spark an arms among worried neighbors.

In the Thai TV appearance, Clinton also gave direct voice to comments made earlier in Bangkok by senior members of her entourage that the United States is concerned about reports North Korea may be providing nuclear assistance to Burma.

She says she intends to discuss those concerns with Burma's neighbors at the ASEAN meeting, with the hope that there can be a unity in the region against Burmese cooperation with Pyongyang, which she says Washington is not sure has actually occurred.

"We want to try to focus attention by countries that have a direct relationship, or share have a border [with Burma], as Thailand does, to that there can be a united front against that happening," said Clinton. "I'm not saying that it is happening, but we want to be prepared to try to stand against it."

The senior officials in Clinton's party said North Korea has exported every major nuclear technology it has acquired, thus far. They said Burma may have been the intended destination of North Korean freighter that recently was being monitored at sea, but returned to port without delivering its cargo.

Clinton is holding separate meetings in Phuket with the foreign ministers of the other parties to the stalled Chinese-sponsored nuclear negotiations with Pyongyang.

North Korea has sent an envoy to the ASEAN regional forum. Clinton will not meet with the North Korean, but American officials do not rule out interaction with him by other members of the secretary's team.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2009/iran-090722-voa01.htm

I thought they already had a defence umbrella with all the military cooperation pacts they share.

US is considering deploying missile defense elements in Israel, Turkey or the Balkans
28/08/2009

LONDON, August 27. (ITAR-TASS). United States abandon plans to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic the elements of its missile defense system (NMD). Told Riki Ellison, head of the Alliance in support of missile defense "- the largest lobbying group for the implementation of the U.S. military program.

According to him, now, the administration of President Barack Obama "changed its mind" to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech territory, and now "looks closely at these purposes" to Israel, Turkey and the Balkans. Another alternative, which is now being discussed - the replacement of ground-based missile defense at sea.

Guide Pentagon has received a clear signal - the current administration of the White House is looking for another solution to the issue of missile defense, rather than placing its facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic ", - said Ellison. He noted that the new U.S. leadership "more listens carefully to the arguments of Russia."

Neighborhood Obama believes that with the assistance of Russia "can be more easily solve many international problems," said lobbyist. As a result, a number of Democrats willing to sacrifice much to achieve a new agreement with Russia on reducing nuclear arsenals, said Ellison.

Alliance in support of missile defense "brings together about 10 thousand activists, many of which relate to the military community. The purpose of this public organization is to persuade public opinion in the U.S. and EU countries to support its plans to build facilities in Eastern Europe, the new U.S. missile defense system.

Права на данный материал принадлежат ИТАР-ТАСС

Obama Unveils New Approach to Missile Defense Program


By VOA News
17 September 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama has unveiled a new approach for a missile defense system in Europe, while ending previous plans for deploying a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

In his announcement at the White House Thursday, Mr. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the defense of the United States and its allies against a missile threat from Iran. He said the change follows a new assessment of Iran's missile program.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the system will involve sensors and interceptors in northern and southern Europe as well as missiles on ships. He said the United States is in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic on hosting the interceptors.

Gates said Iranian long-range missile technology is not as immediate a threat as U.S. officials previously thought. But he said the system will allow expanded capability if needed.

In his comments at the White House, Mr. Obama again stressed that Russian concerns about the U.S. missile defense plans are unfounded. Russia strongly objected to the deployment of the missile shield in eastern Europe, calling it a threat to its security.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2009/space-090917-voa01.htm

Gates knew damned well Iranian missiles were no threat when he worked under the last administration. Bush was just trying to test our patience and now, he lost. Russia wins again 2:0.

If they really want an effective weapon they should station that Airbourne Lazer in Iraq. It might cost more to keep it aloft, but you get far less political pressure.

Russia sees no justification for Poland hosting U.S. missiles

RIA Novosti

16:1428/05/2010 MOSCOW, May 28 (RIA Novosti) - Russia can find no reason that would justify the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles near the Polish-Russian border, a deputy Russian foreign minister said on Friday.

"We do not hide our reaction. We consider that there are no reasons - neither military nor political - that could justify the deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, particularly next to the Russian border," Alexander Grushko said at a news conference hosted by RIA Novosti.

The United States opened on Monday a temporary military base near the northern Polish town of Morag, 80 km (50 miles) from the Russian border, in accordance with an agreement negotiated under former President George Bush in 2008.

The U.S. troops will be deployed at the base to train Polish forces until 2012, when the base is expected to become permanent. The move has brought a strong reaction from Moscow, which is particularly displeased by its proximity to Russia's Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

Russia has suggested the base be moved away from the borders, and the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that the deployment did not enhance regional security and cooperation.

Grushko said if the deployment becomes permanent, it will violate the founding act on mutual relations, cooperation and security, signed between NATO and Russia in 1997.

"We will be following this closely and at the same time work with our NATO partners to seek the explanation of this commitment and fix the parameters of specific armed forces in the legally binding agreements between Russia and NATO," Grushko said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that Moscow expected an explanation on the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles. "We have, so far, been told only one thing: do not worry, this is not aimed against you," Lavrov said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/space-100528-rianovosti01.htm

Russian Patriot wrote:
The United States opened on Monday a temporary military base near the northern Polish town of Morag, 80 km (50 miles) from the Russian border

Anybody have any idea what potential target these batteries are supposed to defend over there?

No targets, it is just a reason to put US troops in the country so they can earn some US dollars through the US having a base there.
Having all the radars for the Patriot system might have been useful 30 years ago, but these days NATO has all sorts of radars stationed around Russian borders looking in, particularly in the former baltic republics, so a few extra wont matter that much.

well, then I guess that the only potential targets in that region will be the Patriot batteries themselves

Exactly.

There is no real military threat, this is all politics, which of course means common sense has nothing to do with decisions.

For the politicians, for the american ones it looks like they are standing up to Russia, and that they are backing their European allies and it reaffirms that Iran is a world threat even though they appear to just want to be left alone.
For the Polish politicians having US forces in Poland means they are no longer under the Russian thumb and that they can do what they want.
It also means easy votes... look at us, we are spending a lot of money to keep our citizens safe. Hope no one notices that we are actually putting them in more danger simply because an ABM shield in europe will make Iran think of new ways to "defend themselves".

Personally I have thought that the US campaign against Iran is because they don't want any country in that region except Israel to have the kind of satellite intell they have of other countries in the region and that they are treating Irans rocket program as an ICBM program to strike the US when in fact it is rather more likely aimed at Israel and getting independant access to space.

When Iran is doing things itself it is being untrustworthy, which is suspicious, but when India wants to lease a Russian nuclear powered sub so it can learn lessons to develop its own nuclear powered sub people are less suspicious of India.

India is lucky it has no large oil reserves I guess.

I would trust Iran more with nuclear weapons than I trust Pakistan to be honest.

I think the best solution for the middle east is either for everyone to have nukes or for no one to have nukes, and neither of those are likely.

GarryB wrote:For the Polish politicians having US forces in Poland means they are no longer under the Russian thumb and that they can do what they want.

What is pathetic, of course, is that the Poles are now under the thumb of the USA. The Soviet thumb, at least, was imposed upon them by the might of the Soviet Army, whereas they *volunteered* to go under US' thumb. Now they do what Uncle Sam wants: host their missiles and torture centers. Pathetic...

Yes, the irony is that they don't object to being someones b!tch, it seems they just want a choice as to whose b!tch they will be.

Perhaps if communism had been more successful and provided them with a comfortable lifestyle they didn't have to work to hard to achieve they would have preferred that.

The huge irony is of course that the huge oppression they blame Russia for, when you talk to them and ask them about it turns out most of it was Stalin, which is of course ironic because Stalin was Georgian and treated Russian people the same as he treated the other Soviet people... like a means to an end.

What you don't see much is there are refuelling trucks the Russians use that are built to look a lot like their missile trucks so it is not just a case of finding a needle in a haystack, it is finding a needle in a haystack that also has fake needles in it too.
Regarding the original topic I think Russia simply doesn't trust the US, and why would they?
The US has said many things since the end of the Cold War, including stuff like NATO will not expand, and then NATO will not expand into the former Soviet republics and then US troops will not be stationed in former Eastern European nations etc etc. There were lots of other promises, like if you drop communism you will be welcomed into the international community.
All were verbal promises and most were broken.
Now they claim Iran is a threat to the US (note these GBI missiles they wanted to put in Poland are mid course interceptors and intercept targets thousands of kms up in space and would only be useful against ICBMs about half way to their target, so they would only be useful against Iranian missiles heading for the US and offer no protection for Europe... which is why they didn't consult NATO or the EU) but they will only put 10 interceptors in Poland.
Well in 5 years that might change to 50 interceptors and there would not be much Russia could do about it.
Once they start construction they could build as many launch silos as they liked and there is no verification requirements or legal limitations on numbers.
It would come down to cost and political will.
Of course a defence shield to stop nuclear weapons raining down on US voters is easy to sell, and any complaints from Russia sound like sour grapes because they cant afford such an expensive system.
It is some times called the thin edge of the wedge.
The reality is of course that ABM systems effect your nuclear strike capability. Russian nuclear weapons are not just going to be fired at the US, they will have some aimed at Europe and China and Japan etc too.
Those aimed at Europe could be engaged from Poland... remember these are mid flight interceptors so they don't intercept warheads they are supposed to get the whole warhead bus with all the warheads still in it.
A Russian launch of and SS-18 at Europe will fly a very high path but if a GBI can hit it mid course on its way to say British military bases a single GBI can take out all the 10 warheads and probably about 30 decoys that would be on board that warhead bus.
Indeed Europe might simply be covered by just 10 x SS-18s with 100 warheads. This is of course a worst case scenario, though the RS-24 is supposed to be equipped with 10 warheads too.
So Russia protested, as is Russias right to do and I think it is better for everyone that they did.
Americans love technology... imagine the danger to the world if an American president believed his underlings that told him he had an ICBM shield and could do as he wishes.
He might even start a war thinking he was safe from return fire but any air defence can be bypassed... any country in the world can build a small plane, put an autopilot on it and (the hard bit) a nuclear device and fire it off in the direction of a whole country. In this case what the Americans claim is only a defensive system (why are you so worked up about it?) becomes a shield to hide behind and attack from. In other words it makes the attack more likely rather than less likely. It makes nuclear war more likely because those behind the shield FEEL safe even if they actually are not. It ruins MAD, which works because there is no requirement for trust for MAD to work. Anything else requires trust.
You might have heard of the member of the Club family that can be launched from a shipping container... how much modification would be needed to redesign it so that it will sink to the sea bottom when the container falls of the ship and after a set delay time of a week or month launch a small subsonic stealthy cruise missile with a small nuclear warhead. There are probably currently hundreds of thousands of shipping crates in the open ocean that have fallen of container ships just floating around till either they are recovered or hit by something or just sink.

Ah well, at least this means more fundings for the Iskander!

Not only more funds for Iskander.

A sea based missile defence means that it can with enough warning sail to anywhere in the world... the most mobile of ABM systems. If there was a real threat to the US these vessels could be position around the US and the country that is the threat at the time like North Korea for example.

If the next START agreement goes to 800 weapons each and then the next to 400... well with the proliferation of ABM systems I rather doubt anything below 1,500 will be contemplated by the Russians till they can get their conventional forces up to the standard they want.

Russia, NATO Remain at Odds Over Missile Shield

Russian and NATO military officials failed to make headway in a meeting yesterday in resolving their differing views on the establishment of a joint European missile shield, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 25).
While the alliance has called for two separate but coordinated entities that would exchange data on missile threats, Moscow favors a combined "sectoral" program in which each side would have responsibility for eliminating incoming missiles in a specific physical area.
Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin told journalists that NATO's aspirations for the missile defense system "could not be called cooperation. It's not even a marriage of convenience. It's like living separately in different apartments."
In November, Moscow and NATO agreed to jointly explore areas for possible antimissile collaboration. An assessment report on the matter is due out by June. Long suspicious of NATO missile defense plans, Moscow has warned it would withdraw from the effort if it feels it is not being treated fairly by the alliance.
NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen last week promoted the alliance's vision for the missile shield which would ensure neither side is placing their security in the other's hands. He said the two military heavyweights could look to build on "potential synergies."
"The vision of the alliance is for two independent but coordinated systems working back to back," Rasmussen said (Laurent Thomet, Agence France-Presse I/Google News, Jan. 26).
"We don't really get what the Russians really want," a NATO official said to AFP. "I find it surprising they think we want one system. It's too big a jump" (Laurent Thomet, Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Jan. 26).
Russian General Staff chief Gen. Nikolai Makarov yesterday called for Russian specialists to be intimately involved over the long-term in establishing the missile shield, RIA Novosti reported.
The continent-wide system is intended to respond to potential short- and medium-range missile attacks from the Middle East.
"The main condition for joint work (in the area of missile defense) should be permanent participation of Russian experts in drafting the European missile defense architecture," Makarov said at the Russia-NATO Council meeting (RIA Novosti, Jan. 27).
Elsewhere, Russian space forces commander Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko today said two new radar stations are being built for eventual use in the country's missile strike alert web, Interfax reported (see GSN, Jan. 26).
"The construction of radars proceeds according to schedule. A radar in Kaliningrad region is already functioning , although its construction is still under way," Ostapenko said. "Yet another radar station is being

How can they not understand, that this shield is made to work against Russia ?

Exactly... who in their right mind would make agreements regarding how many guns you can have and how many bullets you can have in each magazine when there is no restriction on body armour or helmets.

Strategic ABM and Strategic defence both have Strategic in them... this is a Strategic Arms treaty.

Russia could simply make thousands and thousands of large heavy missiles with nuclear warheads and call them ABMs and use them as IRBMs if they really wanted to and there is no treaty or agreement that would allow the US to inspect them to verify they are not simply IRBMs because there is no treaty that covers ABMs.

Of course if rumours are true that the S-500 will be a 600km range 250km+ altitude ABM system that can be attached to a S-400 or S-300 battery then I think the US might want ABM systems limitations included too as a naval version of the system would be very powerful and a threat to low flying recon satellites world wide.

Exactly... who in their right mind would make agreements regarding how many guns you can have and how many bullets you can have in each magazine when there is no restriction on body armour or helmets.

Can't be said much better

GarryB wrote:Exactly... who in their right mind would make agreements regarding how many guns you can have and how many bullets you can have in each magazine when there is no restriction on body armour or helmets.

Well said with a good sense of humour

WikiLeaks cables: planned US missile shield blind to nuclear weapons

An X-Band radar would always work on LOS principle ,so it can be good to track space object or missile in post boost phase but not good to look deep inside Russia to provide tracking data for intercept from boost phase ,by the time it does the interceptor will be too late to intercept the ICBM.

The OTH Meter Band radar that can bend and look deep will not provide missile quality track data but only a tripwire function of possible missile launch ,considering Russia enjoys a land mass depth thats very hard to beat , any ways a big OTH meter band on Poland border would make its intention obvious and US cannot then claim it being built to track Iran missile.

NATO already has lots of radars looking into Russian airspace, the baltic countries have some fairly large very long range NATO radars to "protect their airspace" that can look deep into Russia, and of course they have a fully constellation of satellites for early warning and preliminary trajectory information.

The new Start treaty has a clause that pretty much states that the Russians can withdraw from the treaty if it feels that US ABM systems undermine the deterrence of Russias nuclear arsenal.

I very much suspect a likely Russian move would be a mirror of the US move to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and will likely involve a withdrawl from the INF treaty with the Russians developing a range of missiles to point specifically at Europe and China and Japan so that their strategic missiles will not be vulnerable to a European based ABM system because they will all be aimed over the north pole.

The US will complain that the INF treaty is needed for this that and several other reasons, like the Russians said the ABM treaty was a basis for the SALT and START treaties.

In such a situation either the US and NATO will decide it makes sense to cooperate with Russia properly or intermediate range BMs will return.

GarryB wrote:NATO already has lots of radars looking into Russian airspace, the baltic countries have some fairly large very long range NATO radars to "protect their airspace" that can look deep into Russia, and of course they have a fully constellation of satellites for early warning and preliminary trajectory information

They do but these are Early Warning radar , they provides the tripwire functionality and general information on Missile launch , they do not provide missile quality track data from launch.

So even if they detect the launch and then wait for ICBM to ascend do that the X band radar can provide track quality data and compute for launch intercept , it will be too late and most ICBM launched from Russia will have moved on.

Russia enjoys unparalleled land mass advantage and they can deploy their missile any where in their territory even the mobile ones as per New Start , so any NATO ABM can do not much in case of full scale nuclear attack.

I very much suspect a likely Russian move would be a mirror of the US move to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and will likely involve a withdrawl from the INF treaty with the Russians developing a range of missiles to point specifically at Europe and China and Japan so that their strategic missiles will not be vulnerable to a European based ABM system because they will all be aimed over the north pole.

It will depend on how NATO cooperates with Russia on Europe Missile defence , Russia has sent a clear message that not involving Russia in Europe missile defence will be certain retaliation from Russia , since it would be seen as an extension of US ABM aimed at Russia.

The Russians aren't worried that the US will base an ABM system that will wipe out their entire ICBM fleet at launch.

The Russians know that ABM systems are completely unregulated so when one pops up in Europe... but it is OK because they are spending trillions of dollars to stop ICBMs that Iran doesn't have... that Japan will think they will need a similar system to protect them from NK missiles and then another system pops up in Japan and of course all the money spent on these systems will develop new technologies that can be built in the US too. All of a sudden there are three ABM systems all around Russia... by then it will be too late to object.

The simple matter of reality is that START is an agreement between Russia and the US that does not include NATO or China or Japan or South Korea etc etc. The US has the conventional forces to deal with any real threat to the US but Russia does not actually currently have that luxury.

The result is that an attack on the US would require an attack on Europe... particularly France and the UKs nuclear weapons and most likely the US bases in Europe... especially those with tactical nuclear weapons.

An ABM system in Europe that is designed to stop Iranian missiles that don't exist can certainly be used to stop the 5-10 missiles directed at US assets in Europe. It wont be intercepting them on their way over the North Pole headed for the US, it will intercept them over Poland and the Ukraine and Eastern Europe on their way to the UK and France.

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.