By I totally agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on his assessment on the changes to the US missile defense shield for Europe:
House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio agreed. “It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world, while taking one of the most important defenses against Iran off the table.”
Anticipating that reaction, Gates said that “those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing. … I believe this new approach provides a better missile defense capability for our forces in Europe, for our European allies and eventually for our homeland than the program I recommended almost three years ago. It is more adapted to the threat we see developing and takes advantage of new technical capabilities available to us today.” [Army Times]
If people bothered to listen to the Defense Secretary yesterday it was quite clear that despite the claims of critics, missile defense in Europe is not being scrapped. I have been hearing over the past 24 hour news cycle that Obama has scrapped missile defense in Europe, which is not true and this is why:
Raytheon’s land-based SM-3 program is the biggest winner from the administration’s decision to change its approach to defending allies against Iranian missiles.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former head of Strategic Command, both cited the system as a key part in why the administration changed its mind during their Thursday morning briefing.
Of course, Gates and Cartwright also made very clear that Iran had played a mighty significant part in changing the American approach. The 2006 intelligence assessment that Iran would fairly soon deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles has been superseded. Today, Cartwright said, the real threat does not come from four or five rogue state ICBMs but from literally hundreds of short- and medium-range missiles capable of striking Israel, Europe and US forces in the region. Hoss Cartwright noted that the Shahab 3 is “developing more rapidly than expected.”
The march of missile defense in Europe will now look like this. In 2011, Patriots will be deployed, and a regular force of two or three SM-3-bearing ships will patrol the North Sea and the Mediterranean, Cartwright said. The next phase, beginning in 2015, will lead to the deployment of SM-3 1Bs, the next iteration of the missile, along with the first deployment of the land-based SM-3. In 2018 the country will send SM-3 2s ashore and at sea. Finally, in 2020, the U.S. will deploy SM-3 2Bs.
In addition to the threat, cost drove the decision calculus, Cartwright said, ticking off these facts: a PAC interceptor costs $3.3 million; a THAAD missile costs $9 million; an SM-3 goes for about $10 million, and upgraded SM-3 will cost $13 million to $15 million; the Ground Based Interceptor previously planned for Europe would have cost $70 million each. [DOD Buzz]
To summarize what is going on here is that a proven system the SM-3 missile which is currently sea based on AEGIS platforms is going to be converted into a land based platform to replace the previously planned installation of ground based interceptors in Poland. The development of land based SM-3 missiles has long been discussed for Israel and now is becoming a reality for Europe.
THAAD X-band radar
Additionally the 360 degree X-band radar that was to be built in the Czech Republic will now no longer be built and instead replaced with a forward based X-band radar. The 360 degree radar would have been very similar to the sea based SBX radar currently stationed in the Pacific and the Russians were very concerned about this radar radiating over their territory.
SBX radar comes into port at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
The forward based X-band radar is a directional radar that is used for the THAAD missile system that also has two lone forward based radars in Japan and Israel to detect missile launches from North Korea and Iran. This radar is reportedly going to be based in the Caucasus region, which most likely means in the nation of Georgia. Since the radar is directional it will be pointed at Iran and not Russia. In addition to the X-band radar and SM-3 land based interceptors the missile shield will be further augmented with battle proven PATRIOT missile batteries and AEGIS SM-3 equipped ships based out of the Mediterranean and North Sea. The fielding of this shield is supposed to be completed by 2015.
So basically the Pentagon is fielding a proven capability to protect Europe from the Iranian missile threat while at the same time eliminating Russian objections while dramatically cutting costs because AEGIS SM-3 missiles costs $60 million dollars less than the GBI’s. This is in actuallity a great idea and one that people seriously concerned with national security should support. Much of the complaints from critics about this issue reminds me of the prior claims about how the Obama administration’s supposed cuts in missile defense exposed the US to a North Korean missile attack which were also not true. So far President Obama’s defense policies I think have been solid, which I expected since he kept Secretary Gates on board to run the Pentagon and this decision is just another example of that.
5:44 am on September 18th, 2009 1
1:22 pm on September 18th, 2009 2
The new system with its forward looking radar, not looking at Russia at all, should make the eastern and western european nations a little uncomfortable, (if not downright angry) while making Russia very happy. Bad call on the part of the President, just for appeasement.
While the US spends $3 billion on "cash for clunkers", $70 mil is a drop in the bucket when it comes to future security of the western world/free world. Everytime a congressman sneezes, $70 million is spent on pork.
While congress appeases its "we just need to love one another" constituants, millions are being put in danger. Not today or this year. Just a matter of time.
9:56 pm on September 18th, 2009 3
James the missile defense is primarily being installed to protect US troop concentrations in Europe from missile attack from Iran. If there was no US troop in Europe you would not see this system be fielded.
10:02 pm on September 18th, 2009 4
Gerry, the Poles and Czechs are upset not so much about not having the radar but because they won't have a fixed US military base in each country thus giving them a defacto US military protection from the Russians.
Also that 70 million is for just one GBI interceptor. The building of the facility and construction of the radar will be billions more that the Pentagon doesn't have. Plus the GBI isn't even operationally proven to work.
Why should US spend a bunch of money to field a system that isn't proven to work against a ICBM threat from Iran that doesn't exist?
The SM-3, THAAD, and PATRIOT systems can shoot down any current threat from Iran and it is more cost effective and flexible because these systems are deployable because they do not require fixed locations.
12:47 am on September 19th, 2009 5
Place me on the "undecided" list.
6:16 pm on September 19th, 2009 6
Gates says, "We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe."
Here's his op-ed in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates…
10:12 pm on September 19th, 2009 7
Good article by Gates and just backs up what I have been saying all along. This is a very pragmatic approach towards missile defense in Europe.
1:50 am on September 20th, 2009 8
You make some good points that I can't argue with, and the recent reciprocal actions taken on the part of Russia no longer to build its Isklanders(?) in response add weight.
On the other hand what naval resources are being made available for this new "shield". ( my guess would be at least 6-8 destroyers, coming/going or being refitted).
Or if they are made available whats to keep them from sailing away in a few years. (we have many commitments around the world) I.e., things heat up in India/ pakistan, ships are realiegned, Iran launches in support of Pakistan (or whatever). No missle defense, ships are on there way to prevent a second or third strike?
Pragmatic? Hmmmm.
7:38 am on September 20th, 2009 9
The Russian missile is called Iskander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskander
US destroyers would have no role in a conflict between India and Pakistan. We really need to reduce our commitments around the world.
10:57 am on September 20th, 2009 10
LOL, Thank you, I'll get the "L" out.
Paki/India may have been a poor example (Taiwan/China may have been better). Its not always the destroyers who are involved but the movement of ships that may cause the destroyers to be required elsewhere. Like moving chess pieces. It was only to show how global pressures may determine if it remains feasible to keep the ships on station.
We are not reducing our commitments around the world, only the military that must meet them.
4:08 pm on September 20th, 2009 11
This is one of those systems that doesn't necessarily need to "work" as it needs to exist and post a threat. Missile defense systems are used like chess pieces to block / limit an opponents options. Its very existence would prevent / limit Iran (or anyone else we point it at) from launching misses.
And because these are not fixed facility defenses, we can always opt to point them at the Russians if they ever get a bit "frisky".
11:34 am on September 21st, 2009 12
Whats the purpose if it doesn't necessarily need to "work" and only needs to exist. This is not the "cold war", these are rouge nations. They do not abide by the rules. War and the launching of missles are about religious zealots, dictators, and out of control terrorists who are more interested in their "cause" than being bluffed into submission. I am not convinced of a here today, gone tommorrow defense. Its a risky position to put Europe in for the sake of appeasing Russia.
12:35 pm on September 21st, 2009 13
I don't see where this has anything to do with appeasing Russia. It is about cost savings, strategic flexibility, and fielding a system that is proven to work.
1:30 pm on September 21st, 2009 14
I reserve the right to respectfully disagree on all three points. Its an issue we are not going to agree on. So it becomes "wait and see". I hope nothing ever happens to prove me right. I hope.
2:36 pm on September 21st, 2009 15
This spake Gates: 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.
5:42 pm on September 21st, 2009 16
Despite what you may think, Iran isn't a rogue state. It's methods are distasteful and disgusting, but its still a sovereign power with its own military / political structure. They aren't living in mud huts planning in the dirt how to "blow up" your house. They may support and use terrorist groups, but hell we did that except we called them another name.
You don't launch missiles at other nations without some assurance of success and some response plan. Having the "possibility" of your plan failing makes it several orders of magnitude harder to execute said plan. This goes double for anything involving nuclear weapons.
I seriously suggest all the arm chair generals read Nuclear Warfare 101/102/103. Their essays outlining how an actual nuclear attack is planned.
And please, save all the terrorist talk to scare little children at night. And organization that possesses the ability to build / operate modern missile systems doesn't qualify as terrorists. Their called countries.
6:50 pm on September 21st, 2009 17
Rogue states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state
Gives two lists:
States formerly considered "Rogue States" by the United States: Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Yogoslavia.
States currently considered "Rogue States" by the United States: Iran, Sudan.
7:52 pm on September 21st, 2009 18
You obviously didn't bother doing that reading I recommended.
And who the US considers "rogue states" is largely a function of political posturing and not actual deliberation.
The recent election fiasco within that country, and the political power struggle underway discredit its supposed status as a "rogue state". As much BS as Iran's been giving the world lately, they haven't actually ~done~ anything notable (in a global sense). Mostly its just publicity that they use to keep their own population under control. Especially since they don't have the closet / hermit like population conditions that NK does.
10:36 am on September 22nd, 2009 19
We're playing symantics with the meaning of "rogue states".
Its been fairly well publicized that the aquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would upset the balance of power in the mid east and possibly drive other nations in the region to aquire there own as well.
Israel has stated it will not allow the developement of nukes in Iran. Regardless, Iran appears to be continuing in its quest to do so.
Rogue state, no? Just a bluff on the part of Iran? Only to keep their population under control? Its the US's fault because we labled them?
I have read the articles posted, and I have read a number of articles to the contrary in the newspaper and on the web.
It remains a "keep your fingers crossed we made the right decision" on the part of the current administration.
I think it is a mistake that recognizes Russias defacto control over their border states. (Russia is going to see it that way). A strategic move that gives Russia what they want, a return to the cold war era. But the current administartion sees it as a "I love you, If you love me, we can be friends if you want to be".
10:38 am on September 22nd, 2009 20
I very seldom accept reading recommendations from blog commenters, but I thought you might get a kick out of that Wikipedia article, and it looks like you did! Quick definition of rogue state: a country smaller than Russia that the US doesn't like.
11:32 am on September 22nd, 2009 21
Gerry I would again suggest you read the essay series Nuclear Warfare 101 / 102 / 103. Its three separate essays written by a former nuclear planner (my quick and dirty job description). The things he lays out and the logic he demonstrates will radically change anyone's opinion of how one goes about conducting a nuclear war.
One of the biggest misconception's is the "mad dictator" scenario. Everyone assumes that some mad dictator will get a nuke and immediately use it or threaten to use it thus causing global chaos. In actuality (as has been demonstrated by China, Pakistan and India) what happens is the crazy irrational mad dictator quickly turns into a sane reasonable dictator the moment they got "red button" so to speak.
This is because of the rational fear of death and annihilation. "…After all its not much fun dictating if one's country is a radioactive trash pile and you're one of the ashes…". The way nuclear weapons work is that their best use is as a deterrent to prevent others from attacking you. Since the aggressive nation would have the very real fear of the conflict escalating until one nation was forces to use nukes to prevent being defeated, thus ensuring ~someones~ society is destroyed. ~NO~ leader takes that chance regardless of their political ideology or method of leadership. Hell even if there was a 0.05% chance of that happening to your country .. would you run that risk?
This is why missile defense systems don't necessarily need to work to be effective. Their greatest effect is that it gives the aggressive enemy pause, it creates the possibility that their crazy attack plan might not work. And if their plan can't work, then there is a chance (however small) that they would be the ones destroyed in the exchange. This would make any leader pause and seriously rethink their strategy. Its the biggest reason nuclear war didn't break out between the US and USSR. Neither side could ensure a victory against the other, so instead we kept planning and rethinking and inventing and spending and building all in an attempt to trump the other and create a plan that would ensure victory.
Seriously… before anymore tinfoil hat "their out to get me damn those terrorists I'm going to hide in my basement" comments please do some actual thinking and as much reading as you can on the subject. Nukes are serious business, world changing society altering events. People who become dictators are not stupid, they had to outsmart and kill off too many rivals to get where they are. They may act like aggressive homicidal maniacs, but inside they are cold calculating sociopaths. Those kinds of people don't want to sign their own death warrant, nor do they wish to ensure the destruction of their palaces and opulent life style. They would much rather keep the status quo and continue playing the fool.
11:52 am on September 22nd, 2009 22
Sincerly hope you are right. Insha'allah.
1:20 pm on September 22nd, 2009 23
I don't need to hope, the US spends lots of money to ensure every possible scenario is analyzed and worked out. I didn't even get into what SSBN's (nuclear subs) do to the picture.
Winning a nuclear war hinges on one side being able to destroy the other side before being destroyed themselves. The idea is to take out your enemy's nuclear assets before they've had a chance to be used, a "first strike" scenario. While "counter strike" scenarios focus on taking out the military / industrial assets to ensure the aggressor doesn't have the ability to finish the conflict while the defender is recovering from the attack.
But if you have a nuclear strike platform that can be hidden (SSBN's) then you have the ability of a "second strike". This means no matter what happens during "first strike", the defender has the ability to launch a counter strike capable of doing serious damage to the enemy. As long as you have subs in the water with nukes, no enemy can effectively take out your nuclear option and thus no enemy can launch without being destroyed in the process.
This is the mentality that national leaders must use when planning confrontations. Its a giant game of chess, where you have to think dozens of steps in advance and that has many players involved in real time. The fictional concept of some red beret wearing dictator general rushing into his command bunker and pressing "the red button" while laughing maniacally is false. It makes for great movie and book sales, but is far outside reality. Even if a dictator did go insane and really "loose it", their own generals / leadership would take them out before they had the ability to actually launch.
Launching a nuke isn't as simple as "pressing a red button". The cores on nuke warheads contain unstable fissionable materials. These materials deteriorate in a short period of time after being created. So you must first install the cores into the warhead prior to launching, and once installed the cores are only good for so long before having to be removed to be rebuilt. Further you have to set target coordinates and determine targeting strategies, else you just get a really good fireworks display. The time lag from decision to execution is long enough to ensure said mad dictator was no longer a dictator.