Page 1 of 1

#1 Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:38 pm
by The Minx
Link
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is overhauling Bush-era plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, based partly on the latest analysis of Iran's offensive capabilities, President Obama said Thursday.

The "new missile defense architecture in Europe ... will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the... program" that former President George W. Bush proposed, Obama said.

Obama said the change of gears was based on an "updated intelligence assessment" about Iran's ability to hit Europe with missiles.

The Islamic republic's "short- and medium-range" missiles pose the most current threat, he said, and "this new ballistic missile defense will best address" that threat.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking from the Pentagon immediately after the president's announcement, denied the United States was "scrapping" missile defense.

"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," said Gates, who was defense chief in the last two years of the Bush administration and stayed on when Obama took office.

The Bush-era proposal called for the U.S. to set up a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland to counter the threat of Iran launching long-range missiles at America's allies in Europe.

American officials from Obama on down insisted Thursday's announcement does not reflect any lesser commitment to European defense.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev welcomed Obama's move with a televised statement of his own from Moscow. Video Watch how Obama's plan may affect U.S.-Russian ties »

"We appreciate the responsible approach of the U.S. president," Medvedev said, characterizing the new American position as "putting into practice" an agreement he made with Obama earlier this year.

"I discussed this issue with the U.S. president during our meetings in London and Moscow. At that time, in our joint statement, we agreed to, and set in stone that Russia and the United States will seek to work together to assess the risks of missile proliferation in the world," he said.

A top expert at the Council on Foreign Relations backed Obama's decision.

"The system that President George W. Bush proposed ... would have deployed interceptor missiles that had yet to be tested under real-world conditions to defend against long-range missiles that Iran had yet to develop," said the council's senior vice president, James Lindsay.

"Meanwhile, the interceptors would have been useless against the short- and medium-range missiles that Iran is rapidly developing," he said in a written statement.

But the change of gears, while making strategic sense, does present Obama with diplomatic problems, Lindsay said.

"Poles and Czechs worry that his decision signals a softening U.S. commitment to their security. Both countries saw the system as a way to tie themselves more closely to the United States and thereby deter an increasingly belligerent Russia," he said.

"Critics will also insist that the Poles and Czechs are right: He axed the Bush program in a foolish and doomed bid to 'reset' relations with Russia," he said. "Here Moscow isn't likely to be of much help to the White House. The Kremlin will claim a diplomatic victory and it won't offer any concessions in return."

The council released a report Thursday that said repeated technological failures had put the Bush missile plan behind schedule and likely over budget, as well.

Obama's Republican adversaries were quick to accuse him of selling out allies to placate Russia.

The "decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican nominee for president.

Obama has been seeking a stronger relationship with Russia and better cooperation from the Kremlin to support tough U.N. economic sanctions against Iran if it continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

Missile defense has been a sore point in relations between Washington and Moscow, with Russia believing the shield would ultimately erode its strategic nuclear deterrent.

But a senior administration official denied a diplomatic motive to scrapping the missile defense program.

"This has nothing to do with Russia," he said. "The notion that we're abandoning missile defense is completely false. It's evolving into a different system."

At the briefing with Gates, the Pentagon's point man on the issue said the new system will have "hundreds" of missile interceptors.

It also will have mobile radars, including some in space, "that can move to wherever the threat actually emanates and wherever we feel we need to defend ourselves," said Gen. James Cartwright, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Cartwright contrasted the new sensor technology with the radar systems envisioned in the old plan, which he called "basically left over from the Cold War."

The new plan includes three types of missiles to shoot down incoming threats -- Patriot missiles, which defend a single location; SM-3 interceptors, which he said could protect "a general area like the area from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C."; and large ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.

Cartwright did not say how much the new plan would cost compared with the old one. But he pointed out that Patriot and SM-3 missiles are significantly cheaper than the interceptors the Bush proposal relied on.

"You do not want to go after large numbers [of missiles] with the very expensive missiles unless it's absolutely essential," he said.

He said the fact that the United States sells Patriot and Aegis systems to other countries reduces the cost to Washington. The SM-3 missiles are part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense systems.

Other countries, he said, are helping to fund the research and development of the systems.

The first phase of the system is due to be in place in 2011, with the subsequent phases rolling out around 2015, 2018 and 2020, he said.

"It's a more advanced system, more cost-effective and efficient," the senior administration official said before the president and Gates spoke.

"The technology has evolved in a way that allows you to deploy a system that is more effective in countering both short-, medium- and long-range missiles," said the official, contrasting the types of missiles that Iran, for example, is believed to have with intercontinental ballistic missiles of the kind feared during the Cold War.

The Bush administration had cited the perceived nuclear threat from Iran as one of the key reasons it wanted to install the missile shield in Eastern Europe.

But a 60-day review mandated by Congress and ordered by Obama recommended the new approach that was unveiled Thursday.

A U.S. delegation held high-level meetings Thursday in Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss the missile defense system. Officials in both countries confirmed the system would be scrapped.

In a statement, Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said that Obama told him in a Wednesday phone call that the United States was shelving its plans. Fischer did not say what reason Obama gave him for reconsidering.

A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.

Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies.
Honestly, I had my doubts as to how effective this defense shield was likely to be against a determined attack - as far as I could see, it was pretty much a bling-based deterrent and psychological security blanket.

I wonder what they'll be giving Poland and the Czech Republic instead of the missile defense shield, they seem pretty upset.

#2

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:07 pm
by General Havoc
I frankly am not sure about this move. The Eastern European countries are some of the most gung-ho about supporting NATO, and have very real fears concerning Russia. They also have something of a history of getting sold down the river by their western "allies" in return for ephemeral guarantees of peace or appeasement.

#3

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:31 pm
by Cynical Cat
General Havoc wrote:I frankly am not sure about this move. The Eastern European countries are some of the most gung-ho about supporting NATO, and have very real fears concerning Russia. They also have something of a history of getting sold down the river by their western "allies" in return for ephemeral guarantees of peace or appeasement.
They also aren't big fans of the missile defence plan because it doesn't really do anything to stop a Russian strike and does get more Russian nukes pointed at them.

#4

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:04 pm
by General Havoc
Cynical Cat wrote:
General Havoc wrote:I frankly am not sure about this move. The Eastern European countries are some of the most gung-ho about supporting NATO, and have very real fears concerning Russia. They also have something of a history of getting sold down the river by their western "allies" in return for ephemeral guarantees of peace or appeasement.
They also aren't big fans of the missile defence plan because it doesn't really do anything to stop a Russian strike and does get more Russian nukes pointed at them.
Um, forgive me Cyncat, but the Eastern Europeans, the Poles in particular, are VERY big fans of the missile defense plan, because it grounds the US strategically into the defense of Poland and Eastern Europe in general against all comers. Bush's decision to go for such a plan was welcomed in Poland and Eastern Europe, and the way I'm reading the news, they're extremely not happy to see it go.

#5

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:08 pm
by Cynical Cat
From the Poles I've talked to the fairly unpopular Polish government is a big fan of missile defence, the average Pole on the street is not. Most of Eastern Europe is already in NATO. They don't need missile defence to drag the west in.

#6

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:17 pm
by frigidmagi
To be fair Cat, I've talked to some Poles who were big fans. There were however a good number of Poles against it, for both good reasons and bad ones.

I don't agree with this move either. The bases as current would not defend against a full scale strike. They're not meant to. MAD is the defense against a full scale strike at the moment. I should point out that the bases once set up could very easily and cheaply be expanded.

That won't happen now though.

#7

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:28 pm
by Cynical Cat
The bases weren't good for much, but they did piss Russia off. Whether or not this is a good or a bad move depends on what Obama can get from Russia, either catching flies with honey or playing carrot and stick.

#8

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:54 pm
by General Havoc
If it makes Russia play ball with Iran, it might be worthwhile, but I'm rather displeased at this being a unilateral move. The republicans aren't completely off their rockers in decrying the taking of this step without getting anything in return.

#9

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:09 pm
by SirNitram
5 iffy interceptors against a non-existant threat vs. a large number of repeatedly tested and proven interceptors against the threat for now and the coming future. The new change makes sense to me.

#10

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:55 pm
by frigidmagi
5 iffy interceptors against a non-existant threat vs. a large number of repeatedly tested and proven interceptors against the threat for now and the coming future.
And where did you get that Nitram? I didn't see anything about replacing them with anything. I sure hope you're not talking about the Patriots missile batteries.
The bases weren't good for much, but they did piss Russia off. Whether or not this is a good or a bad move depends on what Obama can get from Russia, either catching flies with honey or playing carrot and stick.
I deeply doubt we'll get anything out of it. While Obama has shown some good ability in dealing with the Russians (that Afghan supply line deal was pure gold), why should Russia do something now? Honestly I didn't like the way Jr. handled it, he pissed off a good number of a folks that didn't need to be pissed off. But closing the base is going to far in the other way for me.

I'm not even sure if we save any actual cash out of this.

#11

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:06 pm
by SirNitram
frigidmagi wrote:
5 iffy interceptors against a non-existant threat vs. a large number of repeatedly tested and proven interceptors against the threat for now and the coming future.
And where did you get that Nitram? I didn't see anything about replacing them with anything. I sure hope you're not talking about the Patriots missile batteries.
Good lord, no. SM-3 AEGIS mounted anti-ballistic missiles.
The new plan includes three types of missiles to shoot down incoming threats -- Patriot missiles, which defend a single location; SM-3 interceptors, which he said could protect "a general area like the area from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C."; and large ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.
Patriot's are okay-ish for short ranges, but SM-3's are devastating in the range talked about. I'd prefer THAAD than the NMD from the west coast, but SM-3's are a huge relief to me. And I suspect many others.

#12

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:11 pm
by frigidmagi
Good lord, no. SM-3 AEGIS mounted anti-ballistic missiles.
Those are good, I won't deny that. The Patriot missiles works best if you shot something like 5 or 6 missiles for each incoming. Even then it gets iffy at times. From what I understand though, there's not that many platforms for the SM-3 to go around. Last I check we were primary mounting them on the AEGIS cruiser?

Also those radar stations would have been mighty helpful in tracking missile launches from all sorts of places.

#13

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:28 pm
by SirNitram
Primarily on Aegis, but other options exist. The main reason for the Aegis was as a fast means to put anti-ballistics on-site with their own dedicated radar.

The thing is.. We're now looking at alot of missiles, layered, against many threats, as opposed to five anti-ICBMs.

#14

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:20 am
by Norseman
General Havoc wrote:I frankly am not sure about this move. The Eastern European countries are some of the most gung-ho about supporting NATO, and have very real fears concerning Russia. They also have something of a history of getting sold down the river by their western "allies" in return for ephemeral guarantees of peace or appeasement.
Indeed. Moreover the west will give them two things: Jack and Shit. Seriously why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Why give the Poles something when they will bend over for nothing?

#15

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:29 am
by frigidmagi
The thing is.. We're now looking at alot of missiles, layered, against many threats, as opposed to five anti-ICBMs.
Again Nitram you're missing the point. Do you think the Russians were seriously panicking over 5 anti-ICBMs? What the Russians saw was an installation, that while currently small could be easily up-scaled. I know you've spoken with Russians about this at other boards. It's not the anti-missiles, it's the radar's and the command centers that freaked them out. Missiles can be installed or not, radars and command and centers take alot more time, money and equipment.

The suggested idea is pretty good. I would have preferred some forward deployed radars over in Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim Asia and North Africa and the Indian ocean. Even without any anti-missiles attached it would have given us eyes on any possible launches from multiple points. But the new idea is pretty good.

Also given Gates behavior are we really sure this layered defense will ever be set up? The President seems to pretty much defer to whatever Gates wants. That's both good and bad. Unlike the President, Gates has a clear idea of what he wants the armed forces to look like and do (I'm not trying to be insulting here, but defense wise I haven't seen a clear vision or policy from Obama, to be fair he's got alot else to do and limited time to do it in). The bad news is this is a fucking spook's idea of what the military should look like and I don't care for large chunks of that idea. That's a personal issue though.

#16

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:42 pm
by Cynical Cat
On the political front don't forget the missile defence was unpopular in parts of Western Europe and pushing through in Eastern Europe was seen by some as an attempt to fragment the power of the EU. Russia isn't the only place where there are potential political gains from this.