Obama Ends the Third Site

[BigRob]

This morning, Obama officially ended the proposed third site in Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision was horrible.

Some of the reasons that the President and Sec. of Defense gave was that the medium and short range missiles were more of a threat in the short term. That is correct, Iran does not possess a missile capable of reaching the United States.

However, the site that Obama ended, was solely intended to focus on long range threats. There was no need to eliminate this site to bring in theater system such as AEGIS or THAAD.

The political implications in Poland, the Czech Republic, as well as Russia are great following this decision, and while Gates and Obama tried to leave open the door for ground systems in the future by leaving open consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, it seems highly unlikely that any government in those countries is going to deal with us again without getting major concessions from the United States.

To follow it all, the IAEA released a report stating that Iran is capable today of making a nuclear weapon, so it makes sense to speed up deployment of missile defenses against their capabilities, but again, there was no need to end the third site to accomplish this.

Also, Sec. Gates mentioned that "new intelligence" on the Iranian missile program was behind this decision. Sounds good right? If you listen to his words however, he never mentions that Iran has stopped or is not pursuing ICBM capability. Further, back in May, Iran tested a 2 stage solid fuel missile which was a major development for their missile program. What "new intelligence" could Gates be talking about?

While increasing defenses against short and medium range capabilities is a good thing, there is no good reason that the third site was ended today.

 

[The Scotsman]

It makes sense to re-think it with the deals with Turkey coming up. The siting issue will probably be negociated so that its moved closer to the mid-east - Turkey would be a good option. Siting the stuff in Poland and the czech republic was costly, symbolic nonsense.

I also think that this is based on the on going political shenanighans in A'stan and the ongoing re-supply problems. Anyway I hope Obama gets something for it otherwise all he's done is pissed a bargaining chip up the wall.

 

[asur]

Obama does not know what he's doing and the intelligence the US has is never guaranteed to be right anyhow.

Obama does know that if he can look different than Bush he can improve his
poll numbers.

I'm surprised it took this long for him to end this program!

 

[BigRob]

It makes sense to re-think it with the deals with Turkey coming up. The siting issue will probably be negociated so that its moved closer to the mid-east - Turkey would be a good option. Siting the stuff in Poland and the czech republic was costly, symbolic nonsense.

What do you mean by "deals with Turkey coming up."

That said, the cost of a deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic is cheaper than doing a sea-based deployment, and cheaper than putting interceptors on US bases in Europe.

The SM3-Block IIA missile is not ready as of now, and if you deploy that in another country, you still run into the cost of deployment, which would be the same in Poland. Not to mention the higher cost of negotiating that will inevitably come after this debacle in Poland.

In short, the Third Site was not any more costly, and actually was cheaper, than other deployments proposed now by Obama. Additionally, putting missiles in Turkey is not going to come cheaply, we had to all but bribe them to offer any assistance in Iraq.

Unless you put them at Incirlik, I have doubts there is going to be any real deployment of interceptors in Turkey. Not to mention the obvious problems of the current Aegis interceptors, which are to slow to run down a missile from Iran, if they are stationed in the Black Sea, and the radar holes, forward radar deployments that will be needed to compliment the Aegis radar.

The only thing symbolic about the Polish deployment is the symbolism of America leaving them yet again. Not something we want.

I also think that this is based on the on going political shenanighans in A'stan and the ongoing re-supply problems. Anyway I hope Obama gets something for it otherwise all he's done is pissed a bargaining chip up the wall.

So we are caving to Russia on this issue to keep open Afghan supply routes? Maybe, but if so that is a terrible reason.

I have doubts we will get anything for it other than upset allies and a higher price to pay down the line.

 

[top gun]

Thinking globally isn't a bad move and it will lessen tensions with Russia.

The US can say to countries like Russia this isn't the old Saber Rattling Bush administration, we want to work together... but at the end of the day the US ACTUALLY has to act differently than a saber Rattling Bush administration or it's all just BS talk and everyone sees that.

As we look at the advantages this helps a situation in which Russia could be pivotal when it comes to various international actions taken against Iran.

And the US and it's allies are at all times easily able to take out anything they want in Iran.

Plus hopefully this is a start of some look at cost cutting on military spending that has run completely and almost insanely amok.

 

[BigRob]

Thinking globally isn't a bad move and it will lessen tensions with Russia.

I think this action will in the long term only increase tensions with Russia.

The US can say to countries like Russia this isn't the old Saber Rattling Bush administration, we want to work together... but at the end of the day the US ACTUALLY has to act differently than a saber Rattling Bush administration or it's all just BS talk and everyone sees that.

We have been offering to work together with Russia for years and we have gotten nowhere. Russia continues to block anything meaningful in the UN, they continue to openly sells advanced weaponry to Iran (which will be used against the US and its real allies in the event of a confrontation), and there are reports they are supplying Iran with missile and nuclear technology.

At the end of the day, the one that needs to act "differently" in this regard is Russia. They are actively working to maintain the situation that makes a missile shield in Europe needed. Limiting the capability of that shield in some effort to "get them on board" is lunacy. All we did was send a clear message to the rest of Europe, including those that we will now go to and ask to place interceptors, that we have no intention of doing what we say.

As we look at the advantages this helps a situation in which Russia could be pivotal when it comes to various international actions taken against Iran.

What else is Russia going to do to help us, regardless of the actions we take? Nothing.

And the US and it's allies are at all times easily able to take out anything they want in Iran.

Easily take it out? What does that even mean? Capable of taking it out, yes, but every day and every new weapon sold to Iran makes the consequences of that action much more dire.

Further, how are we going to take out a nuclear site if we do not know where it is?

Plus hopefully this is a start of some look at cost cutting on military spending that has run completely and almost insanely amok.

Well, I fail to see how moving to ship based defenses, and then going back to ground based defenses makes anything cheaper. Ship based defenses are much more expensive than ground based sites.

 

[Andy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18assess.html?hp

The new plan that President Obama laid out for a missile shield against Iran on Thursday turns Ronald Reagan’s vision of a Star Wars system on its head: Rather than focusing first on protecting the continental United States, it shifts the immediate effort to defending Europe and the Middle East.

So let me get this straight... we're going to setup a missile defense in Europe and the Middle East, but not in mainland US?

Won't that alone agitate Russia? I think I'd rather increase our security, rather than those in Europe, especially since we don't know what one of those countries might do if they believe our missile defense will protect them.

And a missile defense for the middle east, seems even more nuts.

 

[The Scotsman]

What do you mean by "deals with Turkey coming up."

....the sale of PAC-3 missiles/F-16s base expansions and all that malarchy - Turkey is negotiating purchases of around $7.8Bn of flashy hi-tech kit, I think this was advised to the House last week? (Better check that Rob but I think it was annouced in the press as well?)

Anyway I reckon Senate approval is a given (I guess?) based on the fact that there'd be a US controlled Anti-missile system pointed right up the Ayatollas' butt.

 

[LooseChange]

This morning, Obama officially ended the proposed third site in Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision was horrible.

Some of the reasons that the President and Sec. of Defense gave was that the medium and short range missiles were more of a threat in the short term. That is correct, Iran does not possess a missile capable of reaching the United States.

However, the site that Obama ended, was solely intended to focus on long range threats. There was no need to eliminate this site to bring in theater system such as AEGIS or THAAD.

The political implications in Poland, the Czech Republic, as well as Russia are great following this decision, and while Gates and Obama tried to leave open the door for ground systems in the future by leaving open consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, it seems highly unlikely that any government in those countries is going to deal with us again without getting major concessions from the United States.

To follow it all, the IAEA released a report stating that Iran is capable today of making a nuclear weapon, so it makes sense to speed up deployment of missile defenses against their capabilities, but again, there was no need to end the third site to accomplish this.

Also, Sec. Gates mentioned that "new intelligence" on the Iranian missile program was behind this decision. Sounds good right? If you listen to his words however, he never mentions that Iran has stopped or is not pursuing ICBM capability. Further, back in May, Iran tested a 2 stage solid fuel missile which was a major development for their missile program. What "new intelligence" could Gates be talking about?

While increasing defenses against short and medium range capabilities is a good thing, there is no good reason that the third site was ended today.

I can pretty much say with certainty that any type of missile defense system you put up anywhere on the planet isn't a guarantee that it will work. I mean one only has to look at the missile defense system currently set up on the western coast of the United States. 9 times out of 10 the system either passed or failed when it was tested. The numbers were always sketchy when an actual test was conducted. As far as the sea based system goes, it has passed on numerous occasions and I can bring up an example of one such test when the USS Lake Erie shot down one of our own Satellites a couple of years ago. The fact of the matter is that I have more faith in a Sea-Based platform since I used to be stationed on such a platform when I was in the Navy and I can tell you that the Aegis system was specifically designed for such a purpose. It may be more expensive but it has performed to specifications but like said no missile defense system is sure fire guarantee and if Iran was to develop the capability of having their missiles carry multiple warheads then you can pretty much bank on your missile shield being worthless from that point.

 

[BigRob]

....the sale of PAC-3 missiles/F-16s base expansions and all that malarchy - Turkey is negotiating purchases of around $7.8Bn of flashy hi-tech kit, I think this was advised to the House last week? (Better check that Rob but I think it was annouced in the press as well?)

Anyway I reckon Senate approval is a given (I guess?) based on the fact that there'd be a US controlled Anti-missile system pointed right up the Ayatollas' butt.

No you are correct, it was announced a few days ago. That said, I am not following as to why we had to scrap a long range proposed GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to put in a theater system in Turkey? Why not do both?

When Iran gets ICBM technology, the PAC-3's in Turkey are not going to be capable of defending against it.

 

[BigRob]

So let me get this straight... we're going to setup a missile defense in Europe and the Middle East, but not in mainland US?

Well, in theory, the GMD systems in California and Alaska defend the mainland against an ICBM threat. Since Iran does not have that capability, and that system based in California and Alaska cannot defend Europe it makes sense to speed up deployment of short range defenses. My only real beef with the process is the manner it was done, and the cancellation of the third site.

Won't that alone agitate Russia? I think I'd rather increase our security, rather than those in Europe, especially since we don't know what one of those countries might do if they believe our missile defense will protect them.

And a missile defense for the middle east, seems even more nuts.

I think Russia understands that they have the capability to easily overwhelm any missile defense we have deployed. That is why I am convinced that the entire issue over Poland and the Czech Republic was political, and we lost that fight. (If we even fought it)

 

[BigRob]

I can pretty much say with certainty that any type of missile defense system you put up anywhere on the planet isn't a guarantee that it will work.

Your car is not guaranteed to start either when you go out in the morning, but that does not mean you should not buy a car.

I mean one only has to look at the missile defense system currently set up on the western coast of the United States. 9 times out of 10 the system either passed or failed when it was tested. The numbers were always sketchy when an actual test was conducted.

I assume when you say "passed" you mean the missile just missed? Your numbers however are simply wrong. The intercept tests have been better than 50% successful, and the non-intercept and flight tests have mostly been good as well.

However, that said, it makes a clear case for the need for redundancy if the intercept tests are hit or miss does it not? Therefore, we ought to be placing longer range systems in Europe.

As far as the sea based system goes, it has passed on numerous occasions and I can bring up an example of one such test when the USS Lake Erie shot down one of our own Satellites a couple of years ago.

That was a planned event, but the capability of doing it was nothing like when China did it.

The fact of the matter is that I have more faith in a Sea-Based platform since I used to be stationed on such a platform when I was in the Navy and I can tell you that the Aegis system was specifically designed for such a purpose. It may be more expensive but it has performed to specifications but like said no missile defense system is sure fire guarantee and if Iran was to develop the capability of having their missiles carry multiple warheads then you can pretty much bank on your missile shield being worthless from that point.

Ship based defense platforms are going to be a major role player in our missile defense, but they cannot solely do it, there has to be redundancies on the ground, and the radars operating on the ground. The Aegis SPY-1 Radar cannot effectively track a missile alone, and it must (at least at this point) have additional stations.

That said, Iran will ultimately develop the ability to MIRV, but at the same time, we (hopefully) will refund the MKV program and other programs that could combat this in a much more cost effective way.

 

[BigRob]

Putin's statements from September 18, 2009.

"I very much hope that this right and brave decision will be followed up by the full cancellation of all restrictions on cooperation with Russia and high technology transfer to Russia as well as a boost to expand the WTO to embrace Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan."

Hardly sounds like we have "gained any goodwill" or leverage. Anything we ask for on Iran is going to be met with demands for American concessions in these fields.

Basically, we gave away the third site for nothing.

 

[LooseChange]

Putin's statements from September 18, 2009.

"I very much hope that this right and brave decision will be followed up by the full cancellation of all restrictions on cooperation with Russia and high technology transfer to Russia as well as a boost to expand the WTO to embrace Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan."

Hardly sounds like we have "gained any goodwill" or leverage. Anything we ask for on Iran is going to be met with demands for American concessions in these fields.

Basically, we gave away the third site for nothing.

I hear what your saying and in regards to Russia there still upset that we beat them in the Cold War and that their still having a hard time accepting it. I for one, am thankful that at least we have something already in place as far as Sea-based and Land Based missile defense shield. It may not be the best but it should be enough for rogue states like Iran and North Korea to think twice about attacking our friends and allies. As for further concessions on the part of America goes I think Russia and China know they can only get so much out of us and they know this. So I'm not gonna lose any sleep over this because frankly even if Iran tried to attack Eastern Europe they know they would face the wrath of not only us but the rest of the world as well. Including Russia since they would have a lot more to lose then the U.S.

 

[The Scotsman]

No you are correct, it was announced a few days ago. That said, I am not following as to why we had to scrap a long range proposed GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to put in a theater system in Turkey? Why not do both?.

...cost? threat assessment?

I reackon the only reason that they were proposed in first place was to piss Putin off and provoke a reaction - which Bush got! The previous administration were not exactly top notch when it came to foreign policy and I bet they just wanted to have a bit of fun with the Ruskies. So basically they decided to plant some missiles in Poland get mixed up in Georgia and make friends with the Ukrainians just to put the icing on the cake ....... all guaranteed to naff off the Ruskies! Just so happens the Germans and the French have most of their natural gas supplied by those very same Ruskies who were were not exactly happy with uncle Sam pissing in the european pond so those very same krauts told the Yanks to upstick, sod off and think again - why d'ya reckon Obama visited Germany pretty soon after being elected...........

I guess one could look at this as not so much of a climb down or sell out but a strategic withdrawl from an absurd position foisted upon Obama by Bush....... that said Obama missed a trick and should have used it as bargaining position over Medvedev/Putin - jury's out on that one.