Eastern Europe missile shield nixed

[PapaJu]

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314575889817971.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

YGBFSM. No shit Iran's missile program "isn't quite there yet," but it's not like you can deploy this thing the day after they do "get there."

[JS]

https://online.wsj.co..._LEFTTopStories

YGBFSM. No shit Iran's missile program "isn't quite there yet," but it's not like you can deploy this thing the day after they do "get there."

Most important paragraph of the whole thing:

"Critics of the shift are bound to view it as a gesture to win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to seek new economic sanctions on Iran if Tehran doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has opposed efforts to impose fresh sanctions on Tehran."

Good Stratfor article detailing the Iran problem a little further.

[MKopack]

Has to make the Poles and the Czechs happy after they both stood up to the Russians (and a good portion of their own populations) and supported us in hosting the shield sites.

So, we (in no particular order) stop the F-22's, the rescue helos, the C-130 upgrades, we're retiring 300+ legacy fighters, still are not really much closer to replacing our 50 year old tankers, we're pulling out of RAF Fairford, and probably Misawa and dramatically downsizing at Kadina.

Can we bring Carter back to cancel the B-1's again? Get your bellbottoms out and welcome back to the 70's... of course at least then we were building 15's, 16's and A-10's...

Mike

[PapaJu]

Has to make the Poles and the Czechs happy after they both stood up to the Russians (and a good portion of their own populations) and supported us in hosting the shield sites.

So, we (in no particular order) stop the F-22's, the rescue helos, the C-130 upgrades, we're retiring 300+ legacy fighters, still are not really much closer to replacing our 50 year old tankers, we're pulling out of RAF Fairford, and probably Misawa and dramatically downsizing at Kadina.

Can we bring Carter back to cancel the B-1's again? Get your bellbottoms out and welcome back to the 70's... of course at least then we were building 15's, 16's and A-10's...

Mike

Who needs those when you have these?

[Hammer]

according to CNN they aren't canxing it, just reworking it...but then again the USCG did fire shots on the Potomac last week.

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. President Obama on Thursday says the Bush-era missile defense plan will be replaced with a new system.

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. 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."

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.

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

[Marjackson82]

Good. It's about time we stop playing world police.

That being said, I am not for the cut-back/elimination of several airframes in our inventory.

[zmoney]

[satire]

If Poland and the Czech Republic want missile defense, they should get jobs and pay for it themselves. We don't need more big gov't spending on FOREIGN citizens.

[/satire]

Edited September 17, 2009 by zmoney

[Herk Driver]

Good. It's about time we stop playing world police.

It's more about protecting the US than you might think.

[satire]

If Poland and the Czech Republic want missile defense, they should get jobs and pay for it themselves. We don't need more big gov't spending on FOREIGN citizens.

[/satire]

The Czechs still haven't put it to a vote, because they don't think it will pass. This still has a long way to go either way.

[nsplayr]

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314575889817971.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

YGBFSM. No shit Iran's missile program "isn't quite there yet," but it's not like you can deploy this thing the day after they do "get there."

Did you read your own article?

The Obama administration's assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, face a more immediate threat from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles and will order a shift towards the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such systems would be far less controversial.

And then...

This whole controversy is about Russia, not so much Iran. The previous administration said the stations were to defend against Iran, which to me is BS because of where they are located (i.e. far from Iran and close to Russia). To me it was always an excuse to place missile defenses in order to curb future Russian threats and we just used Iran as a cover story. Iranian missiles are important but defending against them from Poland makes no sense when there's so many juicy American/Israeli targets that Iran would likely strike first before they started hitting northern Europe...

[PapaJu]

Did you read your own article?

I'm no expert, but you're talking about two different systems for two different threats. The new plan will utilize Patriot missiles to address short to medium-range missiles, because that's been seen as the current threat. Nothing wrong with that, but it's wrong to turn this into an either/or question. What happens when Iran gets a long-range capability and we have nothing in place to stop it?

This whole controversy is about Russia, not so much Iran. The previous administration said the stations were to defend against Iran, which to me is BS because of where they are located (i.e. far from Iran and close to Russia). To me it was always an excuse to place missile defenses in order to curb future Russian threats and we just used Iran as a cover story. Iranian missiles are important but defending against them from Poland makes no sense when there's so many juicy American/Israeli targets that Iran would likely strike first before they started hitting northern Europe...

The location has to do with having to intercept a missile at a certain point in its flight to be effective. Russia's complaints hold no water because Russia is too close to Poland for a Polish-based interceptor to be able to intercept a hypothetical Russian missile (not to mention Russia has a lot more missiles to overcome friggin 10 interceptors).

[nsplayr]

I'm no expert, but you're talking about two different systems for two different threats. The new plan will utilize Patriot missiles to address short to medium-range missiles, because that's been seen as the current threat. Nothing wrong with that, but it's wrong to turn this into an either/or question. What happens when Iran gets a long-range capability and we have nothing in place to stop it?

It becomes an either/or when it comes to cost versus capability. What are we getting from these sites in Europe and is it worth the costs both monetarily and politically? It doesn't make sense to me how these sites protect us or Europe from hypothetical Iranian missiles but it does make sense that we put them in place as a reminder to Russia what we've got our eyes on them. For that purpose, I think the cost is too high and am fine with spending that money to build a system that actually is capable of defending our forward bases from Iranian missiles.

The location has to do with having to intercept a missile at a certain point in its flight to be effective. Russia's complaints hold no water because Russia is too close to Poland for a Polish-based interceptor to be able to intercept a hypothetical Russian missile (not to mention Russia has a lot more missiles to overcome friggin 10 interceptors).

The locations aren't about Iranian sites since they are WELL outside the threat rings of current or near-future Iranian missiles. If Iran rolls up with nuclear-tipped ICMBs, then yes, the sites might be able to defense some areas of US interest, but Russia already has these capabilities and we've successfully deterred them through MADD and IMHO the sites were put in place just to piss off Russia and to play hardball with them re: other priorities. The much more likely scenario is Iran would hit Israel and/or our troops in the Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan, in which case these missile sites will accomplish exactly jack squat.

[Herk Driver]

This whole controversy is about Russia, not so much Iran. The previous administration said the stations were to defend against Iran, which to me is BS because of where they are located (i.e. far from Iran and close to Russia). To me it was always an excuse to place missile defenses in order to curb future Russian threats and we just used Iran as a cover story. Iranian missiles are important but defending against them from Poland makes no sense when there's so many juicy American/Israeli targets that Iran would likely strike first before they started hitting northern Europe...

And you base your opinion off of what? Speculation? Have you seen the threat envelope and what the radar site, the mid-course radar and the AEGIS radar cover? Do 10 missiles really pose a threat to a Russia that has hundreds of missiles and even more warheads? The defense system, in fact, is a defense against threats to the US, not Europe (primarily). It is based in Europe, particularly Czech and Poland, because that is the ideal location to defend most of Europe, but primarily against a longer range future missile that could hit the US. That's why only a limited number (e.g. 10) of missiles.

Stick to what you know and leave the speculation to the conspiracy theory nuts. Or provide me with the background/job experience that provides the basis for your "analysis". Were you at MDA or EUCOM in the last three years? Are you a pol-mil expert or a foreign area officer? Please do provide me with something that backs up your back to the Cold War theory.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Herk Driver

[PapaJu]

It becomes an either/or when it comes to cost versus capability. What are we getting from these sites in Europe and is it worth the costs both monetarily and politically? It doesn't make sense to me how these sites protect us or Europe from hypothetical Iranian missiles but it does make sense that we put them in place as a reminder to Russia what we've got our eyes on them. For that purpose, I think the cost is too high and am fine with spending that money to build a system that actually is capable of defending our forward bases from Iranian missiles.

I defer to the post above on that question...

The locations aren't about Iranian sites since they are WELL outside the threat rings of current or near-future Iranian missiles. If Iran rolls up with nuclear-tipped ICMBs, then yes, the sites might be able to defense some areas of US interest, but Russia already has these capabilities and we've successfully deterred them through MADD and IMHO the sites were put in place just to piss off Russia and to play hardball with them re: other priorities. The much more likely scenario is Iran would hit Israel and/or our troops in the Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan, in which case these missile sites will accomplish exactly jack squat.

No doubt, but should we not actually prepare for threats before they arrive (which they will...)?

[Gravedigger]

Those sites are NOT where they would need to be to stop a Russian ICBM or any combination of Russian ICBMS, which would arrive to our homeland via the polar express. These sites would most certainly provide a deterrent and strategic ability to defend against anything that might be lobbed from the Middle East region. The Shahab 3 is more formidable than you might think, especially since it is a building block launch vehicle. If Iran succeeds in putting their own sputnik into space...I would be very happy to have a missile defense site in Poland.

[jice]

Honest question, maybe somebody can point me in the right direction: Why, if these sites would have little to no impact on Russia's ability to carry out long range missile strikes, were they such a point of contention while the previous administration was pushing to install them? Is Russia’s investment in Iran’s nuclear program so extensive as to allow the financial benefit of a nuclear armed (as opposed to only a tightly controlled nuclear powered, as the deal was portrayed to the international community back in the mid 2000s) Iran to outweigh the security risk of that capability?

[PapaJu]

Honest question, maybe somebody can point me in the right direction: Why, if these sites would have little to no impact on Russia's ability to carry out long range missile strikes, were they such a point of contention while the previous administration was pushing to install them? Is Russia’s investment in Iran’s nuclear program so extensive as to allow the financial benefit of a nuclear armed (as opposed to only a tightly controlled nuclear powered, as the deal was portrayed to the international community back in the mid 2000s) Iran to outweigh the security risk of that capability?

1. Russia likes to think that Eastern Europe is in its sphere of influence, even if Eastern Europe doesn't feel that way. Hence, they get all uppity about the US putting defense systems there.

2. It's probably not even about financial benefit, more that they like to screw with Western strategic interests just for the hell of it.

[JS]

Honest question, maybe somebody can point me in the right direction: Why, if these sites would have little to no impact on Russia's ability to carry out long range missile strikes, were they such a point of contention while the previous administration was pushing to install them? Is Russia's investment in Iran's nuclear program so extensive as to allow the financial benefit of a nuclear armed (as opposed to only a tightly controlled nuclear powered, as the deal was portrayed to the international community back in the mid 2000s) Iran to outweigh the security risk of that capability?

Read my above linked article from Startfor, and then go to the Stratfor page and read the free articles that mention Russia or Iran in the title. Granted, Stratfor is only once source, but it is a fairly respected source.

Bottom line, the Russians and the US look at the post-cold war very differently. The US, Russia, and China still have global strategic interests to take care of, and the Russians view the end of the Cold War as a time when the US took advantage of Russian weakness to expand NATO and encroach on Russian interests. Ukraine and Georgia coming into NATO are also major points of contention. Strategic missile defense, no matter how much the system would be in its infancy, does shift the strategic balance away from Russia and into the US's favor.

Put another way - even if the US didn't really care if Ukraine entered NATO or if we built or even needed a missile defense system in Europe, this gives the US two more cards to play in the game of Russian geopolitics. Now the US can say to Russia "We won't pursue Ukraine NATO membership and will cancel the missile defense shield if you do these two things....." Now you can fill in the blank with Russian sanctions against Iran, or having the Russians stop selling military equipment to North Korea or Venezuela, etc.

[nsplayr]

And you base your opinion off of what? Speculation? Have you seen the threat envelope and what the radar site, the mid-course radar and the AEGIS radar cover? Do 10 missiles really pose a threat to a Russia that has hundreds of missiles and even more warheads? The defense system, in fact, is a defense against threats to the US, not Europe (primarily). It is based in Europe, particularly Czech and Poland, because that is the ideal location to defend most of Europe, but primarily against a longer range future missile that could hit the US. That's why only a limited number (e.g. 10) of missiles.

Stick to what you know and leave the speculation to the conspiracy theory nuts. Or provide me with the background/job experience that provides the basis for your "analysis". Were you at MDA or EUCOM in the last three years? Are you a pol-mil expert or a foreign area officer? Please do provide me with something that backs up your back to the Cold War theory.

Lighten up Francis! How can I state this better...IMHO. If you don't like my analysis of the situation then present a counter-analysis. Seriously, this is not my primary area of interest or knowledge, so feel free to educate but save the condescending tone. This article I think presents a good look at how complicated the situation between Russia/Iran/US is and it among other things inform my view of this issue.

To sum up, IN MY VIEW, the Eastern European missiles were a bargaining chip/reminder towards Russia and were not meant primarily to defend US interests against Iran...they would more likely mine the straights of Hormuz or lob missiles at Israel and/or US forces on either of their borders. Feel free to disagree but let's not get into a pissing contest over where we work and what everyone's qualifications are that allow them to speak on an internet message board. If you only want to talk to experts attend a panel meeting at a think tank or something like that.

[Herk Driver]

Lighten up Francis! How can I state this better...IMHO.

Noted.

To sum up, IN MY VIEW,

And your view would be wrong. Go get some data from your intel folks or a briefing from MDA on the system characteristics and capabilities and then re-engage.

[Stiffler]

Lighten up Francis!

You are the one always overreacting, from what I have noticed- not just this post. But you try to shift the "overreacting blame" by doing the old "gee, quit overreacting" thing.

By the way, this system in Europe is for long range missiles, and completely different launching and delivery process than the short and medium range defense. As soon as someone develops the long range missiles, we are SOL. This would also defend against Russian missiles, etc. At the rate our relationship with them is going in the toilet, might be something we wish we had in about 10 years. But we are incapable of thinking long term...i.e. why are we STILL not drilling offshore?

[nsplayr]

You are the one always overreacting, from what I have noticed- not just this post. But you try to shift the "overreacting blame" by doing the old "gee, quit overreacting" thing.

And when someone points out that it's unnecessary I'll usually back down and take it easy. It's so easy to get mad online when in real life we'd all probably be a lot more civil with each other.

By the way, this system in Europe is for long range missiles, and completely different launching and delivery process than the short and medium range defense. As soon as someone develops the long range missiles, we are SOL. This would also defend against Russian missiles, etc. At the rate our relationship with them is going in the toilet, might be something we wish we had in about 10 years. But we are incapable of thinking long term...i.e. why are we STILL not drilling offshore?

Long range missiles form where? Iran doesn't have them, the Russians have enough to completely overwhelm the stations, and if we're in a long-range missile war with Russia we're all f*ed anyways. So for all the cost and controversy of these stations, what exactly are we gaining? To me it makes better sense to attempt to improve our relations with Russia and get them on board with more sanctions/pressure on Iran than to piss off the Russians for no gain in terms of Iran. Pressure on Iran will not work if the Russians aren't on board, so why not give that a try rather than just putting on a war face to everyone who poses even a potential threat to us?

Edit to add: Here's Gates on the change in plans

Link

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.

Robert M. Gates is the secretary of defense.

Edited September 20, 2009 by nsplayr

[Gravedigger]

I still maintain that this system DOES NOT defend against Russian ICBMs. Unless you are talking about ICBMs being launched from Russia to somewhere in Western Europe. These defense systems would need to be located at Thule, or other polar or northern places to defend the US. At a strictly unclass level, this is not about Russian ICBMs. If you have access read up on where our missile warning sites are and why they are there. There is a reason they are not in Poland or the Czech Republic.

Maybe Gates should attend a few more intel briefings, because he's clearly not educated enough about the threat like some of the guys "in the know" on this thread.

Exactly

[Stiffler]

Gates is a political survivor.

So in ten years when Iran does have long range missiles....oh forget it thats a whole TEN YEARS away.

North Korea?

Pakistan?

Breakaway soviet republic?

The list goes on. But the "Chosen one" said it, so it is so.

[PapaJu]

Maybe Gates should attend a few more intel briefings, because he's clearly not educated enough about the threat like some of the guys "in the know" on this thread.

I think he clarified well from what was initially being reported.

[nsplayr]

Maybe Gates should attend a few more intel briefings, because he's clearly not educated enough about the threat like some of the guys "in the know" on this thread.

Exactly

Um...I think joe was being sarcastic?