Blog

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary general of NATO, makes the case for strong missile in the New York Times. Among other things, Rasmussen seeks to expand NATO’s theater missile defense system. Next month, NATO member countries will vote on whether to expand it to cover NATO territory. Ahead of this meeting, Rasmussen takes to the New York Times to stress the importance of strong missile defense.

“Missiles pose an increasing threat to our populations, territory and deployed forces,” he writes. “Over 30 countries have or are acquiring missiles that could be used to carry not just conventional warheads, but also weapons of mass destruction. Some of those missiles can already reach European cities, and the problem will only get worse.”

Rasmussen acknowledges that missile defense doesn’t come cheap, but what we can’t afford is a direct attack on even one of our cities or to be paralyzed by fear of an attack.

“[NATO is] already working to provide missile defense for the protection of our troops deployed on operations. By expanding this program and connecting it with the United States’ missile defenses, NATO would be able to defend European populations and territory from missile attack as well.”
As expected, Russia believes expanding NATO missile defense and extending its reach threaten its national security. But NATO’s perception makes more sense.

“In military terms, an integrated missile defense system would offer far greater overall capability than that offered by the individual national systems. By sharing data across the whole system, we would have a common picture of what is happening in our airspace. By linking together the systems, we would get multiple, coordinated opportunities to stop an incoming missile, rather than individual nations going it alone.”

As Rasmussen says, cooperation between NATO and Russia would symbolize a “new era of cooperation” that would better protect NATO territories and populations from realistic threats from rogue countries like Iran and North Korea.

– James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, will brief senators tomorrow on START. Among other things, Republicans believe the president compromised our national defense in a misguided attempt to “reset” relations with the former Soviet Union. (Source)

– The U.S. and Israel reached an agreement to continue developing Israel’s short-range David Sling missile defense system, designed to defend against short-range and theater ballistic missiles, large-caliber rockets, and cruise missiles. (Source)

– NATO recently approved defense contractor Lockheed Martin’s Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) system. MEADS International President Steve Barnoske said, “Joint Project Optic Wind was an early opportunity to prove out the interoperability of the MEADS battle management architecture and its ability to serve as the integrating element for an air and missile defense task force. Open, modular software gives MEADS great flexibility to accommodate additional requirements.” (Source)

– National security consultant David J. Trachtenberg wrote an article for the Center for Defense Studies on stopping new START. An excerpt:

“Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and AEI Senior Fellow John Bolton scores a direct hit on the New START treaty. He correctly notes that the treaty’s limits on launchers will force trade-offs that constrain the U.S. ability to deploy conventional prompt global strike capabilities. ‘We will pay for this mistake in future conflicts entirely unrelated to Russia,’ he warns.

“Indeed, while the Obama Administration is looking to develop prompt global strike capabilities to maintain American conventional military dominance and enable further U.S. nuclear reductions, the Nuclear Posture Review acknowledges that they ‘would be accountable under the [New START] Treaty.’”

– On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and others, and missile defense was one of the topics discussed. From Aviation Week:

“Rasmussen says the funding required is a ‘modest additional cost to achieve so much.’ He spoke with U.S. press during a Defense Writers Group breakfast Sept. 7 in Washington…A decision on whether and how to proceed on missile defense will be on the agenda during the forthcoming NATO summit in Lisbon in November. Rasmussen says that because of the shared potential enemy of Iran, NATO’s deployments of technology would be needed in line with the timeline laid out by U.S. President Barack Obama. He has proposed the Phased Adaptive Approach, which is incrementally fielding defenses through 2020.”

– U.S. defense contractor Raytheon was awarded a $165.3 million contract for work on the SM-3 Block IIA missile.

Cross-posted at Heritage.org:

The current regime in Russia has a terrible record as a reliable partner, yet President Obama wants the nuclear treaty he negotiated with the Kremlin fast-tracked for Senate approval. That makes no sense. Here are 10 reasons why.

1. A Long History of Arms Control Violations: Russia repeatedly violated the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) all the way to its expiration in December 2009, as clearly stated in 2005 and 2010 State Department compliance reports. Specifically, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with Multiple Individually Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (warheads) while START was in force. Such activities, however, were explicitly banned.

2. The West Is Still Their #1 Threat: Russia regards the U.S. and NATO as its principal adversaries and configures its forces for large-scale conventional theater operations with them. The recent discovery of the Russian spy network inside the U.S. and their celebration upon return to Russia, courtesy of President Obama, indicates that Russia is set in a Cold War mentality.

3. Helping Iran and North Korea: According to U.S. intelligence, Russia violated nonproliferation agreements by providing ballistic missile technology to Iran and North Korea, which have continually threatened America and its allies.

4. Still Building a Nuclear Arsenal: Nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War, Russia still designs, builds, and modernizes nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Russia’s new military doctrine maintains a low threshold for nuclear first strikes. In fact, Moscow plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe if ever confronted with a conventional threat. In 2009, Russia conducted a military exercise that simulated a nuclear attack on Poland.

5. Not in Compliance on Other Treaties: The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S.

6. No Regard for Georgia Independence: Russia has repeatedly broken its promises to withdraw military forces from Georgia and Moldova. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, it rewrote the rules of post–World War II European security. It repudiated the Helsinki Pact of 1975, which recognized the security of European borders, and violated the sovereignty of a NATO aspirant and member of the Council of Europe.

7. Responds Offensively to Defensive Measures: In response to U.S. plans for a defensive missile shield in Europe to protect against Iranian missile threats, Moscow has repeatedly threatened to deploy Iskander short-range and nuclear-capable missiles to target U.S. allies in Eastern Europe. Reports show that the Baltic Fleet is armed with nuclear weapons that can be used against Europe.

8. Ties to Terrorist Organizations: Russia cultivates ties with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and provides military and diplomatic support for anti-American “rogue states” such as Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Russia voted with the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to pass sanctions on Iran—but only after working hard to water them down to practically nothing.

9. Natural Gas as a Political Weapon: The Kremlin uses its neighbors and Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas as a foreign policy tool to pressure states. In 2009, Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine and to Europe by extension, causing the International Energy Agency to deem them an unreliable supplier.

10. An Authoritarian Regime: The current model of leadership under President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has become increasingly authoritarian. Despite numerous commitments under international law, the government has tightened controls on political life, civil society, and the media. Disruption of political opposition’s activities, restricting access to state-controlled TV, human right violations (such as the beating of demonstrators who “support” the Russian constitution), murder of journalists and anti-corruption activists, disappearance and torture, abuse of the legal system for monetary and political gain—all illustrate this negative trend.

The Obama administration is talking tough on missile defense. Michele Flournoy, under secretary of Defense for Policy, and Ashton Carter, under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, published a piece in the Wall Street Journal, in which they stress the importance of a strong and effective missile defense program. An excerpt:

“To counter Iran’s ballistic missile program, President Obama announced a phased adaptive approach for European missile defense last September—a move unanimously welcomed by our NATO allies. The first phase begins next year with the deployment of radars and ship-based systems in southern Europe. Romania and Poland have agreed to host land-based defenses for the second and third phases.

“A similar phased adaptive approach is being applied to missile defenses in the Middle East and East Asia. While the details of the deployments and host-country arrangements will differ by region, the common thread is significant improvement in ballistic missile defense capabilities, meant to protect our deployed forces overseas and our allies and partners.”

That’s all well and good, but the Obama administration has downplayed the need for long-range missile defense. Last month, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iran may have the capability to hit the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile, with North Korea’s help, as early as 2015. In 2020, the U.S. will have a Europe-based second shot capability to defend against Iran’s ICBM. Consequently, there will be a five-year protection gap against Iran’s ICBM. Our current plan for homeland defense are interceptors in California and Alaska

“We are also making continued progress in improving our ability to defend the U.S. homeland from ballistic missile attack,” Flournoy and Carter write. “By the fall, the U.S. will have 30 deployed ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, with eight more missile defense silos near completion.”

Read the full article at the Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. has been pushing Russia to agree to additional sanctions against Iran for its defiance of the United Nations Security Council’s demands for full disclosure of its nuclear program and suspension of uranium enrichment. Russia finally agreed. The new sanctions include inspecting Iranian ships suspected of carrying nuclear technology or weapons, but we doubt this will be enough.

Today, the U.N. Security Council voted for additional sanctions against the rogue state. From NPR:

“The Obama administration is doing its best to put a good face on a major disappointment: After sixteen months’ effort, they have succeeded in delivering less international support than did the Bush administration for a problem everyone agrees is growing rapidly worse.”

One restriction included in the sanctions is countries are prohibited from selling missiles or missile systems to Iran. To get Russia to agree to the sanctions, however, the council exempted Russia from the restrictions. The former Soviet Union can proceed with its agreement to deliver S-300 missiles to Iran, and Iran’s Bushehr reactor will come on line with Russia’s help.

“All this in addition to canceling NATO missile defense deployments and going silent on the strangulation of freedoms within Russia.”

NPR called the sanctions “enfeebled,” and said the U.S. has basically sold out to “reset” relations with Russia. In addition to a ban on missile defense activities, Iran must submit to cargo inspections, and other countries must seize and dispose of banned items, refrain from providing “critical support services” to ships suspected of carrying banned items, and block proliferation finance.

(Image source: TopNews.in)

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it is “technically feasible” to expand NATO’s theater missile defense system, which would protect thousands of deployed troops. (Source)

“Even at a time when budgets are tight – especially at a time when budgets are tight – that is the kind of investment that makes sense,” Rasmussen said. Linking up the national systems would cost about $239 million over 10 years.

In February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at the NATO Strategic Concept Seminar at the Atlantic Council. He said Europe had underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, undermined joint security. Land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.” (Source)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also spoke at the seminar about Russia and NATO working together. Russia believes expanding NATO and extending its reach threaten its national security. Relations between NATO and Russia soured after NATO criticized the former Soviet Union for invading Georgia. Despite this, NATO seeks to work with Russia on missile defense.

Israel and NATO seek to work together on missile defense. Though not a member of NATO, Israel would collaborate with the organization to address the Iranian threat.

“We have already been provided some information about the Israeli test-bed,” NATO’s Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Program Office Alan Berry said. “We are happy to discuss things with Israel about our capabilities, and we are looking forward to future discussions in that area.” (Source)

Last year, Iran test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and Southern Europe. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have a longer range than the Sajjil, and Iran may have ICBM capabilities in five years. Israel increased production of its Arrow missile interceptors “significantly.” (Source) Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “We will need to expand our arsenal of Arrow interceptors” which are capable of intercepting Iranian, Syrian Shihab, and Scud missiles. Israel’s air force also is upgrading existing Arrow interceptors to the new Arrow II missile system.

Around the same time, Israel reported intercepting a ship that left Iran bound for Hezbollah carrying missiles, rockets, anti-tank weapons.

Israel and the U.S. conducted a joint missile defense exercise that simulated a response to an attack by the Islamic Republic, Syria, and Hezbollah. Among the systems tested were the Arrow II, THAAD, Aegis, and PAC-3. The Iron Dome is an anti-rocket shield designed to defend Israel from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. The U.S. and Israel are working together to develop the Arrow III system to destroy multiple-warhead missiles and decoys.

Last December, sources reported that NATO wanted to collaborate with Russia on missile defense, a year after criticizing the former Soviet Union’s invasion of Georgia. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s NATO envoy, said he hoped renewed ties would pave the way for a new Euro-Atlantic security treaty in the joint NATO-Russia Council.

Statement from NATO foreign ministers: “We continue to support increased cooperation between NATO and Russia on missile defense, including maximum transparency and reciprocal confidence-building measures. We reaffirm the alliance’s readiness to explore the potential for linking the United States, NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time.”

The Voice of Russia (part of Voice of America) reports that NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen seeks a missile defense alliance with Russia that would create “a common security umbrella.” Former president Vladimir Putin wants his country, the U.S., and the U.N. to assess missile threats jointly. It’s no secret that Russia seeks more information about U.S. missile defense plans in Central Europe and may be using NATO’s desire for an alliance (and tougher sanctions against Iran) as a pawn in the game. An excerpt:

“The Kremlin has repeatedly warned the White House against the creation of a missile defense system that could damage the two countries’ strategic balance of power. More clarification is also needed concerning Washington’s plans to deploy airborne sensors and seaborne interceptors in Europe, says State Duma Deputy Andrey Kokoshin. In a recent interview with Russia’s ITAR-TASS news agency, he maintained that both sides are unlikely to agree on the joint missile system in the foreseeable future.”

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both spoke at the Atlantic Council this week to discuss factors that should be considered as NATO drafts a new “Strategic Concept,” which defines NATO’s purpose, nature, and security tasks.

Secretary Gates said Europe has underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, has undermined joint security. Specifically, he mentioned missile defense. Land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.” (Source)

On the president’s new missile defense policy: “Last year, the Obama administration announced a new plan for missile defense in Europe – a phased, adaptive approach that will give us real capabilities in a shorter period of time than the previous plan. We consider this a U.S.-funded contribution to NATO missile defense, which is critical to the collective-defense mission to protect our populations, territory, and forces.”

Iran is focusing on short- and medium-range missiles, but its long-range capability also poses a threat, whether the capability reaches fruition next year or five years from now. One of the top funding priorities is missile defense. The U.S. and our allies must prepare for long-range weapons, particularly from countries outside NATO that defy the U.N. Security Council.

In scaling back Bush-era missile defense policy, including reducing interceptors in Alaska and California, the Obama administration has left the U.S. vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles and jeopardized systems like Ground-based Midcourse Defense. In assessing the missile threat, however, the administration seems to realize the need for more, not less, funding for these programs.

Secretary Gates acknowledged the importance of missile defense in his speech, but funding (or the lack thereof) reflects priority. We hope the administration restores missile defense funding and keeps all our options open. Read Gates’s full remarks.