Blog

Last year, sources speculated that countries like Israel and Turkey would be alternative sites for missile defense shields after the Obama administration dropped Bush-era plans to deploy them to Poland and the Czech Republic. Reuters reported that the administration might sell $7.8 billion worth of Patriot “fire units,” missiles, and other weapons to Turkey.

Called “one of the biggest U.S. government-to-government arms sales in years,” the deal would help Turkey, which borders rogue state Iran, defend itself against missile threats. The Washington Post reported this week that the U.S. is “nearing a deal” to set up a radar ground station “probably in Turkey or Bulgaria.”

The U.S. is also working with Israel to help upgrade its missile defense system. The possible radar station in Turkey and the system in Israel would help both countries defend against Iranian attacks. Russia opposes missile defense shields in Europe, claiming they would threaten its national security. Missile defense experts are concerned that the Obama administration compromised U.S. security for Russia’s agreement on START and help containing Iran.

When President Barack Obama dropped Bush-era plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, no one who knows the country and its leaders expected them to be satisfied, perhaps for good reason. Obama’s plan wasn’t to cease all missile defense plans in the region; he wanted to establish a different kind of system. An excerpt:

“Last fall, Washington announced that it was scrapping a Bush-era program for missile defense in favor of a “phased adaptive approach” that would entail fielding sea- and land-based version of the Standard Missile 3 interceptor around the continent as a hedge against potential short- and medium-range missiles fired from Iran. Moscow has worried that the location of shield infrastructure in nations along its borders would threaten the Russian nuclear deterrent.

“The Obama administration has sought to alleviate these worries by inviting Moscow to participate in European missile defense efforts. Nesterenko, however said that it ‘it seems the American side … has begun deploying elements of its missile defense system based on its own decisions and not joint ones.’”

Russia’s spokesman Andrei Nesterenko accused the U.S. of failing to take Russia’s opposition to the shields into consideration. In an attempt to ease Russia’s concerns, the administration seeks the former Soviet Union’s participation in the plans. So far, the U.S. has sent Patriot missile interceptors to Poland near the Russia border, and Romania earlier this year agreed to host missile interceptors. The purpose of the missile shields is to defend against Iran.

To that assertion, Nesterenko said, “We are certain that missile threats to Europe that would require the deployment of a missile defense system on Russia’s borders do not exist now and are not foreseen in the future.”

Source: RIA Novosti

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.

Earlier this year, Poland’s defense minister announced that the U.S. planned to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border in Kaliningrad. The plan included a base with several launch pads and manned by about 100 U.S. troops. Although the deal reflects both countries’ aim to protect the region against missile attacks from Iran, the former Soviet Union sees the plan as offensive, rather than defensive.

In response to the announcement, Russia said it would beef up its Baltic fleet. This week, a battery of Patriot missiles arrived in Poland, and U.S. soldiers will begin training with Polish soldiers for 30 days every three months over the next two years. (Source)

“It’s not clear to us why Patriot anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems are being deployed near the Russian border,” Russian foreign ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said last month. Although the system is defensive, the spokesman said the move “cannot be left without attention.”

President Barack Obama scrapped Bush-era plans to install missile defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic last year. He said he wanted to focus on Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles instead of long-range missiles, believing the former are a more immediate threat. At least the president isn’t leaving Poland high and dry; he’s making an effort to equip Poland to defend itself.

Last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country and the U.S. were “close to an agreement” on renewing START and hoped negotiations would be wrapped up soon.

This week, the Associated Press reported that a renewal could be finalized by next month. Russia wants access to our missile defense strategy and blames the U.S. for stalled negotiations. Displeased by our Bush-era plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia believed the U.S. was capitulating when President Barack Obama dropped those plans. But Russia’s ire has been rekindled. The Obama administration intends to deploy missiles to Poland capable of intercepting shorter range weapons.

One of Russia’s sticking points to START renewal was linking defensive and offensive weapons. Both sides have agreed to the link.

Under the old treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. Medvedev and Obama reportedly agreed to reduce deployed warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675.

Yesterday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country and the U.S. are “close to an agreement” on renewing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and that he hopes negotiations will be wrapped up “in the very near future.” (Source)

Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. According to Reuters, Medvedev and President Barack Obama have stipulated in present negotiations to a reduction of deployed warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675.

Russia has blamed stalled negotiations on U.S. plans to deploy missile shields to Eastern and Central Europe. Obama dropped Bush-era missile defense agreements in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of what he considers a more pressing concern: Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles. In January, Poland’s defense minister revealed U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia said it would beef up its Baltic fleet. Last month, Romania agreed to host missile interceptors (Standard Missile 3).

Our intent is to help these countries defend against Iran, but Russia believes otherwise. After Romania announced the agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the U.S. broke its promise to keep the Kremlin abreast of its missile defense developments in the region, and Russian NATO representative Dmitri Rogozin asked, “How can we stay calm when alien military infrastructure, U.S. military infrastructure, has come to the Black Sea area?”

We’re not as hopeful as Dmitry Medvedev when it comes to renewing START. Russia will continue stalling in an attempt to pressure the U.S. to scale back or even cancel plans to deploy missile defense shields to Eastern and Central Europe.

In response to U.S. plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia threatened to send short-range Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, near the Polish border. After President Barack Obama took office, Russia rescinded the threat.

It was speculated that Russia changed its mind because the Obama administration seemed to be taking an appeasement approach in exchange for the former Soviet Union’s help with Iran.

That help never panned out. In fact, Russia made a deal to sell S-300 missiles to Iran, and has refused to issue tougher sanctions against the country, even as Iran announced its intend to develop high-grade nuclear fuel and enrich more uranium.

No doubt Russia hoped the Obama administration would put missile deployment to Eastern and Central Europe on hold. Those hopes were dashed. Not only is the U.S. deploying shields to Poland and Romania, it plans to beef up missile defense in the Persian Gulf.

According to Reuters, it looks like the Iskander threat is back in play.

Transdniestria, a region of Moldova, said it’s open to hosting Russian missiles “As far as the Iskander…is concerned,” said leader Igor Smirnov, “we have long said we are ready.”

Moldava’s acting president rejected that claim, however, calling Transdniestria “an artificial creation” with no authority to speak for relations between Moldova and Russia.

But what does Russia say?

Last week, Romania agreed to host missile interceptors (Standard Missile 3) as part of the president’s new missile defense plan. These missiles will be in place to defend against attacks from Iran, but once again, Russia believes their purpose is offensive. (UPI)

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the U.S. broke its promise to keep the Kremlin abreast of its missile defense developments in the region, and NATO representative Dmitri Rogozin asked, “How can we stay calm when alien military infrastructure, U.S. military infrastructure, has come to the Black Sea area?”

How will our missile defense plans in Romania affect negotiations for the START renewal? “It is impossible to talk seriously about a reduction of nuclear capabilities when a nuclear power is working to deploy defensive systems against nuclear warheads possessed by other countries,” Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said.

The missile interceptors will be deployed to Romania by 2015. Obviously, these and other developments will impact START negotiations, giving Russia an excuse to stall. Earlier this month, Poland announced that the U.S. will deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, the former Soviet Union announced it would beef up its Baltic fleet. Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland also sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland.

(Source for all quotes: UPI)

Representative Michael Turner, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times in which he makes the case for restoring funding for missile defense.

President Barack Obama cut missile defense spending. He dropped plans to deploy missile interceptors and radar to Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively. He reduced interceptors in Alaska. However, Obama is looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Is the administration committed to beefing up defenses? Turner says that depends on the FY 2011 budget.

“The administrations policy cannot be funded if the missile defense budget remains flat,” he writes. “There are simply no more future programs like Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle to take money from. Unless the Administration decides to further cut the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, take resources from critical programs such as testing and targets, or perhaps slow roll the implementation of its new policy, it cannot follow through on its stated commitments. A better solution is to restore top line funding for missile defense.”

In a move that seemed impulsive, it appeared the Obama administration scaled back Bush-era missile defense policy just for the sake of scaling back. For example, reducing interceptors in Alaska and California has left the U.S. vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles and jeopardized the GMD system. Turner opposed these cuts and notes that the Pentagon reached similar conclusions about GMD a short time later.

“For the foreseeable future, GMD is the sole missile defense capability to protect the U.S. homeland from a rogue missile attack. So while the administrations most recent changes are welcome, they must be followed by continued support and funding in the budget.”

In the area of European and theater missile defense, the administration is only now realizing the need for more, not less, funding for these programs. For example, the Obama administration dropped previous plans in Central Europe to focus on increasing “cost-effective” sea- and land-based missile interceptors, but things aren’t as simple as they seemed.

“[A]s details have emerged,” Turner writes, “officials now acknowledge it will cost more, necessitate additional missile defense-capable ships, and require significant investments to develop new technical concepts. Full coverage of Europe and further protection of the United States comes later than previously planned and depends not only on new technologies but also on new host nation agreements. Securing some of these agreements may prove difficult as Russian officials are now grumbling about key aspects of the new approach such as the longer-range Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block II interceptor.”

The bottom line is that any one of the 28 countries that have ballistic missiles could hit the U.S., intentionally or not, and our missile defense program must be fully funded and flexible enough to deal with these threats. This week’s budget debates will reveal how committed Obama is to protecting the U.S.

In October, sources reported that Poland was in the running to receive missile interceptors under President Barack Obama’s new missile defense plan. Last week, Poland’s defense minister announced that the U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia intends to beef up its Baltic fleet. (Source)

Poland will install a base with several launch pads and manned by U.S. troops. Responding to Russia’s plans to shore up its Baltic fleet, a high-ranking source in the Polish Foreign Ministry downplayed the threat. “Let’s stay calm. Such strengthening, even if it becomes true, is no direct threat to Poland. The Russians have known about the Patriots for at least two years. So there is no reason to react to unofficial comments.”

Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland. Although the deal reflects both countries’ aim to protect the region from missile attacks, the plan is seen as offensive in nature from Russia’s perspective, rather than defensive.

Last year, President Barack Obama dropped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, the goal of which was to protect the region from Iranian attacks. Russia opposed the shields and threatened to install missiles near Poland’s border. Obama said he reneged on the agreements to focus on systems that would defend against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range.

“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” the Heritage Foundation‘s Peter Brookes wrote in the New York Post last year, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”