why did we derate the European based missile to two stages from the three being used at Fort Greely Alaska? Surely there is no significant cost savings. And what there might be would be eaten up by additional testing for a different system.
A look at the flight path of a missile launched from the Iranian missile test center near Semnan toward Washington DC (white line on map) shows the reason why the location in Poland was selected. The primary purpose of the European system is to defend the US. But it also points out the touchy situation it has caused with the Russians. The line of flight of a threatening Iranian missile is very close to the course of a missile also aimed at Washington from the westernmost Russian ICBM fields at Kosel’sk (pink line) and Tatishchev. Here’s where there is a very delicate balancing act. How do we defend against Iran without threatening Russian capabilities? If we were to move our Mid Course interceptors downrange from Poland, say to Norway, UK or Iceland, we most assuredly would be able to intercept Russian missiles from their sites west of the Urals which is not our intention. To move them uprange to Ukraine would solve that problem, but cause different but serious political problems with the Russians.
Just a guess, but I believe the derating of the European interceptor missiles was to reduce the range and capability against Russia’s missiles to convince them of our good intentions. They should know it anyway. Their engineers can do the calculations. But that probably won’t change any minds in the Kremlin.
In many ways the Russians have brought this problem on themselves. They have played footsie with the Iranians, selling them a reactor and fuel that will eventually yield plutonium for weapons. Their efforts to destabilize the Mid East to undercut American interests, is at the heart of the problem. Putin and Medvedev are playing victim when they are the instigators. They are playing with dynamite. Iran is run by religious fanatics. The Russians have Islamic problems of their own in Chechnya. The whole nuclear mess could come back and bite them. At some point we must operate in our own best interests.
Showing posts with label missile shield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label missile shield. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
The primary purpose of the European Missile Shield is to defend the US
The location of the Missile Shield base in Poland has mystified me. It is not optimized to defend Europe, though it appears capable doing so for the northern tier of countries. To defend Western Europe it should be more centrally located, near of all places, the European Mid Course Radar site in the Czech Republic. The other mystery is
why did we derate the European based missile to two stages from the three being used at Fort Greely Alaska? Surely there is no significant cost savings. And what there might be would be eaten up by additional testing for a different system.
A look at the flight path of a missile launched from the Iranian missile test center near Semnan toward Washington DC (white line on map) shows the reason why the location in Poland was selected. The primary purpose of the European system is to defend the US. But it also points out the touchy situation it has caused with the Russians. The line of flight of a threatening Iranian missile is very close to the course of a missile also aimed at Washington from the westernmost Russian ICBM fields at Kosel’sk (pink line) and Tatishchev. Here’s where there is a very delicate balancing act. How do we defend against Iran without threatening Russian capabilities? If we were to move our Mid Course interceptors downrange from Poland, say to Norway, UK or Iceland, we most assuredly would be able to intercept Russian missiles from their sites west of the Urals which is not our intention. To move them uprange to Ukraine would solve that problem, but cause different but serious political problems with the Russians.
Just a guess, but I believe the derating of the European interceptor missiles was to reduce the range and capability against Russia’s missiles to convince them of our good intentions. They should know it anyway. Their engineers can do the calculations. But that probably won’t change any minds in the Kremlin.
In many ways the Russians have brought this problem on themselves. They have played footsie with the Iranians, selling them a reactor and fuel that will eventually yield plutonium for weapons. Their efforts to destabilize the Mid East to undercut American interests, is at the heart of the problem. Putin and Medvedev are playing victim when they are the instigators. They are playing with dynamite. Iran is run by religious fanatics. The Russians have Islamic problems of their own in Chechnya. The whole nuclear mess could come back and bite them. At some point we must operate in our own best interests.
why did we derate the European based missile to two stages from the three being used at Fort Greely Alaska? Surely there is no significant cost savings. And what there might be would be eaten up by additional testing for a different system.
A look at the flight path of a missile launched from the Iranian missile test center near Semnan toward Washington DC (white line on map) shows the reason why the location in Poland was selected. The primary purpose of the European system is to defend the US. But it also points out the touchy situation it has caused with the Russians. The line of flight of a threatening Iranian missile is very close to the course of a missile also aimed at Washington from the westernmost Russian ICBM fields at Kosel’sk (pink line) and Tatishchev. Here’s where there is a very delicate balancing act. How do we defend against Iran without threatening Russian capabilities? If we were to move our Mid Course interceptors downrange from Poland, say to Norway, UK or Iceland, we most assuredly would be able to intercept Russian missiles from their sites west of the Urals which is not our intention. To move them uprange to Ukraine would solve that problem, but cause different but serious political problems with the Russians.
Just a guess, but I believe the derating of the European interceptor missiles was to reduce the range and capability against Russia’s missiles to convince them of our good intentions. They should know it anyway. Their engineers can do the calculations. But that probably won’t change any minds in the Kremlin.
In many ways the Russians have brought this problem on themselves. They have played footsie with the Iranians, selling them a reactor and fuel that will eventually yield plutonium for weapons. Their efforts to destabilize the Mid East to undercut American interests, is at the heart of the problem. Putin and Medvedev are playing victim when they are the instigators. They are playing with dynamite. Iran is run by religious fanatics. The Russians have Islamic problems of their own in Chechnya. The whole nuclear mess could come back and bite them. At some point we must operate in our own best interests.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Poles and Old Europe.
In an article yesterday uncharacteristic of it, the New York Times points out the dramatic change of attitude Russia’s invasion Georgia has had on the Poles. From reluctance to accept a missile shield on their territory, they have instantly reversed positions and signed an agreement to allow it. The article points out the lack of faith Poles have in “Old Europe,” and the need to tie themselves to the US. "
But since the Georgia crisis, this largest of post-Communist European Union members has moved to cement its relationship to action-oriented America and not just the tentative bureaucracies of Europe and NATO. " "The Russian invasion reminded Poles once again how quickly and dangerously Eastern Europe can divide. Poland is struggling to show that it will not fall behind the faint old lines of the cold war, which may have seemed foggily forgotten in the West since the Berlin Wall fell but are remembered all too well here. "
The article goes on to explain Poland’s memories go beyond the cold war era, but back to their invasion by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 when they were left to defend themselves, despite a treaty with Great Britain and France. They fell in 4 weeks, and lived 50 years under the subjugation of a foreign power.
"It is not a cold war mindset that drives Poland, Mr. Sikorski said, but one that harks all the way back to World War II, when, despite alliances with Britain and France, Poland fought Nazi Germany alone, and lost. " "It was “the defining moment for us in the 20th century,” Mr. Sikorski said. 'Then we were stabbed in the back by the Soviet Union, and that determined our fate for 50 years.' "
"As a result, Poland’s foreign policy is stamped by mistrust not only for Russia’s ambitions but also for hollow assurances from its own allies."
The last comment (bold) is a zinger directed at France and Germany. You have to remember France pulled its military out of NATO in the 1960’s, knowing that any Soviet attack would have to come through Germany and be fought there primarily by Americans and Germans. During the cold war France played footsie with the Soviets with the dream of establishing a French and Soviet hegemony from the Urals to the Atlantic. Germany, likewise, now feels the comfort of a Polish buffer. Both have gone soft.
There is nothing like recent memories to reinforce the fears of Russian domination when you are on the front lines, as Poland now is. For those who believe doing away with anti-missile technology and cutting our military to the bone is the way to make other nations love and respect us, think again. For those who believe our military prowess doesn’t make friends, think again.
But since the Georgia crisis, this largest of post-Communist European Union members has moved to cement its relationship to action-oriented America and not just the tentative bureaucracies of Europe and NATO. " "The Russian invasion reminded Poles once again how quickly and dangerously Eastern Europe can divide. Poland is struggling to show that it will not fall behind the faint old lines of the cold war, which may have seemed foggily forgotten in the West since the Berlin Wall fell but are remembered all too well here. "
The article goes on to explain Poland’s memories go beyond the cold war era, but back to their invasion by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 when they were left to defend themselves, despite a treaty with Great Britain and France. They fell in 4 weeks, and lived 50 years under the subjugation of a foreign power.
"It is not a cold war mindset that drives Poland, Mr. Sikorski said, but one that harks all the way back to World War II, when, despite alliances with Britain and France, Poland fought Nazi Germany alone, and lost. " "It was “the defining moment for us in the 20th century,” Mr. Sikorski said. 'Then we were stabbed in the back by the Soviet Union, and that determined our fate for 50 years.' "
"As a result, Poland’s foreign policy is stamped by mistrust not only for Russia’s ambitions but also for hollow assurances from its own allies."
The last comment (bold) is a zinger directed at France and Germany. You have to remember France pulled its military out of NATO in the 1960’s, knowing that any Soviet attack would have to come through Germany and be fought there primarily by Americans and Germans. During the cold war France played footsie with the Soviets with the dream of establishing a French and Soviet hegemony from the Urals to the Atlantic. Germany, likewise, now feels the comfort of a Polish buffer. Both have gone soft.
There is nothing like recent memories to reinforce the fears of Russian domination when you are on the front lines, as Poland now is. For those who believe doing away with anti-missile technology and cutting our military to the bone is the way to make other nations love and respect us, think again. For those who believe our military prowess doesn’t make friends, think again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
