The meeting of two presidents in Kennebunkport was not expected to produce any tangible results. But this depends on what do you call "results". In my view, it did produce an important outcome - the call for broader cooperation made by the Russian president.
President Putin confirmed his proposal to jointly use the radar in Gabala, Azerbaijan and extended this offer to the new radar that Russia is building in Armavir. Then he called for revival of the Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC), that has been languishing in a bureaucratic limbo for almost ten years. As a way of engaging Europe into this arrangement, he proposed opening a similar center in, say, Brussels. In President Putin's words at the press-conference,
Such cooperation I believe would result in raising to an entirely new level the quality of cooperation between Russia and the United States. And for all practical purposes, this would lead to a gradual development of strategic partnership in the area of security.This is exactly the right logic. The more the United States and Russia engage in various cooperative projects, the easier it would be for them to settle all kind of disagreements (and prevent them from occurring in the first place). As much as I am skeptical (to put it mildly) about missile defense, I have argued before that cooperation in this area would be very valuable. I have some questions about the JDEC idea as well, but overall it is a much more valuable and much more promising program.
It would be unfortunate if the Bush administration rejects or ignores the Russian call for cooperation, as it probably will. Of course, at the moment it looks like Russia is asking the price that many in the United States would argue is too high - it wants the United States to reconsider its plan to build missile defense sites in Poland and Czech Republic. But in reality Russia is asking for something else - it mostly wants to be part of the discussion.
Yes, the missile defense installations in Eastern Europe is the main Russian grudge of the moment, but nothing says that it will remain this way forever. Especially if Russia and the United States would engage in a serious discussion about it. Besides, the current location of the radar and interceptors is largely a result of political calculation, rather than of technical ones. Ted Postol has done some good calculations that show that a radar in Azerbaijan would work very well and that Poland is not an optimal place for interceptors (the U.S.-friendly Albania would be much better). So, even those who wish the U.S. missile defense program well may want to reconsider the decision to go with the current radar and interceptor sites.
I'm not very optimistic about the United States being serious about Russian offer. I just don't see that this administration is able to recognize it as an opportunity, much less to act on it. But who knows? Let's hope it will.
The book
Comments
I agree ... the White House is now embroiled with a Congressional showdown and Mr. Bush is running out of time to be cooperative with any Russian President. Let's hope the next era will bring a larger discussion in the realm of cooperation. Poland and the Czech sites definitely were political choices - maybe even to the degree where NATO has a problem with the US stance on this choice. A golden opportunity to work with Russia will be lost for the next several years as progression of this takes place and Russia will react defensively ... and rhetorically!
Pavel:
Was the Albania solution for interceptors Ted Postol’s conclusion or yours? If site locations in Bulgaria or Rumania were rejected by the Pentagon, I wonder why Albania is a “better solution”. I don’t understand the science here in the least but I have concluded in reading such a Balkan installation is too close to Iran for the US GBI system to engage. Is this conclusion in error?
And, why is Albania more U.S.-friendly than Poland or the Czech Republic? (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel
i have some questions about the missile shield that i want to ask to people who know the subject.
1 - The real Russia concern about these missile defence shields isn´t about the possibility of future space interceptors satelittes or space based weapons that added with the radars would endanger Russia if it don´t challenge this trend now?
2 - It isn´t a proof of USA real intentions, about nuclear or missile supremacy, against Russia when it openly and instantly discharge Russia proposal for joint monitoring and joint reaction to Iranian Missiles, in regard to the Gabala Radar Station?
3 Of course Russia can suppres 10 missile interceptors but isn´t Russia right for no wanting to face another strategic arms race with USA since both are supposedly to be respectful partners?
(Russia could, very well, had quietly retargeted its cruise missiles with nuclear weapons at Europe without tryng to achieve a joint solution or Russia could had also put nuclear weapons in space if it was for stopping any threat to its strategic arsenal so that USA couldn´t achieve nuclear supremacy at any circunstance but, instead of that Russia is searching for a deal so Russia, I think, deserves a lot of credit for its behavior, instead of USA that is looking for more supremacy over the world above what they already have)
It was Ted's conclusion based on his assessment of how good a site would be for defending Europe.
Do we have a link to Ted Postol’s work? I'd love to get a real understanding of the underlining principles involved here. As always, thanks.
Frank Shuler
USA
I'll try to get Ted's paper or at least the key slides.
Attn Frank:
One thing to keep in mind about Ted Postol is he is to missile defense what the Fighter Mafia was to the F-15 (and now are to the F-22). The words "axes" and "agendas" come to mind.
The most important thing about Ted Postol is that his technical analysis is invariably good. Besides, it's usually his opponents who have an agenda.
Scott:
Everyone has an agenda. (smile) I’m just trying to separate the politics from the science and to be honest struggling. Any help is appreciated.
[Sidebar]
By the way, here is my post to a previous thread where we were discussing ABL and such. I think this might have been “lost in posting":
Timely article to our discussion published this week in Aviation Week & Space Technology (June 18th addition).
It appears the ABL is once again in favor with the military as many technical obstacles have been overcome. Testing is going well and there seems to be some genuine excitement on the possibilities. It appears the gravest issue; the use of deformable mirrors shaped by hundreds of actuators that compensate for the distortion impaired by the Earth’s atmosphere, has been achieved. The article also mentions the rebirth the resurrected THEL ground based laser system, cancelled in 2005, as the new Northrop Grumman MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser). Boeing is getting into the act by testing a laser system designed to hit manpad missiles and Lockheed is planning an offensive system for the F-35. As for the ABL, while the military now seems to be a fan, Congress, who supported this concept almost in defiance of the Pentagon, has growing skepticism. While billions of dollars have been poured into these systems, operational deadlines for actually producing a weapon system continue to be pushed to the distant future; ABL faces a funding cut, moderate, in the 2008 Defense Budget. Interesting read.
Frank Shuler
USA