The statements about missile defense that are coming out of the U.S. administration are somewhat contradictory, but it appears that the United States is willing to accommodate Russia's concerns about the missile defense development in Eastern Europe. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced at a press-conference in Prague on October 23, 2007,
[...] we would consider tying together the activation of the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic with definitive proof of the threat; in other words, Iranian missile testing and so on. We have not fully developed this proposal, but the idea was we would go forward with the negotiations, we would complete the negotiations, we would develop the sites, build the sites, but perhaps would delay activating them until there was concrete proof of the threat from Iran.President Bush in his remarks at the National Defense University the same day was not that specific, but his words did not really contradict what Secretary Gates said:
As part of the new relationship, we're inviting Russia to join us in this cooperative effort to defend Russia, Europe and the United States against an emerging threat that affects us all. For his part, President Putin has offered the use of radar facilities in Azerbaijan and southern Russia. We believe that these sites could be included as part of a wider threat monitoring system that could lead to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between our two countries.For our part, we're planning to deploy a system made up of 10 ground-based interceptors located in Poland and an X-Band tracking radar located in the Czech Republic. Such a system would have the capacity to defend countries in Europe that would be at risk from a long-range attack from the Middle East. We're also working with NATO on developing capabilities to defend countries against short- and medium-range attacks from the Middle East. We want to work on such a system with Russia, including through the NATO-Russia Council. The danger of ballistic missile attacks is a threat we share -- and we ought to respond to this threat together.
It would be very unfortunate if Russia turns down this offer. Strictly speaking, Russia's position on missile defense in Europe has been a bit different - Russia argued that there is no threat from Iran and therefore no need to deploy the defense system. The radars in Gabala or Armavir that Russia offered to the United States were supposed to monitor developments in Iran, rather than be incorporated into the U.S. missile defense system. But the difference is not very large and I would argue that the United States, especially in the proposal articulated by Gates, went very far toward meeting Russia's position.
I am extremely skeptical about the very idea of missile defense. But in this case missile defense is not the issue - the issue is whether Russia and the United States can start working together on some project that they consider important. If it's missile defense, so be it. It does seem to be possible after all that two wrongs can make a right.
The book
Comments
I think the United States has been flabbergasted at the response by Russia to its ABM system in Europe. I think both the American military and diplomats were taken back by the animosity this proposal generated in Moscow and the passion of Russia’s responses. I think the honest reason this is true is because the US never considered the GBI system in Poland and the Czech Republic in any way a threat to Russia. While the concept of a “resurgent Russia” makes the press on occasion, the official US government doesn’t consider Russia a threat, and President George W. Bush considers President Vladimir Putin a personal friend. Building the system in Europe, having Russian staff officers to monitor the system, using the Russian search radar systems in Gabala and Armavir to provide area surveillance & monitoring, and taking the threat of “Russian military targeting” away from the sites, seems to be a winner for everybody.
Frank Shuler
USA
Both proposals are a big step in the right direction and I agree that it is now Russia's turn to act on this wellmeaning offer and keep the issue moving toward reconciliation. I'm still at a loss to explain why it took the US so long though, this kind of cooperative, open approach should have been chosen from the outset. Really, how hard could it have been to predict Russia's reaction to the heedless policy they actually used? I for one was not surprised in the slightest - the only thing that did astonish me is the lack of such foresight in the American government.
President Putin recently compared the US missile defense plans with 1962 Cuban missiles crisis. This comment really show the stand of Russia. American now admit that there is hardly any realistic threat from Asia, particularly Iran which doesn't have ballistic missiles that can reach Europe in foreseeable future, no question of reaching the US ever. I think the US missile defense plan in Europe is just symbolic! 10 interceptors cannot guarantee the security of Europe or the US. One thing isn't clear to me if the GBIs carry nuclear warhead! I have few honest questions here: Can GBIs intercept Russian ICBM which will be traveling over Arctic? Can GBI in Europe and Alaska and then in Japan (in future) intercept Russian SLBM launched from Murmansk or Kamchatka? And how many GBIs are planned to be installed in future at different bases?
My curiosity: Did any country of Europe or NATO member ask the US to build missile defense system in Europe to protect Europe from possible missile attack from Iran and North Korea?
how do i get registered to post ba comment. Confusing.
Parimal Debnath:
The American Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) System is designed to launch an inert “kill vehicle” payload that will track and strike the opposing ICBM’s Reentry Vehicle (RV) in ballistic orbit and destroy it by impact. The system has no explosive or nuclear warhead. The GBI system uses a ground based X-band radar system to acquire the target ICBM and provide guidance to the kinetic vehicle for the strike. However, the satellite system required to detect a ground missile launch and to provide the command & control for the GBI system is perhaps ten years away from launch. Testing has improved the accuracy of the system to the point today; the anticipated number of interceptors needed to kill an ICBM has dropped from four per ICBM launch to three. Ten such GBI interceptors in Poland therefore could in theory intercept up to three ICBMs. Mathematically it might be possible to intercept an ICBM silo or mobile launch from western Russia from the European GBI site but the detection and launch window would have to be near identical, a military impossibility. ICBMs over the Arctic or SLBMs? No. The final number of launchers is problematic at this time but the Alaska site was initially (physically) designed to host 100 interceptors. This system is really a big research & development project with the system only now being tested to detect and ignore RV decoys and penetrating aids. Must work must be done before this “system” is declared a “military weapon” as you would think of one. There is a follow on interceptor in design, new “kill vehicles” to be tested and the before mentioned satellite systems to be built and launched. All this is fifteen years away; which interestingly is the forecasted timeline that a future Iranian ICBM might prove a threat. It isn’t beyond reason that in the next 15 years, Iran might have both a nuclear weapon and an intercontinental delivery system. What is unclear, with that capability in fifteen years, is Iran a threat? The GBI system in Europe is not a NATO system at all. The agreement the United States is attempting to negotiate with Poland and the Czech Republic are national agreements between Washington and those host countries.
Frank Shuler
USA
What bothers me about this "non-activation" proposal is that there is no sure way for Russia to know whether the ABM's are activated or not, unless they know the system thoroghly and are allowed, with said knowledge, to inspect the site regularly.
Thanks Frank for your detail information. I really had little idea about the technical aspects of missile defense and GBI. Few more queries: What is the basic difference between American GBI and ABM interceptor around Moscow? Can a GBI be placed on a mobile launcher? How about the idea of building missile defense system in the Arctic or the Pacific ocean? Is it technically possible to build missile defense system on a platform in sea water? I think the US already have a mobile radar near Kamchatka peninsula!
Parimal Debnath:
The American GBI system is designed to intercept the Reentry Vehicle (RV) of a hostile ICBM in ballistic flight and destroy its warhead by direct strike, a kinetic kill. As I understand it, the Russian ABM system around Moscow by contrast is more of a terminal defense system and designed to intercept a descending warhead in the upper atmosphere and destroy it by the detonation of high explosive. I think the American GBI system is very structure intensive and requires a large fixed installation for missiles, radars, and supporting communications equipment. I haven’t read in any publication that basing the current GBI in mobile launchers is ever anticipated. However, most agree the current GBI System is only an entry level system and its future successor may very well be mobile, when built. I think the GBI System needs distance to allow for proper processing of threat information and targeting so there really isn’t a practical, military reason to build such a system so close to an adversary. If you accept the science, the system proposed for Europe is on a direct ballistic flight line from Iran to the east coast of the United States. The US Navy is working on a ship-based interceptor based on its Standard Missile technology and the testing has been very positive. This system is designed to strike a missile during boost launch and would be appropriate in a theater-defense environment, defending Japan from an NKorea launch, for example. The US has built a sea-based X-Band Radar System that is being tested now. This system could be moved to provide radar coverage to any area necessary. That’s the theory at least, however moving the X-Band platform is a slow and laborious task that could not be accomplished in a sudden crisis situation. The sea-based platform is just a useful sensor addition to any American ABM system.
Frank Shuler
USA
Thanks Frank. One more query: How about space based missile defense system? Is the US working on something like SDI?
Parimal Debnath:
I don’t think there is any doubt the future of US missile defense will involved space based weapons. There are, of course, the usual research & development projects in the Pentagon to address the future ABM needs of the United States but testing and deployment of such weapons is decades away. However, critics of such a future defense suffered a major political setback with the Chinese anti-satellite test earlier this year. I think you’ll see dollars thrown into SDI-type systems at an increasing rate in the coming years.
Frank Shuler
USA
The technical aspects of these US bases as well as their antimissile functions are secondary to the show and proof of high level of US commitment in this area of Europe, which is necessary to pull away Ukraine out of Russian sphere of influence. Reorientation of Ukrainian economy will do much more damage to Russia than dozens of these bases, as a large part of Russian economy including military structures are still dependant on sole suppliers in Ukraine and vice-versa. Additionally there is already a talk of need of Patriot defense systems for these bases.The Patriot sytem also needs support, so these bases will be much bigger and they seem at the moment.