Not surprising for some of us on the US side of the fence. This group came into office thinking they're the smartest ones in the room and everyone else did things wrong. If only they could control every detail, then the world would be better.

You're exactly right Pavel-- by offering the missile defense program in Europe (and consequently selling out the US's Polish and Czech allies who've spilt much political blood over this) as trade for Russia's "help" in Iran (questionable if ANYONE can stop Iran's nuclear program now without metal on target), the Obama admin has played right to Russian fears about the system.

I disagree. All along the United States has said the system proposed for Central Europe is to defend the eastern United States from a potential missile launch from Iran in the next twenty years. The Polish-Czech Republic site also has limited ability to protect Europe proper from such an attack. The American position has also been that it will build this system to defend the United States with complete disregard to Russian opinion. The US will never place itself in the position of having to “ask” Moscow for the right to defend herself. Russia’s response has been to threaten the host countries, Poland and the Czech Republic, with nuclear attack and strengthen its strategic nuclear arsenal aimed at the United States. Russia’s frustration is that America doesn’t seem to care. Every time Russia “rattles the sword”, the US yawns. Why?

Perhaps it’s because the proposed GBI system in Poland with its 10 interceptors is no military threat to Russia and the US is honestly worried about the Iranian’s in the next 20 years.

Is Russia prepared to ratify a bi-national mutual defense treaty with the United States that a ballistic missile attack on America by Iran is an attack on all and will be met with the full weight of Russian military retaliation? Is the US willing to guarantee the same rights to Russia in the event of any such an Iranian attack on Russia?

If Russia doesn’t want this system build, what is she willing to trade in return?

It is Russia that is trying to “get something for nothing”.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank: The problem with your argument is that you assume that that missile defense is good for something. It is not. It's a system that has no value and it should have never been built. Now that the U.S. actually realized that, instead of admitting the mistake and just shutting the project down, it is trying to pretend that this is somehow a sacrifice that Russia should pay a price for.

Pavel, if ballistic missile defense won’t work and therefore has no value, what is Russia so concerned about? Why is this even an issue? In fact, if the silly Americans want to pour tons of money into some crazy defense scheme doomed to failure, why not let them?

This is where I get lost in your argument. What “sacrifice” is the US asking Russia to pay?

Frank Shuler
USA

I see the claim that ABM system has no value repeated often here. How does it have no value? Between the deployed GBIs and SM-3s it already stands a pretty good chance of eliminating entire Chinese deterrent.
And this is nothing compared to a fully deployed ABM system in the future: multilayered defense with hundreds of missiles and let's not even mention the rapidly maturing solid state laser technology.
ICBMs are rapidly moving into obsolescence which is where they should have gone way back in the 50s and 60s when US and USSR first started deploying ABM systems and that is only a good thing.
ABM+bomber force is a much stable option than ICBM+no ABM+hair trigger we had for 50 years.

I realize I am sounding like a broken record, but the chances of Iran launching a nuclear-tipped ICBM against the US are less than zero, even if they have the capability. We are talking about a nation here, not an independent terrorist group. No Iranian regime would ever risk the inevitable retaliatory nuclear strike by the US. BMD "defense" against Iran (even with full nuclear capabilities) defies logic.

Jon Grams

I don’t disagree with your conclusions in the least. However, these are changing times and American nuclear policy must also change to reflect new realities of the 21st Century. The Pentagon has always assumed that a missile attack by a peer rival, to be honest this has always been Russia (Soviet Union), would be massive and the first blow in a war for national survival. It made no sense then, or now, for the Kremlin to launch three or four ICBMs at American targets (read cities). With such an attack, the US would have no recourse in launching a full retaliatory response. Faced with such a devastating response, no sane government in Moscow would start such a war. Only in a “first strike” scenario would the Kremlin hope to achieve the goal of eliminating the American response and “winning” such a war. The arrival of Polaris however changed all. Polaris then, and Trident now, ensures the US has nuclear ability to utterly destroy any peer rival that might launch such a “first strike” resulting in MAD that has dominated American nuclear policy ever since. But, what about an attack in the next twenty years from a non-peer rival? What if twenty years from now, Tehran has six mobile ICBMs and launches one against the US? Chicago is destroyed and 700,000 American’s are dead. What does the White House do? Launch a limited nuclear retaliation against a similar sized Iranian city? Would we launch such an attack if we knew we might lose five more US cities? What if only one? Two? The threat matrix changes. However, if the Iranians, or anybody in the next twenty years for that matter, don’t have confidence in their ability to launch such an ICBM on the US successfully, the concept of MAD is returned. What would happen if Tehran launched such an attack and the missile was intercepted? Where would be the enduring threat? The leverage? Would Tehran gamble away its future on such an attack that might well fail; inviting a devastating American response that Iran would have no defense against? I don’t think so.

Perhaps the true role of the American ABM system is to extend the national nuclear policy of MAD to non-peer rivals such as Iran or North Korea.

Just some thoughts.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, the US has other options! For the sake of arguments, say, Iran will be able to test an ICBM that can reach the US coast in next twenty years. So what? The US has all the abilities to destroy all the nuclear and missiles facilities of Iran without using nuclear weapons or ICBM. Do you think the US will let Iran to build more than one ICBM? Never! Even Israel is capable of destroying all the strategic facilities of Iran. The US and Israel can easily identify the danger sites of Iran! Israel already did the damage in the past you know. America doesn't need ABM system at all to defend herself from possible Iranian or North Korean ICBM. You cannot fight with the hypothetical threats. You are crying for a threat which is not existed. I am amazed to see how the US military is preparing to counter (intercept) possible ICBM test or space launcher test of North Korea. Looks like America is frightened by this possible test of North Korea. Unbelievable! A superpower cannot act like that. You will hardly find anyone who believe Iran or North Korea will ever dare to attack the US. None want to suicide.

Please upheld your dignity as a superpower, no need to fear such non-existed threats. Both the countries fear the US threat though! Smile:)

Parimal Debnath

You bring up an interesting point. Does the United States have the moral right to tell Iran it can’t build nuclear weapons? That Iran can’t build ICBMs? To tell North Korea it can’t have a space program that is a proxy for long range missile development? Does the United States have the right to tell any sovereign nation it doesn’t have the right to defend itself? At the end of the day, the answer is no.

I sincerely believe that any attempt by the United States to shoot down a North Korean long range missile test would be an act of war. I would not know how to reach any different conclusion.

Generals are always accused of “fighting the last war”. However, is it not the role of the Pentagon to look ahead and attempt to define new, future enemies? To protect the United States from harm not only today but in the future? Ballistic Missile Defense Systems are not the absolute solution to all of America’s defense needs. Far from it, they are only one tool.

India announced yesterday she intends on testing an ICBM by 2012. Wonder why New Delhi feels the need to have such weapons? I guess it’s a changing world.

Frank Shuler
USA

We need to remember that North Korea fired a ballistic missile over Japan back in 1998. If they try to pull that stunt again then there is no room for surprise if either US navy or Japan shoots it down. It would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the ABM in "real world" quite nicely and make Iran and North Korea rethink the wisdom on poring vast sums of money into the research of a weapon system that is likely to be obsolete the minute it leaves the assembly line.

Frank Shuler

The US might not have the moral (legal?) right to tell Iran, a sovereign state, as you point out, what to do. But in all honesty, when has that ever stopped the US government? You've invaded countries for much less. Was Grenada a security threat? was Iraq? and Panama? none of those posed the slightest threat to American national security and yet they were invaded the second Washington didn’t appreciate their politics anymore. So in the face of a real, nuclear, threat from Iran, do you honestly believe, somehow, the US government would have second thoughts and suddenly decide to “respect” Iran’s sovereignty? Sorry, but that just seems a little farfetched to me.

Anonymous

Actually, Granada, Panama and Iraq were all deemed a security threat by the United States and duly acted on by our government. That was exactly my point in answering the previous post. The nuclear arming of Iran is not a moral issue for the United States; it is political. It is not about the United States somehow maintaining its “dignity as a superpower”. The US Government has made a strategic policy decision that Iran must not have nuclear weapons. How the US goes about achieving that goal, diplomatically, economically, or militarily is under review by the current Administration. As with all American Presidents, all options are “on the table”.

I also think the odds of the US attempting to shoot down any North Korean long range missile launch at 80%. The American assets are in place to deal with the threat and I just don’t think the US will tolerate another “shot” over Japan.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, the countries like India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea don't need nuclear weapons and ICBMs. What they need is to spend more hard earned public money to deal with public related problems. No country needs nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deal with terrorists. Unfortunately India and Pakistan already acquired nuclear weapons and possessed short and medium range ballistic missiles. Iran and North Korea both have nuclear programs as we all know but they are still far away to achieve operational nuclear weapons. As American defense officials admit, Iran is still far away to produce weapon grade uranium. Iran and North Korea both have short and medium range ballistic missiles but ICBMs are really a different missile. I am not an expert, but what my small knowledge say, it is really a very difficult task to build an ICBM. Only five countries were able to build ICBM so far. Sending one test satellite into space doesn't mean that Iran will be able to build ICBM in foreseeable future. Yes, space launcher (rocket) can be converted to ICBM and vice-versa but these countries don't have such technology yet. If that was the case then India should build ICBM many years before. India already built heavy space launchers like PSLV, GSLV etc.

You are not saying anything about Israel. Israel possesses nuclear weapons (although not officially). You know that, America knows that. But America never say anything about that! A nuclear Israel is always a threat to Iran and other muslim countries. As a sovereign country Iran has all the right to defend herself. North Korea is not different.

Well, the bottom-line is Iran and North Korea shouldn't possess nuclear weapons and ICBM. I think everyone wants that. But you cannot prevent them to use the technology for peaceful purpose. If a country wants to build space launcher and send satellite into space, what's wrong in doing that?

I am not sure if American ABM system (placed in California and Alaska) is capable of intercepting ICBM at this moment but America has all the effective air defense system to shoot down ballistic missiles.

Frank, can you please give some lights on the system with which America wants to intercept possible North Korean ballistic missile/space launcher?

Parimal Debnath

Where will Iran and North Korea be in twenty years? That is what the United States is trying to prepare for today. Missile technology is accumulative. I don’t know of a single example where a country decided to build an ICBM without extensive work first being done on short range missiles and rocket systems. It just seems like a natural progression. Any nation can build a nuclear bomb if it is willing to spend the money required to gain the technology and train the scientist to build the device. Former president of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said, “My people may have to eat grass, but we will have the bomb”. Having a nuclear weapon does not make you a “World Power”. Having a nuclear warhead and an intercontinental delivery device does. That being said, any civilian airliner can be used to deliver a bomb. National defense is a daunting task.

I think the United States spends a great deal of time and energy making sure Israel doesn’t feel threatened by its enemies exactly because she does have nuclear weapons. The US always seems to enforce caution on Israel.

What five countries have built ICBMs? I’m missing somebody.

A US general here has stated when and if the North Korean missile base shows signs of an immediate launch, the GBI system in Alaska and California will be migrated from the testing configuration the system is in today to an operational status as a precaution. The head of the US Pacific Command has said there are resources (I read that AEGIS warships) available to engage the DPRK launch in boost phase if so ordered.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel: "The problem with your argument is that you assume that that missile defense is good for something. It is not. It's a system that has no value and it should have never been built."

Maybe you could explain how defending one's self has "no value". At the same time maybe you could explain the rational for all those Russian SAMs? Are they too of no value?

Frank, Five countries mean all the declared nuclear powers. Yes, France and UK use SLBM not land based ICBM. I have included UK in the list although they are using American Trident SLBM. Well if you exclude both France and Great Britain then only three countries now possess land based ICBM. France can build ICBM if they wish to do so. I think UK is also planning for a new system. I think South Africa was very near to build an ICBM but they stopped their space program. Some people believe that Israel is also approaching towards building an ICBM if America allows them to do so. They have already built space launcher. I have a confusion! How Great Britain is using American Trident? Can a country sell their ICBM/SLBM to another country? Or even transfer such technology to another country?

Well, it will be a big test for American GBI to destroy DPRK's ballistic missiles in boost phase. How close the AEGIS warships to be stationed to intercept North Korean missiles in boost phase? I have little idea about the effectiveness of American ABM system!

Parimal Debnath

I thought Great Britain was your fifth ICBM country.

The United States and Great Britain have a political and military relationship that goes back to August 14, 1941 and the Atlantic Charter between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. Why the British have Trident today is historically interesting. The US and Britain decided in the late 1950s to build a successor to the US Hound Dog missile being carried on American B-52 bombers; perhaps the world’s first strategic air launched cruise missile. The new project bogged down in technology and cost and the Pentagon wanted to cancel in favor of Polaris. Then US President, John F. Kennedy, offered the British in 1961 Polaris in place of the Skybolt ALCM, the Hound Dog replacement, then in development for both the US and RAF. (was to be used on the British V-Class bombers) The British PM accepted and the interdependency of the Pentagon and Whitehall in SLBMs began. Today, the Royal Navy is the only fleet on earth that uses the US Trident and is also involved in post-Trident research & development.

Of course the proliferation issue could also be taken that if the Soviet Union hadn’t provide ballistic missile technology to China, the Chinese would not have been in the historical place to re-provide such technology to North Korea who would not have had the ability to pass on such to Pakistan who passed it on to Iran and Syria who passed it on to...

Where an American ship equipped with the Standard ABM missile needs to be to intercept a DPRK launch is obviously a close held secret. It is known the NKorean launch would be from a single base and needs to ascend to the immediate east to achieve ballistic orbit. I bet the US ship could stand well out to sea from the Korean coast and still have several “shots” at the missile before that system achieved its ballistic path. My feeling is that if the Japanese want the US to shoot this missile down, it will be attempted.

Frank Shuler
USA

To make a few comments. What Russia wants is clear. Russia wants minimal US presence in proximity to Russia. The bases are not particularly useful for the task of preventing a nuclear attack. Sure. But they are very useful if Washingtong decides to invade a nuclear Iran. In that scenario being able to neutralize the Iranian ICBM threat becomes a real task. As a result, America wants unconditional Russian help in shutting down the Iranian nuclear program, and in exchange the BMD in Europe will be pulled. Makes sense to me.

Thanks Frank for your detail information. As I told before, countries like Iran and DPRK shouldn't run for nuclear weapons and ICBM. But they have all the rights to use the technology for peaceful purpose. And in that sense a test space launcher of DPRK should not be intercepted. Any attempt to shoot DPRK's test launcher could provoke unnecessary tension in the Korean peninsula. The situation is already tense due to joint military exercise of ROK and USA. And if DPRK deliberately tries to test an ICBM in real sense and if it poses any threat to America then she has the right to shoot it down. But I feel everyone should work for a peaceful peninsula.

Hi Frank,
Your point on "where will Iran and N. Korea be twenty years from now" and subsequent planning of US may not be logical, IMHO.

Afganistan was US' business. But Iraq was not. We do not even know if it was a CIA failure or if Bush lied to the world about Iraq.

Likewise you can not hang a kid because after 20 years he may become a serial killer. There is nothing that N. Korea or Iran have done, that should rattle anyone. What they may do after 20 years is not a business to be addressed now. Regimes change, policies of nations change.

So I find it difficult to argue that US is trying to contain what Iran and / or N. Korea would do after 20 years.

regards,
Anoop

Anoop Saxena

But, isn’t that what the Pentagon and the Kremlin are suppose to do? Isn’t that their “job”? To anticipate future advisories; enemies? Isn’t it prudent to develop defensive systems and strategies to address such future issues? The key to me is to develop such technology that can also be flexible and adaptable to changing needs in the future. The French didn’t find the Maginot Line particularly useful against the Nazi’s in 1940. Build for a recognized enemy but not flexible to changing technology and needs. That’s an important historical lesson.

Frank Shuler
USA

It amazes me to see the analysis of what iranian's 'think' by some people on this site.

This one
"We are talking about a nation here, not an independent terrorist group. No Iranian regime would ever risk the inevitable retaliatory nuclear strike by the US. BMD "defense" against Iran (even with full nuclear capabilities) defies logic"

in particular caught my attention. I lived in Iran for 11 years, married an Iranian woman, and can tell you that a sizeable percentage of Iranians truly believe that the US is the 'great Satan' that the fundamentalist radicals believe them to be, and as can be seen by the too willing suicide extremists in that part of the world, I could see a radical arm of the military commit a 'suicidal' act to strike a blow at the US. And suppose they did, and took out New York City? And then within an hour of the strike, before the US retaliation came, an announcement went out to the world that a gang of rogue military officers had launched an attack on the USA, and had been caught and executed by the Iranian Government, and the Iranian government calls an emergency security council session.

Do you think the US would still attack? Destroy the nation of Iran for the 'supposed' actions of a few hundred fanatics who belive they are going to paradise?

Sound like science fiction? Maybe. But you would be very suprised the kind of talk you hear in the coffee shops in Iran by some of the more radical students and mullah's. Some of them have called for the elimination of Israel *at any price* and they sing the praises of those who killed themselves in suicide missions. For a long time (I was there until 2005) many said the US got what it deserved on 9/11. How far is it from that mindset, to knowing they could reproduce that but take out the whole city this time?

To me, the risk of that is too high. Any system that can stave off a small, limited attack - versus what we have now (nothing) - is worth it. The Russians' fear, I believe, is not in the system as proposed - they know it wont stop SLBM's or a massive strike of ALCM's from bombers or ICBM's. No, their fear is that if the system is deployed and is proven to work, that it can be expanded to eventually pose a threat to the USSR's counterstrike / deterrent credibility - *and* force it to develop it's own expensive system.