As expected, the Obama administration abandoned the missile defense in Eastern Europe. This is the right decision, although the announcement included a nod to missile defense proponents:
this new ballistic missile defense program will best address the threat posed by Iran's ongoing ballistic missile defense program
Well, it won't. I am reasonably certain that at some point that simple fact will sink in, although I realize that this will not happen before some serious money is spent and some serious political controversies generated. We've seen this missile defense movie before.
Still, the Obama administration should be given credit for the right decision made at the right time.
The book
Comments
The Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) System in Alaska and California, and proposed for Europe, was in deep inter-service political trouble since last year. All it took was the “simple” shoot-down of a wayward American intelligence satellite by the US Navy. The Navy took a few days to reprogram both the SM-3 booster & kill vehicle and the AEGIS supporting command & control radar system to effect a mission not really anticipated by the Pentagon. One shot; one kill.
From that moment, in the Pentagon and in Congress, opinions began to embrace the idea that a ship-based ballistic missile defense system solution might be more versatile, more flexible, and might hold greater future potential than a fixed silo site. Having an admiral serving as head of the “Joint Chiefs” only helped the Navy’s cause. The decision in the fy2010 US Defense Budget to acquire additional DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with the Lockheed AEGIS system seem to indicate a change in strategy. The decision in the same fy2010 budget request that capped the GBI system in Alaska and California to only 30 interceptors was also telling.
The SM-3 system is scheduled for many future advances and will be interesting technology to watch. From Russia’s perspective however, the US will be deploying hundreds of SM-3 interceptors, perhaps more than a thousand, in place of only the handful GBI silo interceptors originally anticipated. I wonder how that will play out?
Frank Shuler
USA
Eventually a breakthrough will be made in technology that will render ICBMs totally obsolete.
Unfortunately, this date is now much further into the future than it might be. We can still be hopeful.
And what of the Russian ABM system, at one time US/GB had in excess of 500 warheads targeted on the Moscow area alone, 67 at the primary missile defense radar. Has Putin scrapped it yet?
While Obama's decision seems like a step in the right direction, the issue of Russia's concerns for it's deterrent force remains conspicuously out of the equation. The Obama administration has left Bush administration foreign policy basically intact. The reality is that the majority of the Polish and Czech population (and parliaments) -US diplomatic pressure notwithstanding- are opposed to the basing of any ABM system on their soil. The SM3 sea-based option is just as problematic because of the potentially much larger number of available interceptors, which are rather capable as a boost or mid-course option against ICBM's, particularly with their greater launch position flexibility. I personally believe that the unquestionable Orientalist viewpoint of the United States is responsible for the belief that Iran, -even if it had nuclear tipped IRBM's or ICBM's- would be more likely than Russia or China to use them against the US or NATO with no regard for in-kind retaliation. The only other conceivable purpose is the stated goal by defense planners since the late 1940's of US economic and military global hegemony wherever possible and by whatever means possible. This has been the case throughout the history of imperial powers; and yes, like it or not, the US is an imperial power.
This is incomprehensible decision. Sm-3 Block IA missiles (currently in service), deployed in Europe don't have any capabilities to defend United States against intercontinental ballistic missile from Iran. Also, there is long way yet to develop higher blocks of this system (such as II or IIA) capable to intercept IRBMs and ICBMs. So, decision about resignation from GBI systems in Eastern Europe, makes pointless whole idea of defending US and its Allies, because proposed instead GBI land-mobile and ship based sm-3 system, doesn't have such capabilities. Sm-3 block IA is able to defend just few parts of Europe, not United States.
This decision creates also another question. Why DoD wants to develop land-mobile version of sm-3 block IA, if army's land-mobile missile system Thaad is exact equivalent sea-based sm-3 block IA (post-midcourse and terminal upper tier defense)?
matrek
It seems the Obama Administration and the Pentagon were influenced by the need to purchase a near-term solution that “worked” to a more longer-term GBI solution that is still faced by significant technical challenges. The GBI system in Alaska & California will continue in development; albeit at a slower funding rate.
The SM-3 system is not a “geo-political tool” but is indeed a capable military weapon that will be used in combat. I found the Pentagon briefing notes especially interesting. The “new” American ballistic missile defense “plan” envisions the use of land, sea, and air based weapons to defeat missile launches from any adversarial nation on American’s interest. The SM-3 system has a clearly funded development path even beyond the SM-3 Block IIA (21”) weapon. Japan is a major partner in this system as well; their economic and technical contribution is appreciated in Washington. The land based version has been proposed to Israel to compliment the Arrow ABM system already deployed by Tel Aviv.
The biggest winner here seems to be Raytheon. There seems no doubt a land based version will be acquired by the United States. Perhaps the SM-3 Block IIA system will replace the existing Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile in deployment; however, a farther 21” Lockheed THAAD missile has been proposed. The THAAD system is certainly more mobile that the envisioned land based SM-3 system, so perhaps both systems will be built. It doesn’t hurt that the Raytheon X-Band radar system will work with both missiles interchangeably. Raytheon is also heavily involved in the air component of this strategy. They have built a low cost version of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, that has had excellent test results hitting ballistic missiles in boost phase. The Pentagon is now evaluating various UAVs as a carrier.
What all this means is that American ABM defenses are going to need to be much closer to any potential advisory. Russia may rejoice today that the GBI system proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic is being discontinued but Moscow won’t be too happy if American anti-missile assets are deployed in, say, Georgia and US Navy AEGIS destroyers based in Romania cruise the Black Sea.
Frank Shuler
USA
Let's do some arithmetic:
a. Torpedo = $2.5 million
b. Tico or Burke = ~ $1 billion
c. SM-3s = hundreds of millions of dollars
d. Land and infrastructure to be protected: gazillions
e. Relationships and human factors = incalculable because of net future value
If 10 fish are fired at a Tico or Burke, what happens? We know the answer. We know the ASW capability, not to mention the counter-torp capability. Why is Obama's decision a good one? It's NOT, is the answer. While the land-based system had its problems, putting the entire defense into a sea-based system is, from an OR vantage point, fundamentally dangerous. It creates a situation where non-parity becomes equivalent to a dare. I would bet the Mr. Marshall did not get a vote in this decision.
Lenta.ru quotes Ukrainian ambassador in the US as saying that talks about placing ABM components in Ukraine are underway.