Posted on 11/17/2005 1:13:40 AM PST by twinself
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. and Polish officials are discussing building a base in Poland from which U.S. interceptors could shoot down long-range missiles as part of a global defence network, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
It would be the first American strategic missile defence site outside U.S. territory, and would be designed to defend all of Europe against intercontinental-range missiles - primarily those launched from the Middle East.
No decision has been made to proceed with a missile defence base in Poland and alternative sites in Europe are a possibility. But the Pentagon official said Poland appears to be the most likely host country for the kind of American military installation that would have been unthinkable before Poland joined NATO in 1999.
The official discussed the matter only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
The Pentagon has made no public announcement of its discussions with Polish officials, although it has made known its extensive consultations in recent years with NATO allies on the threat posed by ballistic missiles.
On Monday, Poland's new prime minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, said he was opening a public debate on whether to host a U.S. missile defence base.
He did not specifically say Washington was interested in installing ground-based interceptors of the sort that the Pentagon has recently installed in Alaska.
"This is an important issue for Poland, related to our security and to our co-operation with an important ally," Marcinkiewicz said.
He leads a new conservative government in Warsaw that took office on Oct. 31. The previous government had expressed concern that missile defence co-operation with Washington could harm relations with Russia, which had opposed Poland's decision to become a member of NATO.
The U.S. military has no permanent bases in Poland or other Central and Eastern European countries formerly aligned with the Soviet Union. The U.S. does have bases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia such as Kyrgyzstan.
U.S. officials have been discussing with new NATO members Romania and Bulgaria the possibility of basing some U.S. troops there as part of a repositioning of U.S. forces around the world.
U.S. officials have been considering a number of possibilities for extending the American missile defence network to include Europe, although most of the focus has been on defences against short-range missiles.
Long-range missiles are considered an emerging threat, in the view of Bush administration officials, because of the proliferation of technologies that would allow countries such as Iran and possibly Syria or Libya to build extended-range missiles. The threat is especially worrisome when coupled with nuclear warheads.
The current U.S. defence system against long-range missiles is limited mainly to an installation at Fort Greely, Alaska, where at least six missile interceptors are in underground silos, linked to a command and control system. It is designed mainly to shoot down missiles fired at U.S. territory from North Korea, with future expansion planned.
The Pentagon official who discussed the Polish option said that if a missile defence base were built there, it probably would be the only one needed to defend Europe against long-range missiles, although radars, other sensors and interceptors designed to combat shorter range missiles also would be needed for a complete defence.
The official estimated that a site in Poland would not be ready to begin operating before 2010. He offered no estimate on how much it might cost or when U.S. officials were likely to make a decision to proceed. Also undetermined is whether the site would be controlled jointly by U.S. and Polish forces or possibly with a NATO role.
"U.S. and Polish officials are discussing building a base in Poland from which U.S. interceptors could shoot down long-range missiles as part of a global defence network"...
what do toy think about this, guys
posted by "washington times":
"Russian warhead alters course midflight in test
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 21, 2005
Russia recently conducted a flight test of a new warhead that can change course in midflight, which U.S. and Russian officials are calling part of Moscow's efforts to defeat U.S. missile defenses.
The warhead was tested Nov. 1 and tracked by U.S. intelligence technical monitors, including satellites, the officials said.
An analysis of the flight test by U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that it was a further test of a maneuverable warhead that Moscow has been developing for several years in response to U.S. missile defenses.
The warhead was flight tested on a Russian Topol-M missile, designated by the Pentagon the SS-27, that flew from the Kapustin Yar launch complex in southern Russia near Volgograd.
The missile booster fired for a shorter-than-usual duration in placing the dummy warhead and re-entry vehicle into space. The warhead then dropped down to a lower trajectory and was able to maneuver.
Kremlin officials were quoted in Russian press reports as saying the new warhead was designed to thwart the new U.S. missile-defense system of interceptors deployed in Alaska and California.
U.S. officials confirmed some characteristics of the new missile warhead based on an analysis of the Nov. 1 flight test, which was first reported earlier this month by several Russian news organizations.
Unlike current ballistic warheads that do not alter their flight paths sharply once they reach space, the new warhead can change course and range while traveling at speeds estimated at about 3 miles per second, the officials said.
Maneuvering warheads represents a difficult physics challenge because changing course at such high speeds normally would cause a warhead to disintegrate.
Maneuverability would let a warhead thwart missile defenses, because such countermeasures rely on sensors to project a warhead's flight path and impact point so that an interceptor missile can be guided to the right spot to knock out a warhead.
Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA), declined to comment on U.S. intelligence assessments of the latest Russian warhead test because data is classified.
But Mr. Lehner would say that U.S. missile defenses aim to counter a limited number of warheads from a small nuclear power such as North Korea, not a major strike from a nation with hundreds of missiles, such as Russia.
However, Moscow believes future U.S. defenses, including plans to deploy anti-missile interceptors in Europe or the East Coast of the United States, could be used against Russian strategic missiles.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said a year ago that the new strategic-missile system "will have no analogues," a reference to the hypersonic warhead.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced yesterday the Navy's Aegis missile-defense system conducted the sixth successful test of an anti-missile interceptor hitting a target warhead.
It was the first time that a ship-based SM-3 interceptor missile hit a warhead that had been separated from its booster, the MDA said in a statement. The test was carried out near Hawaii from the Aegis-equipped cruiser USS Lake Erie."
What things?
I would not call any country an "enemy" of ours unless we are actually fighting them. Syria and Iran are merely Least Favored Nations at the moment the latter thanks to Jimmy Carter. No arms sold them by Russia will do us any real harm nor would those countries attempt to us them against us.
"How many jobs ? 30 ?"
I don't know is that how many are/were stationed in Germany?
"You think that this is a good price for becoming the first target ?"
You sound just like the European anti-Missile crowd in the 1980's. What do you think caused the fall of USSR which liberated Poland? Do you think Iran has the US in mind as its first target?
What a perfect location for an ABM base. We need to work on similar locations in continental Asia.
"In matter of proportions - yes. But in matter of morality - no."
In matter of morality ? Polish annexation was like taking the money from a wallet of a dead body of a theft, who had stolen that money from you before and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was killing a man together with another guy.==
It is good comparison. May I rephrase?
In case of Teshin annexation(1938) someone killed the guy then both killer and accomplice looted the dead body.
In case of Molotov-Ribbentrop(1939) both conspired to kill guy(the accomplice of first case) and loot him.
Both cases involve the conspirancy against victim.
As for "who had stolen that money from you before" it is usual justification. Stalin used it too when he made a case for Molotov-Ribbetrop.
I don't know but IMO the behaivoir of accomplice is less moral. To loot the dead body is of scavenger. Better to be killer then scavenger.
Actually, if I might correct you a bit here, anytime prior to full reentry, a missile can be shot down without too much trouble occurring. IRBMs and SRBMs still take ballastic trajectories and may be exoatmospheric for part of the trajectory. So even Iranian and Russian missiles impinging upon Europe could possibly be shot down by such a system.
Training bag .... sad but true!
Do you honestly believe that the US (or any other Western country) would undertake a surprise attack or any sort of other unilateral attack against Russia? And please do not use the oddities of Napolean and Hitler as examples. Use only what you know to be the true context of modern Western nations, led by squeamish, reserved liberals. Witness all of the various miltiary operations undertaken by the US since 1945. Be honest about it - you need to admit that the US has no stomach for great war. 3, possibly 4 times since 1945, great war might have been justified, and yet, the US did not muster the courage for great war. Are you simply trying to villify the US?
Do you really think that US is going to shoot down Russian satellites ?==
The system is just a gun. If you have a gun which you install near my place then I have 2 choices. One - to trust you and second - to arm myself.
Whole historical experience of Russia says for second choice.
This thread is highly disturbing in terms of the undercurrents it reveals. Great war will be upon us.
But really, you'd prefer the Finnish way. Right?
The point, however, is whether or not any location offers geographic advantage, not whether or not it is possible to perform an interception. Poland (imho) offers few geographic advantages for the defense of the U.S. from attacks originating in Siberia, or the Middle East, when compared to, say, Flyingsdale Moor (UK) were there is already a large (U.S. built, RAF run) phased array radar.
To assess roughly the advantages of any location, stretch a string on a globe between the launch and impact points, separated by at least 4000 km ("intercontinental"). Points near the string are favorably placed. Poland doesn't even come close to a Siberia to U.S. trajectory and is not particularly favorably located for a Mideast-U.S. trajectory.
I agree with you, the absolute worst thing about Serbia was that it sent all the wrong messages, to everyone, especially the Russians. A skillful diplomat would have made it a Russian lead operation (the Russians participated eventually) with NATO support.
Ideally Poland would become more self sufficient in terms of strategic military capability. In a way, it is too bad that Western countries are so pure of means when it comes to proliferation. Russia and the PRC have proliferated to some pretty bad countries, folks we cringe about having nukes. Meanwhile, in the West, we say the club shall be limited to three only. Personally, I think the club in the West should expand to at least 6 or 7. Poland among them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.