translated:
"How are we supposed to sell Iran are outdated military junk if you keep this up!!!!"
Ping
Frankly, I have a noun and a verb for Pootie Poot who has been ever so helpful to his soul mate George Bush thus far in the UN Security Council/sarc.
Let's just hope the first "Shahab 4" is launched by Iranian-trained Chechens.
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was signed with an entity called the USSR. I can't find that on a map, and neither could President Bush.
So Russia has ambitions that a ballistic missile shield would preclude?
"it is now accepted that any such shield would be overwhelmed by an attack from Russia, which possesses a nuclear arsenal comparable to the US."
Apparently someone in the Bush Administration has the good sense to realize that the defense system is nothing if it cannot defend against missiles that are launched from anywhere in the world.
Can we be assured that Russia, or some covert operation within the country will never launch a missile from its territory? I’m not putting that question to you liberals who don’t even believe that Saddam was a threat to the US or his neighbors.
Hmmmmm... It would be fun to know what is going on behind the scenes in the Administration regarding Iran. It would seem the anti-missle defense may be more than signaling an acceptance of Iranian nukes. Perhaps it is a bargaining chip with Russia on the Iranian question. It sure seems to have struck a nerve with them.
Our friends, the Russians. [/sarcasm]
Opposition from the British public over missile defense?
Ironic -- considering the British public were the first people in history to face a missile attack in 1944 from the V-2.
Ivan, why is the British Public in favor of being defenseless?
Interesting that this picture shows the explosions over Moscow.
Why am I not surprised at this phony assertion. By a phony paper likely from a phony 'official'...who obviously has an axe to grind. Many in the Pentagon always opposed missile defense...so they set about trying to undercut it from within.
Nonetheless...they have failed.
Ground Based element functional and worksMissile Defense Flight Test Successfully Completed - December 13, 2005
April 11, 2006, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY CONDUCTS SUCCESSFUL DATA COLLECTION FLIGHT TEST
April 28, 2006 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY CONDUCTS SECOND SUCCESSFUL DATA COLLECTION FLIGHT TEST
Just May 11, 2006 INTERCEPTOR COMPLETES SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENTAL FLIGHT TEST
And most tellingly...Aegis works:
Sea-Based Missile Defense "Hit To Kill" Intercept Achieved - November 17, 2005
Meanwhile we are deploying very serious 'link' assets that will make it an effective defense capability. Satellite sensors. X-Band radars. Etc. So much for the NYT and their "expert".
Meanwhile, I commend this report from Frank Gaffney's The Center For National Security:
Go Navy missile defense!
By Frank GaffneyWith each passing day, evidence grows that two of the world's most dangerous rogue states, North Korea and Iran, will be able to equip their arsenals of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. The prospect that American forces, allies and interests - and ultimately the United States itself - will be at risk from attack by such weapons offers a powerful validation of President Bush's visionary and courageous determination to deploy defenses against ballistic missile-delivered threats.
Missile Defense, from the Sea
Last Thursday, the United States Navy confirmed that the President's vision can be realized in a near-term and highly cost-effective way - from the sea. For the fifth time out of six attempts, Navy ships successfully tracked, intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile in-fight, using their existing AEGIS fleet air defense systems and a new Standard Missile, dubbed the SM-3.
Three features make this test particularly significant: For the first time, the hardware and software utilized was the operational configuration (known as AEGIS BMD 3.0) that will be installed in all other AEGIS missile defense ships. No less noteworthy is the fact that the SM-3 utilized to shoot down the target was one of the first of the production rounds to come off the manufacturing line. And, the personnel used to conduct the test were the regular crew of the U.S.S. Lake Erie.
In other words, this was the "real deal." The option of complementing land-based anti-missile defenses with sea-based assets capable of both tracking ballistic missiles and destroying them in-flight is now in hand.
In addition to the exemplary performance of the Lake Erie and her crew, Thursday's test also featured another important development. A second AEGIS ship, the USS Russell, brought to bear for the first time a new capability known as the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Signal Processor (BMSP). This S-Band radar provided real-time discrimination and classification of the target, information that considerably enhances the probability of intercept. The AEGIS BMSP holds great promise for expanding missile defense radar coverage at a fraction of the cost of other approaches.
The enemy is Us
These achievements are all the more remarkable for another reason: The sea-based missile defense program has, for most of the past thirteen years, suffered from minimal support from the Navy's leadership and outright hostility from the Pentagon's missile defense bureaucracy. The former have tended to see this mission as a diversion of scarce resources from the other priority air- and sea-control duties for which the AEGIS ships were designed.
For the latter, sea-based anti-missile systems have generally been anathema, albeit for varying reasons. During the Clinton years, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was sacrosanct and even seagoing missile defenses that were incapable of stopping long-range ballistic missiles - and therefore not covered by the Treaty - were considered to be problematic. Consequently, the Navy's programs were often starved of funds.
Amazingly, things have not been much better under a George W. Bush administration that came to office determined to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to deploy effective, global missile defenses at the earliest possible time. Missile Defense Agency has largely been allowed to give short shrift to the development and deployment of Navy anti-missile systems, in favor of ground-based interceptors and longer-term research and development efforts.
Unfortunately, shortly before the Navy's successful test, the Ground-based Missile Defense system experienced the latest in a series of experimental setbacks. While the threat of missile attack demands that that program be brought to completion - and that such further testing and developmental work be conducted as is necessary to get there, the achievements of the sea-based missile defense program to date demands a much more assertive effort be undertaken to realize its potential.
Getting There from Here
Such an effort should involve the following components:
-- Accelerate procurement of SM-3 missiles. Present plans call for the deployment of just 30 such missiles by 2007, of which only a few would be the Block I interceptor successfully tested last week. The rest would be upgraded Block Ia missiles that have yet to be proven, let alone put into full-scale production. A larger buy of both could enable more ships to be missile defense-capable, affording protection to larger areas of the globe and reducing the unit costs of the interceptors.
-- Retain five AEGIS cruisers that are being decommissioned at a roughly the half-way point in their planned service life. These vessels can be configured to be effective anti-missile ships at a fraction of the cost of new construction .
-- Resuscitate a program terminated several years ago to afford the Navy's fleets protection against short-range ballistic missile attack. Scuds and similar missiles available to North Korea, Iran and China, among other potentially hostile states, demand the deployment at the earliest possible time of a capability like that of the so-called SM-2 Block IVa program.
-- Maximize the interoperability of U.S. sea-based missile defenses with the AEGIS ships of allied fleets - including those of Japan, Australia, Spain, Norway and South Korea. Doing so can complement America's efforts to provide truly global protection against ballistic missile attack to our own forces, people and interests, while helping to defray the costs of such protection.
The Bottom Line
Missile defenses are more required now than ever. The time has come to assign the Navy the mission and the resources necessary to provide comprehensive defenses from the sea.
The above report now can be updated...there have now been six of seven successful naval intercepts of ballistic missiles. Time to deploy, Mr. Rumsfeld. Time to Deploy.
"It was also announced yesterday that Russia and NATO will conduct joint theater missile defense exercises in October. According to General Yury Baluyevsky, Russian Army Chief of Staff, “This is one of the areas where we see concrete results that satisfy both Russia and NATO.” Last year, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov spoke at a session of the Russia-NATO Council, where he stressed the need to boost cooperation between Russia and NATO in the theater missile defense area."
http://www.missilethreat.com/news/testing_russia_nato.html
Since it makes little sense for Russia to be "angered" by a missile defense system, I'm inclined to doubt that its true.
Eastern Europe is a good location for such a system, but better yet would be for it to be built in layers, with part of it based in Turkey or Georgia, or even southern Russia if they decided to get on board.
Israel is an obvious target for a missile strike, so its almost a certainty that part of the system will be based there.
I guess I just keep remembering that for most of my life, the Soviets were our main adversary.
Anything that makes a roosski squawk, has got to be good for America.
As long as we can keep them away from the shield generator, it should be alright.
"Iran currently has no weapons capable of hitting western Europe, let alone an intercontinental missile that could strike the United States."
This is a misleading statement. Iran has steadily increased the range of their missiles---especially since 1997 when it became apparent the Russians were providing them with missile technology---if not the missiles themselves. The current Iranian missiles can reach into Central Europe, so the notion that Western Europe should feel safe is ridiculous.