Missile Defense Discussion

[The Stig]

Sept 18, 2009 13:34:24 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

One of the major uses of any American anti-missile system should be the protection of Israel from Iran and others. This is a more realistic near-term threat than Russia firing on Poland or of North Korea or Iran firing on the U.S. Iran continues to say Israel should be driven from the earth and it is developing nuclear weapons and missiles with the range to hit Israel. A sea-based system may be better because it's movable. That's the plus side. The minus side is we must maintain ships in position to defend Israel all the time. A land based system is confined to its location and the range of its interceptors and detection systems; but the location is there to stay. The killer in any system is that it relies on communication, command and control which are subject to jamming or destruction (like from electromagnetic pulse).

If a sea-based, Aegis system is to be the selected option, President Obama must be prepared to go to the mat to ensure we have enough ships to maintain position in the areas most likely to be required; and, the accompanying command, control and communication systems involved. So far he has shown no visible thrust in upping the funding for any weapon system.

The system that was supposed to go in Poland/Czech Republic would not have helped us defend Israel from Iran.

The system was designed to hit the missile in mid-flight, so it had to be placed somewhere between the source and the target. So in order to defend Israel from Iran, we'd have had to put the missiles in Jordan, Syria, or Iraq, and that simply isn't happening for very obvious political reasons.

Any missiles that defend Israel have to be placed in Israel, meaning that it has to be the type that intercepts the incoming ballistic missile in the ballistic missile's terminal stage, not in mid-flight (something like the Patriot system).

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 18, 2009 18:16:51 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

First off, I take it that Barak and Netanyahu called you personally to tell you this.

Second, if Iran attacks Israel it will be with nuclear weapons. The Ayatollah called me personally to tell me this.

I am not sure what warranted such a wild response, perhaps it was my dripping sarcasm earlier in the thread, but, in any event, the following is an article quoting both Barak and Netanyahu on the subject:
www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/17/world/international-uk-israel-iran.html

The article reflects also the intelligence that they have received. My understanding is that Mossad is pretty good at what they do, and this kind of report should be credited.

Your question, as written, is almost as if they simply got it wrong if they were so quoted or could not possibly have said what they did.

The defense shield idea in the Middle East serves no practical function, only a theoretical one. That point, which I made yesterday, has not been challenged here, let alone in strategic terms.
* * * * *
As a sidenote, this is not to say that I want Israel obliterated from the Earth. Such an accusation usually surfaces, unhelpfully, whenever a carrot is given to a state historically adverse to Israel or whenever it is suggested that Israel is misbehaving. To the extent we seek peace in the Middle East, I favor a symmetrical balance of power over an asymmetrical one. The asymmetrical one encourages intransigence and gives incentives for the cheap hit and runs that we see from the Palestinians as well as surprise attempts to challenge Israel's borders. Israel also lacks an incentive to negotiate vis-a-vis its neighbors.

[The Stig]

An interesting graphic at the bottom of the page showing the differences in territory defended between Bush's Eastern European system and Obama's Aegis system. Note that neither system defends Israel.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8265190.stm

It's also important to point out that the Aegis system will be in service two years before the projected entry into service of the Bush era system (2015 vs. 2017).

[Boz]

I am not an expert on this particular subject, but something seems really wrong with that first map.

[The Stig]

Sept 20, 2009 9:38:34 GMT -5 Boz said:

I am not an expert on this particular subject, but something seems really wrong with that first map.

Yeah, it does look strange. I think it has to do with the fact that the Bush era system was a fixed system, with fixed radar sites. Those radars might have had some trouble seeing over the mountains in the Balkans, which is why there's less coverage there.

The Aegis system has more consistent coverage because it'll be seaborne, and the land-based Aegis missiles will have mobile launching sites.

[Deleted]

Israel has the Arrow defense system, developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing. Tests conducted in April proved successful in intercepting a target similiar to the Iranian Shihab 3 missile.

Europe has the financial resources to pay for a missile defense system. Countries (like Germany) would need to raise their defense buget over 1.5% of GDP in order to do so. Not sure why the US has to pay for it. I agree with the President's decision.

[EasyEd]

We would have better protection if we had both the land-based systems in Poland/Czech Republic and the upgraded Aegis system. Also what about Shahab 4 in the future, or other systems bought from Russia or North Korea? Our defenses have to address future threats, not present threats. Also note the Shahab 3 is thought to have such a range? What is we are wrong?

Also, I said our anti-missile program should provide defense for Israel. I did not say the ones in Poland/Czech Republic would do that.

[jerseyhoya34]

Some of this discussion raises the question of what constitutes a strategy. The Bush administration took us further in a direction where any Pentagon spending on items that may work in the future and may be used to protect against some contemplated-for threat in the future was absolutely essential. In raw terms, our spending since 2001 on defense has nearly doubled (http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=539), when, even in 2001, our military power vis-a-vis other countries was unprecedented.

That this missile defense debate is even made serious by the crude, appeasement-style accusations is almost laughable. In Europe, the system would purportedly protect Poland but for the Russians express statement that they would not attack Poland with missiles and the leap of imagination to think that this would somehow be preferable for the Russians over a land invasion of Poland across the Curzon Line.

In the Middle East, Israel's first and second strike capabilities are so severe that their strategy would be the same regardless of whether Iran has a nuclear bomb. They've stated as much. It is hard to imagine a Shahab 4 or Iranian defense research outstripping that of Israel in the next 20 years even to close this balance. Even if it did, make no mistake that our military aid would well make up the difference.

The bigger issue is how one defines future threats. Australia could attack New Zealand in 3 years. That's a threat, except not very realistic. Iceland could become embroiled in another conflict over cod. Not very realistic. Yet, we could do something to limit these threats and could spend some money. The refusal to draw these and other kinds of lines is a reason why our military spending has gone through the roof all while the biggest threat to our nation is a guy in a cave. Thirty years ago, it was a well-organized regime with a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and the capabilities to deliver them to our shores. Somehow our military strategists figured that out without the kind of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach we've seen for the past 15-20 years.

Herein lies one of the reasons for the collapse of Bush's grand strategy - to the extent one existed - after September 11. Artificial line drawing on spending vis-a-vis the purportedly overarching threat of terrorism became incoherent. Why we invade Iraq but let bigger offenders skate is one prong of the issue. Another is spending on something like missile defense, which every responsible analyst suggests would do nothing for us against an asymmetric nuclear attack by a terrorist organization.

The movement here by Obama is strategically wise and reflective of a movement toward a "realistic" foreign policy. I don't agree with the move toward this policy entirely. The shunning of the Dalai Lama this week seemed to be deliberate and a little much, but, if this is a price for thoughtful strategy, I'll pay it.

[The Stig]

Sept 20, 2009 11:05:38 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

We would have better protection if we had both the land-based systems in Poland/Czech Republic and the upgraded Aegis system.

Erm, that's the entire point of the system Obama is pushing. They will have mobile, land based sites in addition to the shipborne system. As a matter of fact, Gates has said that the land based sites could be deployed to the Czech Republic and/or Poland.

This is a technological shift, not a strategic shift. It just happens to have some nice diplomatic side effects.

[derhoya]

It will be interesting to see what the QDR says coming up later this year regarding future defense programs and areas of particular interest/need that the pentagon wants to emphasize.

I would say these systems are put in place for peace of mind for our allies and ourselves. The intercept system (bush) has been shown by many studies to be limited. Its missiles can't hit the higher flying, more maneuverable Russian missiles. So why are the Russian's upset and wanting to moving intermediate range missiles to the Karliningrad region? I'd say it is b/c their paranoid (nothing new) but Putin/rest of Russian hierarchy have to keep face in front of their own people and respond in kind to the missile defense system next door. It's just a big chess match like always.

the group getting the most benefit from these developments has to be Raytheon. Further development of their system means big bucks in their pocket.

[theexorcist]

Ambassador - your comments don't really make any logical sense.

Defense Spending: One of the big problems for any NATO involvement, anywhere in the world, has been airlift, which almost every other country in the world lacks. The US has taken on the mantle of being the only country able to provide strategic airl and sealift anywhere in the world. Being the global hegemon has its perks, but it's not cheap.

Poland: Placing the system in Poland doesn't matter - the threat is not nukes from the Russians. Placing US troops in Poland, who would get involved if the Russians were to invade, does matter. Poland and the Czech Republic have both emphasized the involvement of other US forces on their soil.

Israel and Iran: Israel is a small country that's relatively flat and which is about the size of New Jersey. Iran is mountainous and slightly smaller than Alaska.

Iran, with a small number of nuclear weapons, could almost annihilate all of Israel's population and eliminate any continuity of government.. Israel has no chance to do the same.

Drawing Lines: The US is not positioned to attack Iceland or Australia (though we do have a Canadian invasion plan - search the Post archives for "Raiding the Icebox"). Defense spending has gone through the roof, but most of that is because supporting the logistics for a war in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't cheap.

[jerseyhoya34]

As to the defense spending comment, you could make an argument (and a historically accurate one) that we were the world's only superpower after World War II and aimed to protect Western Europe from the Soviets at least as early as 1947. We would all argue that this could be an expensive undertaking given the strategic landscape and geopolitics after the Second World War. Western Europe was exhausted, and we would have a difficult time both politically and militarily in rolling back the Soviets on the ground. Nonetheless, we would at least need to be able to "contain" the problem (still difficult given the Soviet military). Yet, our defense spending ratcheted down under Truman and picked up under Eisenhower before coming down again before the end of his presidency. Our immediate response, however, was not to spend through the roof because of indefinite or undetermined obligations. In my mind, that makes sense.

Point is - we figured it out strategically despite our balance of power favorability, which was considerable at the time and unchallenged by the Soviets in real terms. Ideologically is a different story. There is no similar effort (or has not been similar effort) after the Cold War to make a strategic assessment and decide where the global fault lines are. Instead, any and all defense spending is more or less considered a political necessity regardless of the strategic benefits. In my mind, that does not make sense from the point of view of military strategy and opportunity costs, but perfect sense from the military-industrial complex mindframe.

My point is exactly that there is nothing to be gained from placing the system in Poland, but, yet, Obama has purportedly sold out Poland and appeased the Russians. It is a view unsupported by a strategic analysis, regardless of the point about troops, which I concede. We need our troops there precisely because, if the Russians were to attack, they would do it by land. My idea is to spend on the troops and cut down spending on missile defense. I think that makes sense.

Israel's first strike and second strike are massive, which is why a single nuclear weapon or set of weapons is not a strategic/military concern under the recent Netanyahu/Barak statements. The calculus does shift, as you say, in the very unlikely event that this balance between Israel and Iran changes. Our strategy currently accepts that Israel's predominance is a necessity, so why exactly would we or should we prepare as if this strategy will collapse?

I don't disagree that our spending is through the roof because of Iraq, largely, and Afghanistan. So what? The problem is that the Iraq war was not undertaken with a serious strategic assessment of how it may be beneficial. If you accept that terrorism is the overarching issue through which we should see today's world, do you accept that it is $800 billion worthwhile to invade Iraq, depose its leader, provide for reconstruction, and an occupation of undetermined length? I consider it an admirable objective insofar as Saddam was evil, but the link to terrorism was wanting in my mind to make it strategically worthwhile. Most regional experts acknowledged that despite assertions to the contrary by Cheney et al. The ripple effects have not been as advertised - democratic peace did not ensue (see Israel-Lebanon), Iran has resurged to the benefit of certain terrorist organizations, etc.
* * * * *
As a factual point, we do have plans drawn up to invade several countries. Indeed, one existed for Afghanistan on September 10, 2001. Point is that we draw the line somewhere in terms of spending, and this line should be a reflection of our strategy. This leads to the question of what our line is now. After Clinton and both Bushes, I am hard pressed to put my finger on it due to our strategic drift and the kind of political nonsense that follows something like the Obama decision on missile defense. (There was a period during Bush II's first term where I thought we made some progress toward a grand strategy, This period ended in March 2003, and many in the so-called structural realist camp would agree.)

The question then becomes one of what our strategy is vis-a-vis the world and what the pivotal issues are through which our foreign policy can find expression and coherence. In that context, I find the missile defense system in Europe to largely be a brain fart.

[Boz]

Given this morning's news, my guess is that we should expect to find out pretty damn soon if we got anything in return for scrapping this missile defense system plan.

No word from the Russians as yet (at least not that I've seen this morning), but I imagine we'll all be staying tuned.

UPDATE: Medvedev this morning:

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/25/2080138.aspx

Take of this what you will, but it sure doesn't sound encouraging that Russia is on board with sanctions or altering it's Iranian position whatsoever.

[The Stig]

First off, we did NOT scrap our missile defense plans. We switched our missile defense to a system that is better in almost every way (more mobile, based on proven technology, available sooner, more in line with current threats, less troublesome diplomatically).

Medvedev's comments yesterday were actually a big shift in Russia's position. Before they sad that sanctions would never happen on their watch, now they're saying they might be inevitable. That may not seem like much, but in diplomacy-speak that was a huge change.

Of course, we found out today that Obama told Medvedev about the second enrichment site in their meeting yesterday, so Medvedev might have switched positions based on that, and not the missiles. But the missiles couldn't have hurt.

[Boz]

Pardon me for being skeptical when it comes to this administration.

You can rest assured, if Russia actually does change it's position, I will be one of the first to offer kudos.

But somehow, I have this feeling I won't have to be eating crow on this issue.

And no, I am not happy about that. I am very, very disturbed about it.

[The Stig]

Sept 26, 2009 2:34:05 GMT -5 Boz said:

Pardon me for being skeptical when it comes to this administration.

You can rest assured, if Russia actually does change it's position, I will be one of the first to offer kudos.

But somehow, I have this feeling I won't have to be eating crow on this issue.

And no, I am not happy about that. I am very, very disturbed about it.

The Russian change in position already happened: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8271990.stm

Remember, when the Russians said this, Obama had just told Medvedev about the secret Iranian enrichment facility, but he hadn't revealed it publicly yet. So the Russians were saying that they would support sanctions if there was new evidence, knowing full well that new evidence was about to become public.