Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MowCowWhoHow III

(2,103 posts)
Wed May 11, 2016, 10:29 AM May 2016

U.S. to switch on European missile shield despite Russian alarm

Source: Reuters

The United States' European missile defense shield goes live on Thursday almost a decade after Washington proposed protecting NATO from Iranian rockets and despite Russian warnings that the West is threatening the peace in central Europe.

Amid high Russia-West tension, U.S. and NATO officials will declare operational the shield at a remote air base in Deveselu, Romania, after years of planning, billions of dollars in investment and failed attempts to assuage Russian concerns that the shield could be used against Moscow.

"We now have the capability to protect NATO in Europe," said Robert Bell, a NATO-based envoy of U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter. "The Iranians are increasing their capabilities and we have to be ahead of that. The system is not aimed against Russia," he told reporters, adding that the system will soon be handed over to NATO command.

The United States will also start construction on a second site in Poland on Friday that is due to be ready in 2018, giving NATO a permanent, round-the-clock shield in addition to radars and ships already in the Mediterranean.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idUSKCN0Y217M

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. to switch on European missile shield despite Russian alarm (Original Post) MowCowWhoHow III May 2016 OP
I can't believe that they still are pitching it as protection from Iran... RiverNoord May 2016 #1
I think like what happened in Crimea BumRushDaShow May 2016 #2
I agree with your assessment. RiverNoord May 2016 #6
IMHO it's Reuters BumRushDaShow May 2016 #8
I can buy that. RiverNoord May 2016 #9
Yup and funny you mention it BumRushDaShow May 2016 #10
I have a hard time accepting that this is effective. lark May 2016 #3
It is, all of it, a sop to the MIC. Just as our "government" is a mere division of them. nt villager May 2016 #4
"(to my knowledge) has never had a successful test" EX500rider May 2016 #5
AEGIS has been very successful intercepting test missiles. nt hack89 May 2016 #7
Was it a real test, though? lark May 2016 #11
They were real. hack89 May 2016 #13
Probably. lark May 2016 #14
So if it's ineffective, then why would the Russians be concerned? FLPanhandle May 2016 #12
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
1. I can't believe that they still are pitching it as protection from Iran...
Wed May 11, 2016, 12:17 PM
May 2016

Even with no knowledge of geopolitical conditions in eastern Europe and the Middle East, all it takes is a map to work out the purpose of the deployment.

NATO would never spend billions to protect against Iranian missiles. What's the point? First, they have no ballistic missile capability beyond a few prototypes that could still easily be brought down by missile cruisers, from the air, or from the ground.

Second - well, why? Why would Iran launch any missiles at Europe? Even in the context of some bizarre shooting war, they're not fools. Many of the military elite are survivors of the Iraq invasion. Their fundamental military doctrine is very, very averse to the deployment of weapons that are likely to result in major civilian loss of life.

But, whatever...

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
2. I think like what happened in Crimea
Wed May 11, 2016, 12:35 PM
May 2016

and what obviously happened in Cuba 50+ years ago - it's about Russia stationing assets in countries under their sphere of influence (like we are doing in Europe). We know Iran doesn't have any of that stuff, although they do have a navy. They are the old boogie man.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
6. I agree with your assessment.
Wed May 11, 2016, 05:21 PM
May 2016

But the whole 'Iran' boogie man (if it's 'boogie man' compared to 'boogieman' or 'bogeyman,' does that mean it's got smooth disco moves?) is so transparent - who is the propaganda aimed at? Not anyone who has a clue. Certainly not Europeans - they're way more savvy than that. Not the Russians - they know exactly who the defenses are really for deterring. And definitely not the Iranians - they know they've got no capability for or interest in any form of European-directed military activity.

Us?

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
8. IMHO it's Reuters
Wed May 11, 2016, 05:30 PM
May 2016

Their copy seems to continually find some "angle" to elicit a WTF? out of the reader. This part seems to underscore that -

Despite a historic deal between world powers and Tehran to limit Iran's nuclear program, the West believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards continue to develop ballistic missile technology, carrying out two tests late last year.

"They are looking for greater distance and accuracy," said Douglas Barrie, an aerospace defense specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). "They can still miss by hundreds of meters, but that doesn't rule out firing against a city or a very large airfield."


basically citing think tank opinion (defined to be "the West&quot as the actual policy.
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
9. I can buy that.
Wed May 11, 2016, 05:43 PM
May 2016

Good point.

Not hard to find someone to pump up that angle at the IISS - nowadays it's pretty much the British PR wing of all major 'Western' arms manufacturers.

They'd run an assessment of the long-term threat of isolated, indigenous communities deep in the Amazon rain forests, due to their ability to throw pointy sticks with unusual accuracy, if they were paid to...

BumRushDaShow

(128,958 posts)
10. Yup and funny you mention it
Wed May 11, 2016, 05:45 PM
May 2016

but I re-watched Avatar over the weekend and that type of mentality was showcased, front and center.

lark

(23,099 posts)
3. I have a hard time accepting that this is effective.
Wed May 11, 2016, 01:48 PM
May 2016

It's just another sop to the MIC that (to my knowledge) has never had a successful test. Even when they included data showing exactly when and where the bogie would be launched, we couldn't hit it. I have never seen anything showing that a true test, where a bogie is sent at an unknown time from an unknown place, has worked. If anyone has a link to a truly successful test, I would greatly appreciate the link.

EX500rider

(10,845 posts)
5. "(to my knowledge) has never had a successful test"
Wed May 11, 2016, 05:18 PM
May 2016

Yes there have been successful interceptions.
Which system are you referring to?

You've got:
Patriot
Patriot was deployed to Iraq in 2003, this time to provide air and missile defense for the forces conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.[29] However, no longer-range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and Iraq successfully destroying a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Aegis Combat System
Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3#Missile_defense

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

22 November 2005 Success Launched a missile in its first Flight EMD Test, known as FLT-01. The test was deemed a success by Lockheed and the Pentagon.

11 May 2006 Success(?) FLT-02, the first developmental flight test to test the entire system including interceptor, launcher, radar, and fire control system.

12 July 2006 Success FLT-03. Intercepted a live target missile.

13 September 2006 Aborted Hera target missile launched but had to be terminated in mid-flight before the launch of the FLT-04 missile. This has officially been characterized as a "no test."

Fall 2006 Cancelled FLT-05, a missile-only test, was postponed until mid-spring 2007.

27 January 2007 Success FLT-06. Intercepted a "high endo-atmospheric" (just inside earth’s atmosphere) unitary (non-separating) target representing a "SCUD"-type ballistic missile launched from a mobile platform off Kauai in the Pacific Ocean.

6 April 2007 Success FLT-07 test. Intercepted a “mid endo-atmospheric” unitary target missile off Kauai in the Pacific Ocean. It successfully tested THAAD's interoperability with other elements of the MDS system.

27 October 2007 Success Conducted a successful exo-atmospheric test at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii. The flight test demonstrated the system's ability to detect, track and intercept an incoming unitary target above the Earth's atmosphere. The Missile was hot-condition tested to prove its ability to operate in extreme environments.

27 June 2008 Success Downed a missile launched from a C-17 Globemaster III.

17 September 2008 Aborted Target missile failed shortly after launch so neither interceptor was launched. Officially a "no test"

17 March 2009 Success A repeat of the September flight test. This time it was a success.

11 December 2009 Aborted FTT-11: The Hera target missile failed to ignite after air deployment and the interceptor was not launched. Officially a "no test".

29 June 2010 Success FTT-14: Conducted a successful endo-atmospheric intercept of unitary target at lowest altitude to date. Afterward, exercised Simulation-Over-Live-Driver (SOLD) system to inject multiple simulated targets into the THAAD radar to test system's ability to engage a mass raid of enemy ballistic missiles.

5 October 2011 Success FTT-12: Conducted a successful endo-atmospheric intercept of two targets with two interceptors.

24 October 2012 Success FTI-01 (Flight Test Integrated 01): test of the integration of THAAD with PAC-3 and Aegis against a raid of 5 missiles of different types. During this engagement THAAD successfully intercepted an Extended Long Range Air Launch Target (E-LRALT) missile dropped from a C-17 north of Wake Island. This marked the first time THAAD had intercepted a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). Two AN/TPY-2 were used in the $180m test, with the forward-based radar feeding data into Aegis and Patriot systems as well as THAAD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense

"I have never seen anything showing that a true test, where a bogie is sent at an unknown time from an unknown place, has worked"
Generally it's a bad idea to fire ballistic missiles at nuclear armed countries without some warning unless you are looking to accidentally start WWIII.

lark

(23,099 posts)
11. Was it a real test, though?
Thu May 12, 2016, 01:27 PM
May 2016

Or did they announce the time and location of firing? Did they include markers so that the system could read these and hit the right thing? I've seen lots of articles, and in all of them, it wasn't a true test. Now, I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I have never seen where a true test with conditions like the real world, being successful.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
13. They were real.
Thu May 12, 2016, 01:32 PM
May 2016

the first tests used beacons on the targets as you would expect but the tests got progressively harder and more realistic as the system matured and the bugs were worked out.

I suspect you are thinking about the GBI system in Alaska which has had a lot of technical issues.

FLPanhandle

(7,107 posts)
12. So if it's ineffective, then why would the Russians be concerned?
Thu May 12, 2016, 01:30 PM
May 2016

I'd be happy for my rivals to spend a lot of money on ineffective devices.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. to switch on Europea...