Russia Says U.S. Approach to NATO Missile Defense System Is ‘Unacceptable’

[Purveyor]

Source: REUTERS

Russia is alarmed at the U.S. decision to station four ships at a base on Spain’s Atlantic coast as part of an American-led NATO missile defense system, the Foreign Ministry said.

The U.S. approach to developing its capability against missile threats in Europe is “unacceptable,” the ministry said in a statement published on its website today.

Russia “cannot but be alarmed because already in the first phase it’s leading to a substantial buildup of the U.S. anti- missile capability in Europe,” the ministry said.

Spain is the fourth European nation agreeing to participate directly in the Europe-wide missile defense program, intended to protect against attacks from adversaries such as Iran. President Barack Obama pursued U.S. plans for the system in 2009, and the administration has obtained agreements with Poland, Romania and Turkey to host elements of the shield.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/russia-says-u-s-approach-to-nato-missile-defense-system-is-unacceptable.html

[Lurks Often]

1. Russia is being hypocritical

From the article "Russia has warned the U.S.-led plan may provoke a new arms race and upset a strategic balance in the region by threatening its nuclear deterrent capability."

What the article doesn't mention is that they have long had a ABM defense around Moscow.

I happen to believe the real reason is that the only thing making Russia a significant military power are their nuclear weapons. Russia's conventional military is a pale shadow of what it used to be do to lack of money to maintain existing equipment. Combine this with Russia's long history of paranoia (perhaps rightfully so) regarding foreign invasions that dates back hundreds of years, their reaction is understandable, even if it is wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. No, they are not.

You think we don't have a ring of ABMs around Washington?

What would be hypocritical would be if they established ABM defenses in Canada and Mexico and THEN complained about ours in Europe and Central Asia.

[CJvR]

3. Actually...

...the US scrapped it's ABM defence, before that it was used to defend a missile base to ensure second strike capability. I doubt there is any function ABM-lite even today and even if there were it hardly matters much since the US withdrew from the ABM treaty (prematurely IMPO, there was not reason not to wait until the system was readdy for deployment).

[hack89]

11. We don't have a ring of ABMs around DC

we have some in Alaska. The rest are on ships.

[cstanleytech]

4. I find it odd that Russia objects to countries defending themselves unless

of course they had plans to invade said countries in which case its perfectly understandable.

[provis99]

6. nonsense.

NATO having a sense of security in a missle defense system makes it much more likely that NATO will attack someone, since they wouldn't fear retaliation.

[Lurks Often]

8. Truly nonsense

Based on the logistical and operational issues reported in Libya, the European militaries are only in marginally better shape then the Russians are. Besides the missile defense system would not stop the hundreds of Russian missiles (presuming they are operational).

[jakeXT]

5. Lots of missile news lately, I've read a lot of them in recent days on the STOP NATO site

Today
Spain: U.S. Expands Missile System To Both Ends Of Mediterranean

NATO: After Netherlands And Spain, More Nations To Join Missile System

NATO Chief: Interceptor Missile System Fully Operational By 2018

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

[Celefin]

7. Would be funny if it wasn't such a waste.

So now the ABM systems 'will be fully functional by 2018'.
Yeah right. Full functionality has always been 5-10 years away.
There is no system in existence that can shoot down an unannounced missile. Much less one with multiple warheads.

Who knows, maybe in the end both sides get so paranoid about the other's possibly functioning ABM system that they decide on a first strike - only to find out that neither system works and the whole thing was a waste of a perfectly good planet. Shucks.

At least some people are getting insanely rich while the fun lasts.

[Lurks Often]

10. The naval component seems to be working quite well

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Aegis-Ascendant-and-Amphibious-11-23-2010.asp

An 85% success rate per single missile and operational policy would likely be to fire 2 ABM missile per incoming warhead, depending on the number of incoming targets and the number of ABM missiles being carried by the ship.

As for MIRVs, it depends when the ABM missile intercepts the incoming ballistic missile, if it is before the MIRVs separate then the ABM missile will "kill" the rocket and the MIRV warheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_missile_SM-3 suggests that the missile is capable of hitting the MIRV after it has separated from the rocket.

The program has never been intended to stop more then a few missiles at once. Certainly it would require a enormous scaling up of production, radar and launch platforms to be able to stop the hundred's of missiles that I believe the Russians are capable of launching at once.

[Bloke 32]

9. I simply don't trust Putin

That is all.