U.S. to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield
link

WASHINGTON –– The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar with the matter, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe.

The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.
[An Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile launches] Getty Images

An Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile launches

The findings, expected to be completed as early as next week following a 60-day review ordered by President Barack Obama, would be a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.

The Bush administration proposed the European-based system to counter the perceived threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon that could be placed atop its increasingly sophisticated missiles. There is widespread disagreement over the progress of Iran's nuclear program toward developing such a weapon, but miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-range missiles is one of the most difficult technological hurdles for an aspiring nuclear nation.

The Bush plan infuriated the Kremlin, which argued the system was a potential threat to its own intercontinental ballistic missiles. U.S. officials repeatedly insisted the location and limited scale of the system –– a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland –– posed no threat to Russian strategic arms.

The Obama administration's assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, face a more immediate threat from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles and will order a shift towards the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such systems would be far less controversial.

Critics of the shift are bound to view it as a gesture to win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to seek new economic sanctions on Iran if Tehran doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has opposed efforts to impose fresh sanctions on Tehran.

Security Council members, which include the U.S. and Russia, will meet with Iranian negotiators on Oct. 1 to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

Current and former U.S. officials briefed on the assessment's findings said the administration was expected to leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in the future.

Mr. Obama phoned the Czech prime minister to discuss a controversial missile defense system, according to the Associated Press. Government spokesman Roman Prorok declined Thursday to detail what Mr. Obama told Prime Minister Jan Fischer, saying only that Mr. Fischer later informed Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

The Czech national news agency CTK, citing a diplomatic source it didn't identify, reported that Mr. Obama indicated the U.S. intends to "withdraw from its missile defense project in the Czech Republic and Poland."

But the decision to shelve the defense system is all but certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to "reset" relations with Moscow would come at the expense of U.S. allies in the former Soviet bloc. "The Poles are nervous," said a senior U.S. military official.

Polish officials said Thursday they had no information on whether Mr. Obama also phoned that country's top leaders, the Associated Press reported.

Earlier, a Polish official said his government wouldn't "speculate" on administration decisions regarding missile defense, but said "we expect the U.S. will abide by its commitments" to cooperate with Poland militarily in areas beyond the missile-defense program.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he expected the Obama administration to drop the missile-defense plans. He said that Moscow wouldn't view the move as a concession but rather a reversal of a mistaken Bush-era policy.

Still, the decision is likely to be seen in Russia as a victory for the Kremlin. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will meet with Mr. Obama at next week's meetings of the U.N. General Assembly and Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations.

Although a center-right government in Prague supported the Bush missile-defense plan when it was first proposed, the Czech Republic is now run by a caretaker government. A Czech official said his government was concerned an announcement by the White House on the missile-defense program could influence upcoming elections and has urged a delay. But the Obama administration has decided to keep to its original timetable.

European analysts said the administration would be forced to work hard to convince both sides the decision wasn't made to curry favor with Moscow and, instead, relied only on the program's technical merits and analysis of Iran's missile capabilities.

"There are two audiences: the Russians and the various European countries," said Sarah Mendelson, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The task is: How do they cut through the conspiracy theories in Moscow?"

The Obama administration has been careful to characterize its review as a technical assessment of the threat posed by the Iranian regime, as well as the costs and capabilities of a ground-based antimissile system to complement the two already operating in Alaska and central California. Those West Coast sites are meant to defend against North Korean missiles.

The administration has also debated offering Poland and the Czech Republic alternative programs to reassure the two NATO members that the U.S. remains committed to their defense.

Poland, in particular, has lobbied the White House to deploy Patriot missile batteries –– the U.S. Army's primary battlefield missile-defense system –– manned by American troops as an alternative.

Although Polish officials supported the Bush plan, U.S. officials said they had indicated their primary desire was getting U.S. military personnel on Polish soil. Gen. Carter Hamm, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said Washington has begun talks with Polish officials about starting to rotate Europe-based American Patriot units into Poland for month-long training tours as a first step toward a more permanent presence.

"My position has been: Let's get started as soon as we can with the training rotations, while the longer-term stationing...is decided between the two governments," Gen. Hamm said in an interview.

For several years, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has been pushing for breaking ground in Poland and the Czech Republic, arguing that construction must begin so the system would be in place to counter Tehran's emerging long-range-missile program, which intelligence assessments determined would produce an effective rocket by about 2015.

But in recent months, several prominent experts have questioned that timetable. A study by Russian and U.S. scientists published in May by the East-West Institute, an international think tank, downplayed the progress of Iran's long-range-missile program. In addition, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an expert in missile defense and space-based weapons, said in a speech last month that long-range capabilities of both Iran and North Korea "are not there yet."

"We believed that the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missile would come much faster than it did," Gen. Cartwright said. "The reality is, it has not come as fast as we thought it would come."

It is not an assessment that is shared universally. Eric Edelman, who oversaw missile-defense issues at the Pentagon as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, said intelligence reports he reviewed were more troubling.

"Maybe something really dramatic changed between Jan. 16 and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their missile system, but I don't think so," Mr. Edelman said, referring to his last day in office.

There is far more consensus on Iran's ability to develop its short- and medium-range missiles, and the administration review is expected to recommend a shift in focus toward European defenses against those threats. Such a program would be developed closely with NATO.

Quoted:
Good. It was a poorly thought out strategy based on outdated foreign policy positions. More than that, it was more about $$$ than making the US a safer country.

Quoted:


I disagree.  One single nuke over Eastern Europe at about 200 miles above the ground would been a major distruption in the whole continent due to EMP destruction of major electrical/electronic equipment.

Quoted:
Good. It was a poorly thought out strategy based on outdated foreign policy positions. More than that, it was more about $$$ than making the US a safer country.

1) It takes the pressure off Iran. LOL what are you smoking? This will embolden Iran.

Except for the fact that Russia might be more inclined to put pressure against them. Russia wants Israel to attack Iran, this plays in their favor. Big Oil prices = money for Russia

2) It leaves the ball in Israels court. Alone. See note above.

Iran isn't our problem. Please read what the founding fathers had to say on the subject. Right minus all the death to American threats and wiping Israel off the planet. No threat to the US at all.....

3) You don't give the Russians ANYTHING. You make deals with them.

See number one.

4) Foot in the door to cut more R&D on ballistic missile research, and other programs.

News flash. We're broke. That means less nation building and fewer new toys.

5) Fucks our allies. Commerce with all, Allegiances with none.

Everyone looks out for their own interest. We need to do the same for a change.

Quoted:

Anyone still up for arguing that Obama isn't the ultimate Manchurian Candidate?

Quoted:


Victory for Putin and Iran, hmm?
So, what is this telling the World; OUR Enemies?

Quoted:
This is so bad for many reasons.

1)  It takes the pressure off Iran.
2)  It leaves the ball in Israels court.  Alone.
3)  You don't give the Russians ANYTHING.  You make deals with them.
4)  Foot in the door to cut more R&D on ballistic missile research, and other programs.
5)  Fucks our allies.

Quoted:


Honestly, Obama doesn't give a flying fuck about our National Security as he believes he's the new world Peace maker, unfortunately that asshole is taking us along for the ride.

- Cease moving forward on the Missle Shield.
- Totally Neuter our Intelligence Community.
- Spend more money and time on Healthcare, thus impairing our ability to protect ourselves.

Yeah...pretty much key ingrediants to our Pre 9/11 mentality, and we see what happened to us because of it!

Not even factored in, we've also now got a Nuclear NK, and damn near close to having a nuclear Iran.

Yeah...we may very well be fucked beyond repair.

Quoted:
Hopefully our own military leaders will eventually realize what (who) the biggest threat to national security is... and DO something about it.

Without functioning ground bases, aircraft cannot operate; the Air Force is investing heavily in shorter ranged tactical aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, along with a host of older F-15 and F-16. Overseas bases from which these aircraft operate are now threatened by increasingly accurate ballistic missiles in Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean arsenals, Deptula said. The newest models are road mobile and exceedingly difficult to locate.

Quoted:
Utterly, and I mean utterly, idiotic.

Especially when paired with this....

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/15/u-s-air-dominance-eroding/

Quoted:
Once again Poland gets fucked over and Russia gets it's ass kissed.
This has been the standard operating procedure since WW2 - fuck your best allies and reward your potential enemies.

Maybe we should just rename our country to something more appropriate while the current administration's in power?
How about calling ourselves "France"?

Quoted:



Once again Poland gets fucked over and Russia gets it's ass kissed.


This has been the standard operating procedure since WW2 - fuck your best allies and reward your potential enemies.

Quoted:
Good. It was a poorly thought out strategy based on outdated foreign policy positions. More than that, it was more about $$$ than making the US a safer country.  Where did you pull this nonsence from?  It was about money?  Protecting our allies and military installations is outdated foreign policy?

1) It takes the pressure off Iran.

Except for the fact that Russia might be more inclined to put pressure against them.  So what?  The Russians are actively helping them.  You think this is going to cause the Iranians to stop their nuke program?

2) It leaves the ball in Israels court. Alone.

Iran isn't our problem. Please read what the founding fathers had to say on the subject.  That's right.  Having US friends and allies in Europe - and American military instillations - under threat of Iranian missiles isn't our problem. We should just let them swing in the wind.  

3) You don't give the Russians ANYTHING. You make deals with them.

See number one.  Maybe this is what Zero gave to the Russians in exchange for them allowing us to use Russian airspace to fly cargo into Asscrackistan.

4) Foot in the door to cut more R&D on ballistic missile research, and other programs.

News flash. We're broke. That means less nation building and fewer new toys.  We're broke in large part due to the social programs pushed by those same Democrats.  Where in the Constitution does it mention health care, Social Security, or welfare?  It's not that we don't have the money.  It's that they would rather spend it on stupid people to allow them to continue doing stupid things without having to live with the consequences.

5) Fucks our allies.

Everyone looks out for their own interest. We need to do the same for a change.  Looking out for our allies IS looking out for our own interests.  Why can't you see that?

5) Fucks our allies.

Everyone looks out for their own interest. We need to do the same for a change.

Quoted:
The shield was a great idea to protect allies from a possible strike from Iran. But it would have done nothing if Russia wanted to hit Poland. By the time we got the thing tracking the Russian Army would be passing it by on foot. My bet is we cancel the shield and Russia agrees not to obliterate Israel when they take out Iran's nuke program.

Quoted:

I don't even know what to call that treasonous motherfucker anymore...

Quoted:

Good. It was a poorly thought out strategy based on outdated foreign policy positions. More than that, it was more about $$$ than making the US a safer country.



1) It takes the pressure off Iran.



Except for the fact that Russia might be more inclined to put pressure against them.



2) It leaves the ball in Israels court. Alone.



Iran isn't our problem. Please read what the founding fathers had to say on the subject.



3) You don't give the Russians ANYTHING. You make deals with them.



See number one.



4) Foot in the door to cut more R&D on ballistic missile research, and other programs.



News flash. We're broke. That means less nation building and fewer new toys.



5) Fucks our allies.



Everyone looks out for their own interest. We need to do the same for a change.

Quoted:


This means "Never trust americans as allies"  and this piss me off, since today, because my country is a USA friend, 6 of my comrades died in Kabul...

Very bad for the good ol' USA.

I am starting to think that Obama is really worste than Jimmy Peanuts Carter... far worste...

Quoted:


this

Quoted:


How dare you introduce logic to this discussion.

Quoted:
I wonder if we are being setup.