Missile Defense (General thread)

[vector7]

U.S. Presidential Candidates Views on Russia

Charles Ganske


Then New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani with President Putin at an international memorial wall for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, November 15, 2001

From the Council on Foreign Relations:
The Candidates on U.S. Policy toward Russia
The Washington Post
Friday, December 28, 2007

As 2007 drew to a close, U.S.-Russian relations remained troubled on a number of fronts, especially policy toward Iran, the expansion of NATO, and Kosovo's status.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has firmly opposed President Bush's plan to build a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland and has signaled changes to an important post-Soviet arms pact. Russia has also been critical of U.S. attempts to ratchet up pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program; in October 2007 Putin likened the Bush administration's posture toward Iran to "a madman with a razor blade" (al-Jazeera). Putin's increasingly anti-democratic moves have also raised alarm among both Republican and Democratic policymakers in Washington. At the same time, top officials and candidates from both parties have stressed the importance of engaging Russia on matters of strategic importance, in particular securing Russia's vast stocks of nuclear materials, to avoid proliferation to rogue states or other groups.

Click here to read the rest of the article at www.washingtonpost.com. Click on the extended post to read excerpts of select candidates views on U.S.-Russia relations.



Senator Hillary Clinton: "I'm interested in what Russia does outside its borders first. I don't think I can, as the president of the United States, wave my hand and tell the Russian people they should have a different government."

The Democrats
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
In a November 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Clinton pledged to "negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals."

She also called for engagement with Russia on "issues of high national importance," including Iran, loose nuclear weapons, and the status of the Serbian province of Kosovo. She said Washington's "ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and regional interference.

Still, she told The Boston Globe in October 2007, "I'm interested in what Russia does outside its borders first. I don't think I can, as the president of the United States, wave my hand and tell the Russian people they should have a different government."

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Obama (D-IL) has said Russia is "neither our enemy nor close ally," and said the United States "shouldn't shy away from pushing for more democracy, transparency, and accountability" there.

He has focused much of his discussion of Russia on diminishing the possibility of nuclear weapons use. In a July 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Obama said the United States and Russia should collaborate to "update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons."

In an October 2007 speech in Chicago, Obama said if elected he would work to "take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material." He said he would seek a "global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons" and an expansion of "the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14946/candidates_on_us_policy_toward_russia.html

In 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan.

Obama and Lugar then introduced legislation to eliminate nuclear stockpiles throughout the former Soviet Union. That law was enacted in 2007.

Obama has said he supports a U.S. missile defense system in Europe, but has some reservations. His campaign website says he supports national missile defense, but he will "ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public." Still, he expressed hesitancy about the Bush plan. "We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment," he said in a July 2007 statement.

Obama criticized the Bush administration for having "exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes," and for doing "a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them."

In a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said the United States needs missile defense, "because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons," but stressed the need to also increase spending on nuclear nonproliferation.

[vector7]

Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: October 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

“In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another.”

His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012.

The exact number of weapons being dismantled, like the overall stockpile, is secret, but officials said Monday that with the planned reductions, the total number of American nuclear weapons would be at the lowest levels since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.

Under a 2002 treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to limit the number of operational nuclear weapons in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012, though that agreement did not address weapons in reserve stockpiles.

Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is seeking to draw attention to his foreign policy views with the approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq. He is highlighting his early opposition to the war, which he argues is a sign of judgment that is more important than the number of years served in Washington.

Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.

If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.

In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.

In setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Obama is endorsing a call for “urgent new actions” to prevent a new nuclear era that was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal written by several former government officials. The authors of the article were George P. Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William J. Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

David E. Sanger and Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.

[vector7]

Obama’s arms vision poised for tight win

By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: December 20 2010 19:07 | Last updated: December 20 2010 19:07



The new Start arms control treaty with Russia, President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy goal, may be about to win just enough votes in the US Senate for ratification, say both supporters and detractors.

Champions of the measure believe approval will avoid a “devastating” blow to US prestige on the world stage and end Mr Obama’s year on a victorious note. Detractors counter that the White House’s last-minute scramble for votes may poison relations with the Republican leadership and mark the end for old-fashioned arms control treaties.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Obama pushes to ratify Start pact - Dec-19
In depth: The Obama presidency - Nov-18
Obama to end military’s gay ban - Dec-19
Editorial: Ratify US-Russia nuclear accord - Nov-25
Obama scents victory on Start treaty - Dec-15
Key US senator rebuffs nuclear treaty - Nov-17

“We need nine or 10 Republican votes, and I think we will get them,” said Charles Schumer, the Democrats’ number three in the Senate. “It’s going to be a real slog, you know, sort of house-by-house combat, if you will, but I think we’ll be there.”

With one absence due to illness, the Democrats and associated independents have 57 votes and 66 are needed for ratification. But prospects of a resounding victory in the fashion of the ratification of past arms control deals with Russia have now practically evaporated, since Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the chamber, announced his opposition.

The issue could come to a head with a motion as early as today to proceed to a final vote. Despite losing the support of Republicans such as Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, whose staff say he opposes the treaty in the lame-duck period, the administration and its supporters say they already have enough supporters among moderate and retiring Republicans to be just one or two votes shy of the winning total.

Still undecided is John McCain, who like many Republicans has voiced concerns at the treaty’s possible impact on missile defence, emphasising language in the treaty’s preamble on the “interrelationship” between strategic and defensive systems and threats by Moscow to leave the treaty if the US escalates missile defence plans.

The issue has pitted the coming generation of Republican politicians against the party’s foreign policy establishment, with possible presidential candidates such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney opposing the treaty and figures such as George H. W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Henry Kissinger calling for its ratification.

The US military backs the treaty, arguing it adds useful constraints and transparency at a time when both Washington and Moscow are modernising their nuclear arsenal. It adds that the deal does not prevent the US from doing anything on missile defence.

Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, one of the most stalwart opponents of the treaty, suggests a slim victory might be in the administration’s grasp. It cites possible Republican supporters of the deal such as Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate foreign affairs committee, is a long-standing champion of the agreement.

“It looks like they may have enough votes to push ratification, but this is going to be a case of winning ugly, and there will be consequences,” said Henry Sokolski, a sceptic of the treaty at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre. Comparing the imminent Senate vote to Mr Obama’s protracted victory over heathcare legislation, which left Republicans resentful and alienated some independent voters, Mr Sokolski described the treaty as “the last hurrah of mutually assured destruction-based arms controls”.

Indeed, some administration officials concede there is no near-term prospect of a next stage arms control deal with Russia, even though Start makes little change to the two countries’ arsenals of strategic weapons and none at all to tactical weapon stockpiles.

The long-delayed ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty, already deeply problematic before the recent Republican gains in the midterm elections, is now even further off the agenda.

Rather than promoting Start as a meaningful step towards Mr Obama’s long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons, the treaty’s supporters have focused on other aspects. Chief of these are its provisions to reinstate nuclear inspectors who left Russia and the US when the last treaty expired a year ago, and its impact on the countries’ relations.

“Failure would be a major blow to American credibility and effectiveness across the board,” said Joe Cirincione at the Ploughshares Fund, a champion of the deal. “It would be a devastating defeat for the president, which is why many of the senators oppose this treaty, but it would also raise serious doubts among our allies and adversaries about our ability to make a deal on anything.”

[American Patriot]

http://www.mda.mil/system/system.html

Just in case you "need to know".

[American Patriot]

http://www.mda.mil/news/11news0003.html

11-news-0003
february 23, 2011

mr. David m. Altwegg retires from federal service


mr. David m. Altwegg, the missile defense agency’s (mda) executive director since 2008, will retire from federal service this month after 64 years of service to the nation. A member of the senior executive service since 1987, he has been assigned to mda since 2002. As the mda executive director he is the highest ranking civilian within the agency, providing oversight, leadership, direction and guidance to all mda functional staff, ensuring the effective integration and organization of all mda functions required to develop and sustain an effective ballistic missile defense system program. He also serves as a key interface to the office of the secretary of defense, the military services and the congress.



A retired rear admiral in the u.s. Navy, mr. Altwegg was appointed to the senior executive service on january 15, 1987. He served in various positions of increasing responsibility in the u.s. Navy, leading the development of complex combat systems, and culminating with his appointment as deputy assistant secretary of the navy for theater combat systems. He reported to mda in august 2002 and served as the deputy for program integration and as the deputy for agency operations before assuming his current position as mda’s executive director. He is the senior advisor to the mda director on all issues relating to the agency's policy and management activities, including responsibility for an approximate annual budget of more than $8 billion.


As a naval officer, his five command tours include uss mahan (dlg-11); uss horne (dlg-30); naval ship weapon systems engineering station, port hueneme, calif.; pacific missile test center at pt. Mugu, calif. And cruiser destroyer group two. After more than 38 years in uniform, rear admiral altwegg retired from military service on november 1, 1985, having earned distinct honors including the legion of merit, the bronze star medal with combat “v”, the meritorious service medal, the navy commendation medal, the national defense service medal with one bronze star, the korean presidential unit citation, and the vietnamese naval advisory award, second class with rosette. He is also authorized to wear the china service medal, the korean service medal with two stars, and the united nations service medal.


In addition to his military awards, he has been awarded the presidential rank of meritorious executive in the senior executive service, and has twice been awarded the presidential rank of distinguished executive in the senior executive service. He was also honored by american university’s school of public affairs with the roger w. Jones award for executive leadership, and he is a recipient of national defense industrial association’s missile defense lifetime achievement award, and the aegis ballistic missile defense pathfinder award.


He is a graduate of the u.s. Naval academy class of 1952; the u.s. Naval postgraduate school and received a master of science degree from the massachusetts institute of technology. He is also a graduate of the navy nuclear power training program and the industrial college of the armed forces.

to: Mda community
from: O'reilly, patrick j ltg mda/d
subject: Dave altwegg's passing

to the mda community,

it is with great sadness that i am notifying you that dave altwegg passed away last night. Dave's life was a testament to patriotism, dedication, leadership, mentorship and compassionate caring who inspired all of those that had the great fortune to serve with and know him. Dave's every action, every day, showed he truly cared for the men, women and mission of the us navy, mda, and our nation. For the 64 years he served our country proudly. His legacy of dedication, commitment, loyalty, excellence, achievement and exuberance for life will endure with this agency. I know you share in grief and fond memories with his wife, daughter and grandchildren - please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

Dave's plan was for an interment at arlington cemetery. It will most likely be a month or two before the interment occurs - we will keep everyone informed on all funeral arrangements.

I am so sorry to inform you of this sad news.


Pat o'reilly

[vector7]

Moscow pushes for guarantee U.S. missile shield not targeting Russia

Topic: U.S. missile shield in Europe


The inauguration ceremony of the location for installing US anti-missile shields at Deveselu air unit.

© AFP/ DANIEL MIHAILESCU

21:40 03/05/2011

Related News

• Russian, U.S. military officials discuss European missile defense in Brussels
• Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield
• Russia, EU should set up expert group for missile shield talks - diplomat
• Russia may only be part of joint European missile shield - NATO envoy

Multimedia

• Russia, West have ten years for full accord on missile defense - Medvedev
• NATO chief wants cooperation with Russia on missile defense

Moscow urgently wants to receive legal guarantees from the United States that its European missile defense shield will not target Russia's strategic nuclear forces, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day the United States reached an agreement with Romania to establish an interceptor facility at a former air base in the south of the Balkan country for a future defense shield, the first such deployment in Europe.

Russia is keeping a sharp eye on the deployment of elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Romania, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

"In this situation the necessity of legal guarantees from the United States that [its] missile defense system... will not be aimed against Russia's strategic nuclear forces becomes even more crucial," the statement said.

"This issue should be resolved swiftly. Moreover, we are sure that it is necessary...to proceed to the coordination of the concept and the architecture of the European missile defense system as soon as possible," the statement said.

"We regretfully say that practical steps to create the European segment of the global missile defense shield of the United States are being taken with no regard to Russian-U.S. dialogue on the anti-missile issue started under the initiative of presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, as well as to the work under the Russia-NATO Council's Lisbon Summit aimed to draft a European missile defense system," the Russian document said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Giving Away the Farm

The Obama administration is freely giving Russia sensitive information about missile defense that weakens U.S. national security.

June 7, 2011

President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. This is the sort of information that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in his earlier days, would have assigned his spies to steal. Through its single-minded pursuit of "resetting" relations with Russia, the Obama administration may simply be willing to hand over this information and, in doing so, weaken U.S. national security.

Only two days after issuing the veto threat -- and as Obama tried to warm Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to U.S. missile defense plans at the G-8 Summit in Deauville, France -- the House of Representatives passed the defense bill. It included the provision that the president's team finds so offensive: Section 1228 requires that no funds can be used to provide the Russian Federation with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

This act of congressional prudence did not come out of nowhere. The Senate debate over New START raised questions about what the Obama administration may have promised Moscow regarding U.S. missile defense plans. The debate stemmed from the treaty's preamble, which linked offensive and defensive weapons, and a Russian unilateral statement that stated ratification of the treaty was conditional on whether the United States made improvements to its missile defense systems. In a treaty about reducing offensive weapons, it was clear the Russians required the Obama administration to include U.S. defenses in the bargain.

With that issue still unresolved, Congress discovered that the administration has been working on a missile defense agreement with the Russians and that Moscow had requested that the United States share with it loads of sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of that deal. In the administration's eagerness to please the Kremlin, it may just oblige.

The House of Representatives has given a firm "no" to that prospect through its decision to ignore Obama's veto threat and approve the defense appropriations bill by a veto-proof vote of 322 to 96. The Senate may act similarly. On April 14, 39 Republican senators sent a letter to the president expressing their concern over the administration's consideration of granting to the Russians sensitive U.S. technology and "red button" authority to prevent the interception of incoming missiles headed for U.S. troops or allies. This would allow Russia to deny the United States the ability to intercept a missile Washington had determined to be a threat.

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), requested the administration provide the Senate with assurances that it will not share sensitive information with Moscow. The senators cited the problem that sharing this information with Russia poses in light of its history of espionage and technological cooperation with Iran and Syria.

They're right to be concerned. Tehran is thumbing its nose at Washington and doubling down on its missile program. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told a congressional panel in March that Iran "would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon" and that the Islamic Republic "continues to expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload."

Russian assistance has contributed to the progress made by Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Should the United States share critical information about its missile defenses with the Russians, a Russian entity -- official or otherwise -- could pass that information along to Tehran, enabling the Iranians to capitalize on the weaknesses in the U.S. system.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to demonstrate its penchant for bargaining away missile defense, and the United States is not currently developing and deploying missile defense technology at the rate and quantity the threat demands.

The proliferation of missiles, especially short-range devices, continues to accelerate. As a result, the United States has a greater need than ever for short-range defensive systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Patriot air and missile defense system. The United States, its forces abroad, and its allies are also vulnerable to short-range missiles fired from ships at sea and long-range missiles fired in large quantities. The only system the United States currently has to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, which is limited in its ability. The sea-based Aegis system is supposed to complement the GMD system in defending the homeland against long-range missiles by 2020, but the intelligence community continues to estimate that Iran will have an ICBM by 2015.

Leaders in the House, and particularly the Armed Services Committee, deserve commendation for trying to address these weaknesses. The House defense bill added funds for short-range defenses, the GMD system, and Aegis; and perhaps most strikingly, it mandated the administration to conduct a study on the technical and operational feasibility of space-based interceptors -- the ideal type of system to intercept missiles at the optimal point, during their boost phase.

But as the administration's veto threat demonstrates, the future of U.S. missile defense requires more than Congress alone can provide. Here's hoping that the White House comes to its senses and stops trying to use a degradation in U.S. national security to purchase a Russian "reset."

[Ryan Ruck]

Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...#ixzz17jjuyySG

Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Railgun

June 17, 2011

The Senate just drove a stake into the Navy’s high-tech heart. The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future? Terminated. The Free Electron Laser and the Electromagnetic Railgun are experimental weapons that the Navy hope will one day burn missiles careening toward their ships out of the sky and fire bullets at hypersonic speeds at targets thousands of miles away. Neither will be ready until at least the 2020s, the Navy estimates. But the Senate Armed Services Committee has a better delivery date in mind: never.

The committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill on Friday, priced to move at $664.5 billion, some $6.4 billion less than what the Obama administration wanted. The bill “terminates” the Free Electron Laser and the railgun, a summary released by the committee gleefully reports.

“The determination was that the Free Electron Laser has the highest technical risk in terms of being ultimately able to field on a ship, so we thought the Navy could better concentrate on other laser programs,” explains Rick DeBobes, the chief of staff for the committee. “With the Electromagnetic Railgun, the committee felt the technical challenges to developing and fielding the weapon would be daunting, particularly [related to] the power required and the barrel of the gun having limited life.”

Both weapons are apples in the eye of the Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy. “We’re fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit maneuvering pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal,” its leader, Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, told me in February. The answer, he thinks, is hypersonics and directed energy weapons, hastening “the end of the dominance of the missile,” Adm. Gary Roughead, the top officer in the Navy, told me last month. With China developing carrier-killer missiles and smaller missiles proliferating widely, both weapons would allow the Navy to blunt the missile threat and attack adversaries from vast distances.

And both have recently experienced technical milestones that made researchers squeal with glee.

In December, the Navy corralled reporters to Dahlgren, Virginia, to watch a railgun the size of a schoolbus fire a 23-pound bullet using no moving parts — just 33 megajoules of energy, a world record. (A prototype of a ship-ready railgun is pictured above.)

And this winter, the Free Electron Laser, the most powerful and sophisticated laser there is, boasted two big advances within a month. In January, its 14-kilowatt prototype passed tests that injected enough energy into it to get it up to a megawatt’s worth of death ray — a “remarkable breakthrough,” nine months ahead of schedule, the Office of Naval Research crowed. The next month, its testers at the Jefferson Lab in Newport News added even more power. Researchers think it could be far more than a weapon: it might act as a super-sensor, and Yale scientists use it to hunt for cosmic energy.

Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the railgun require diverting power from a ship’s generators in order to fire. The Navy’s waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser’s guts are shaped like a racetrack to “recycle” some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren’t built yet.

Neither comes cheap, either. The Navy’s spent some $211 million since 2005 developing the railgun. Its milestones with the Free Electron Laser — in development in some form since the ’90s — led it to ask Congress for $60 million in annual directed-energy research funds, most of which go to the superlaser. Needless to say, a Senate panel facing a huge budget crunch was unsympathetic.

The Office of Naval Research didn’t respond by press time. The process of passing a defense budget making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes, so it’s not like these programs cease to exist. But unless the Navy makes a big push for its futuristic weapons, both of them will die on the drawing board.

[American Patriot]

Well, I really, really, really, really need to get my house sold now.

We're done for.

[Ryan Ruck]

Russia Wants 'Red Button' Rights For US Missile Defence System

A top Kremlin official has told the United States Russia wants "red button" rights to a new US-backed missile defence system for Europe, a move that would allow it to influence the shield's day-to-day operational use.

April 8, 2011

Sergey Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, made the controversial demand during a visit to the United States where he met with top officials including Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.

"We insist on only one thing," he said of the nascent US-backed missile defence shield. "That we are an equal part of it."

"In practical terms, that means that our office will sit for example in Brussels and agree on a red-button push to launch an interceptor missile, regardless of whether the missile is launched from Poland, Russia or the UK."

Russia has been pushing hard for a prominent role in the new missile shield for months but with little noticeable success as Washington and its allies remain deeply sceptical of Russia's reliability as a political and military partner.

The United States has said the new shield is needed to protect Europe and itself from long-range missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran. But Russia has argued that the new system will blunt its own nuclear deterrent. It has threatened to beef up its own nuclear forces if it is excluded or granted only a junior role in the project.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, tried to pacify the Kremlin last month by offering to share information about the new system and by offering to build a joint data centre.

But Russian government officials have since made it clear that such a compromise does not go far enough.

President Barack Obama diluted Washington's original plans to build a missile defence shield around facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of fierce Russian opposition.

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

"Red-Button press" override.

LMAO.

Sure. give it to them. Disconnect it in NATO hq though

[Ryan Ruck]

Missile Defense Concession

July 6, 2011

By Bill Gertz

The Obama administration is about to make another concession to Russia on missile defense by concluding an agreement with Turkey to base a radar there that would monitor Iranian missile launches.

The deal is raising questions about whether the administration gave in to a Turkish demand that no missile-tracking data from the radar be shared with Israel or other non-NATO members. The demand was based on the Turkish government’s increasing Islamist and pro-Iranian policies.

The TPY-2 radar deal has been under discussion for the past year and goes against a plan by the George W. Bush administration to place a radar in one of two former Soviet republics, Georgia or Azerbaijan.

Moscow opposed putting the radar in those states, claiming it would threaten Russia’s nuclear missile forces.

Earlier concessions by the Obama administration included canceling plans to deploy 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland in favor of its less-capable “phased adaptive approach” that relies on untested missile defense systems, specifically a future long-range version of the Navy’s SM-3 interceptor.

A senior U.S. national security official said the Turkish agreement for the radar is expected to be completed in the next week.

“It’s yet another concession to the Russians,” the official said. A second official said conclusion of deal was imminent.

Also, placing the radar in Turkey will provide less capability against a future Iranian long-range missile targeted against the United States, the first official said.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said discussions on a forward-based radar have been under way for sometime.

Mr. Toner said the phased adaptive approach missile defense is “not about Russia.”

The misslie defense progam “is a better system that will provide fuller protection to our NATO allies and the United States and it will do sooner than the previous system.”

William Burns, nominee to be deputy secretary of state, was asked last week if he thought Israel should be blocked from using the TPY-2 radar data, as Turkey suggested in conditioning its role in NATO missile defenses.

Mr. Burns did not answer directly. He replied that the phased adaptive approach and NATO missile defenses “are for the defense of NATO and Europe.” He said the Pentagon has “separate and robust missile defense cooperative efforts with Israel.”

“The United States has stated consistently that it reserves the right to use information from U.S. sensors in whatever ways it deems necessary,” Mr. Burns said in response to written questions posed by Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, as part of the nomination process.

A Turkish Embassy spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

A classified Jan. 26, 2010, State Department cable said the Turkish government was still debating how to respond to U.S. requests to put the radar and possibly other missile defenses in Turkey.

The cable, made public by the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had told President Obama that “such a system must be implemented in a NATO context to diminish the political cost that his government will likely bear, both in terms of domestic politics and in Turkey’s relations with Iran.”

“Erdogan is concerned that Turkey’s participation might later give Israel protection from an Iranian counterstrike,” said the cable, labeled “secret.”

The Czech Republic recently pulled out of plans to host a missile early-warning radar as part of the administration’s program. Prague officials claimed their participation was rejected because the system would have provided data on missile attacks but was not connected to interceptors that could shoot them down.

In February, four Republican senators wrote to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging him to put the radar in Georgia instead of Turkey.

“We believe the U.S. should deploy the most effective missile defenses possible - in partnership with our allies - that provide for protection for the U.S. homeland, our deployed forces and our allies,” said the letter by Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, James E. Risch of Idaho, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Mr. Kirk.

[American Patriot]

This was news to me....

New Details Emerge About U.S. Nuclear Missile Test Failure

Monday, Aug. 22, 2011 By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

• Email This Article
• Print This Article
• Print All Articles

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Air Force is beginning to narrow down possible explanations for a rare flight test failure last month of one of its Minuteman 3 ICBMs, but it appears that the precise cause has not yet been determined (see GSN, July 27).
(Aug. 22) - A U.S. Minuteman 3 ICBM lifts off during a trial flight in 2000. The Air Force appears closer to determining what caused one of the missiles to fail in a July test (U.S. Air Force photo).
An "anomaly" occurred during the final powered stage of the July 27 launch, when the missile was being propelled by its post-boost motor, according to Air Force Global Strike Command officials.
This was the first flight test failure in two years and only the second such incident since 1998, when the current Minuteman 3 configuration was fielded, said GSC spokeswoman Michele Tasista, speaking on behalf of a team of experts at the Louisiana-based command.
The nation maintains 450 of the nuclear-armed, strategic-range ballistic missiles on round-the-clock alert in underground military silos in three states: Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.
Minuteman 3 was first fielded in 1970 but has undergone a number of technology updates and refurbishments over the past four decades. Its boost and post-boost systems have a nearly 93 percent success rate in flight tests during that time period, Tasista said.
Global Strike Command directs day-to-day missile readiness operations and oversees flight tests roughly twice a year of ICBMs pulled randomly from launch facilities and immediately replaced by operational spares.
The Minuteman 3 tests are conducted over the Pacific Ocean without a nuclear payload and are intended to demonstrate that the missile continues to function properly. Each trial costs about $10.3 million, or twice that amount if the expense of the missile is included.
Global Strike Command has not described the anomaly, saying only that the shot was "terminated due to potential safety concerns along the predicted flight path."
The command officials also would not say whether initial findings appear to indicate a guidance problem, a faulty propulsion system or some other glitch. After observing the abnormality, military controllers aborted the flight with a self-destruct mechanism five minutes after the missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
"We can't speculate on the cause of the anomaly, which is under investigation," Tasista and her team said in response to questions from Global Security Newswire.
The Minuteman 3's Propulsion System Rocket Engine -- a liquid-propellant stage used for positioning nuclear-equipped re-entry vehicles precisely towards their intended targets -- has "a perfect safety and performance record in over 200 flights spanning 30 years of successful operational deployment," the motor manufacturer, Aerojet, boasts on its website.
The liquid stage ignites only after three solid-fuel rocket motors boost the missile into space. Upon separating from a bulkhead, one or more re-entry vehicles coast on a ballistic trajectory and return into the atmosphere en route to their targets.
Command officials confirmed that the Propulsion System Rocket Engine used in the failed ICBM test last month was refurbished in 2005. An ongoing service-life extension effort is being conducted to ensure that all the liquid-fuel motors installed in Minuteman 3 missiles can remain in service through 2020, according to Aerojet.
A malfunctioning guidance system on the Minuteman 3 might be a more likely cause of the test failure, according to defense experts.
"We have never had a problem with the post-boost [propulsion] system," said one retired ICBM commander. "So I would find it hard to believe that's the culprit."
The former officer spoke on condition of not being named because of military sensitivities involved in discussing technical details about nuclear weapons.
Guidance engineers and analysts from Minuteman 3 contractors Boeing and Northrop Grumman sit on the Global Strike Command board investigating the July incident -- a possible indication that the service suspects a guidance-system malfunction -- while liquid rocket engine manufacturer Aerojet is notably absent.
Boeing performs maintenance on the Minuteman 3 "missile guidance set" and in 2009 completed a seven-year program to upgrade the missile's guidance system. Northrop Grumman leads the Air Force's ICBM contractor team.
The Minuteman 3's guidance system includes a computer that directs the weapon system during flight, keeping the missile on course to deliver warheads to their designated endpoints, according to the Air Force. During the liquid-fuel stage, the guidance set is intended to maneuver the delivery system to predetermined points where re-entry vehicles separate for the remainder of their ballistic trajectories.
Under the Defense Department's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Air Force is in the process of reducing each Minuteman 3 to a single warhead. The missile has the capacity to carry up to three warheads.
The only other flight test failure for the current configuration of the Minuteman 3 occurred in August 2009, when a trial was similarly terminated after launch. The GSC officials were unable by press time to say what caused the 2009 failure.
The command's investigation board is chaired by Lt. Col. Trevor Hazen, an operations officer with the 576th Flight Test Squadron, based at Vandenberg.
He is additionally joined on the panel by other Air Force personnel, including representatives of the 30th Space Wing Safety unit, also based at Vandenberg, and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, which is headquartered at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

[American Patriot]

Turkey backs Nato missile defence shield against Iran

Turkey has dropped its opposition to Nato’s missile defence system aimed at countering ballistic missile threats from neighbouring Iran by agreeing to host American early warning radar stations.




11:55AM BST 02 Sep 2011


The Turkish Foreign Ministry said on Friday that negotiations over the Alliance’s anti-missile shield had reached “their final stages.”

“It is anticipated that the early warning radar system allocated by the US for Nato will be deployed in our country,” said a statement.

“Turkey’s hosting of this element will constitute our country’s contribution to the defence system being developed in the framework of Nato’s new strategic concept. It will strengthen Nato’s defence capacity and our national defence system.”

Last November, Nato leaders approved a new mission statement for the Western military Alliance, committing among other things to missile defence.

Nato’s “ Strategic Concept” for the coming decade, approved at a summit in Lisbon, confirmed its core task of defending its territory and the commitment to collective defence of its 28 members.

Related Articles

• Russia to warn US over missile defence system
  08 Mar 2011
• Nato plans to build ballistic missile defence shield
  19 Nov 2010
• Turkey's relationship with west on the line in European missile defence negotiations
  29 Oct 2010
• Turkey's Nato shield block
  18 Oct 2010
• 'West needs missile shield'
  11 Sep 2010

Turkey, with Nato’s second biggest military, has a geo-strategic importance to the Alliance dating back to its role as a front-line state in the Cold War era. But its value to Nato has risen as Middle East states with anti-Western policies, like Iran, have developed their missile capabilities.
Until Friday, Turkey, which has cultivated close ties with its neighbour Iran, had threatened to block the deal if Tehran is explicitly named as a threat to be countered by the Nato system.
Ankara had also been at odds with the US and EU over their stance toward Iran’s nuclear programme, arguing for a diplomatic solution to the standoff instead of sanctions.
But the agreement over hosting the Nato radar comes at a time when Turkey and Iran appear to be differing on their approach toward Syria, with Turkey becoming increasingly critical of Iranian ally Syria’s brutal suppression of anti-regime protests.
Under the Nato plans, a limited system of US anti-missile interceptors and radars already planned for Europe - to include interceptors in Romania and Poland as well as the radar in Turkey - would be linked to expanded European-owned missile defences. That would create a broad system that protects every Nato country against medium-range missile attack.
Russia opposes the planned system, which it worries could threaten its own nuclear missiles or undermine their deterrence capability.
Russia agreed to consider a Nato proposal last year to cooperate on the missile shield, but insisted the system be run jointly. Nato rejected that demand and no compromise has been found yet.

[American Patriot]

September 1, 2011

Sea-Based Missile Defense Test Conducted

The Missile Defense Agency was unable to achieve the planned intercept of a ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean exercising the
sea-based element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).

At approximately 3:53 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time (9:53 a.m. EDT) a
short-range ballistic missile target was launched from the U.S. Navy's
Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii. Approximately 90 seconds
later, a Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block 1B interceptor missile was launched
from the cruiser USS LAKE ERIE (CG-70) but an intercept of the target was
not achieved.

This was the first flight test of the advanced SM-3 Block 1B interceptor
missile. Program officials will conduct an extensive investigation to
determine the cause of the failure to intercept.

There have been 22 successful intercepts in 27 at-sea attempts since Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense flight testing began in 2002, including the
successful intercept of a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by a
specially-modified SM-3 Block 1A missile in February, 2008.

[American Patriot]

1/22 = 0.045454545454545454545454545454545 * 100 = 4.5%

1000 incoming missiles from China.

4.5% of them get through.

That's roughly 46 cities. Vaporized.

What do you call that again? Oh, right "Acceptable Risk" or "Collateral Damage".

[vector7]

Russia warns US over defense deal with Spain

Thursday, October 6, 2011
BRUSSELS

Russia said yesterday moves by the United States to create a NATO-wide missile shield could undermine its security, ramping up criticism of the project following a new deal that will see U.S. anti-missile warships deployed on the Spanish coast

Spain’s PM Zapatero, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen and U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta shake hands after joint news conference in Brussels. REUTERS photo

The agreement with Spain “cannot fail to cause concern,” Russia Foreign Ministry said in a statement. It said the deployment would represent a “significant increase in U.S. anti-missile capabilities in the European zone”.

The criticism clouds prospects for cooperation between the former Cold War superpowers on the European missile shield.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan calls for an initial deployment of ship-based anti-ballistic missiles in the Mediterranean followed by ground-based systems in Romania, Poland and Turkey. The system, which is expected to become fully operational in 2018, is designed to protect European NATO states and the U. S. from missile attack from countries such as Iran, which is developing longer-range missiles.

Obama pleased the Kremlin by scrapping his predecessor’s plan for longer-range interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar installation in the Czech Republic, a move that helped to improve U.S.-Russia ties. Moscow, however, says Obama’s version could undermine Russia’s security if it becomes capable of shooting down Russian nuclear missiles and has warned of a new arms race if its concerns are not dispelled.

“If events continue to develop this way ... the opportunity to turn missile defense from an area of confrontation into a subject of cooperation will be lost,” the Foreign Ministry said. Russia is demanding a legally binding guarantee that the system would not be aimed against Russia, something the U.S. is unlikely to provide because of strong opposition in Washington to any set restrictions on missile defense.

The U.S. ambassador to Russia expressed confidence this week that Russia and NATO would reach an agreement on missile defense cooperation -- a goal laid out by the former foes in November 2010 -- in time for an alliance summit next May. But Russia warned that U.S. deployment plans such as the agreement with Spain were undermining chances for a deal. The Foreign Ministry said it saw no sign the U.S. was prepared to address its desire for binding guarantees that the NATO system would not be a threat to Russia. “On the contrary, we are seeing an ongoing effort to broaden the areas of deployment of U.S. anti-missile facilities,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Allies debate when to end Libya campaign
NATO defense ministers discussed the prospects of successfully wrapping up the Libya mission during two days of talks in Brussels, with officials insisting the campaign will continue as long as Gadhafi forces pose a threat to civilians. With Moammar Gadhafi diehards surrounded by the new leadership’s forces in Sirte and Bani Walid, and the fallen Libyan leader in hiding, diplomats are optimistic that the six-month-old air war could end in a matter of weeks. French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said the airstrikes will not cease until all remaining pockets of resistance are suppressed and the new government asks for them to end. Although the former rebels now control most of Libya, some regions remain under control of pro-Gadhafi forces. These include Sirte on the Mediterranean coast, the city of Bani Walid and parts of the south.”Sirte has an extremely symbolic value, but it’s not all of Libya,” said Longuet said. NATO has carried out more than 9,300 airstrikes against Gadhafi’s forces since the campaign started in March. The military alliance has been criticized for allegedly overstepping U.N. Security Council resolution that created a no-fly zone and authorized the protection of civilians caught up in the fighting.

Discussions at the ministers’ meeting also focused on Afghanistan. Success in Afghanistan, a war marking its 10th anniversary today, also depends on the ability of local forces to ensure security for the population under a NATO plan to withdraw foreign combat troops by 2014. “Transition is on track,” Rasmussen said, “and it will not be derailed.

Although outnumbered, the Taliban have mounted a series of high-profile attacks that have brought into question NATO’s claim that it has the upper hand in the war and that the bloodshed is decreasing.

On the first day of the meeting, ministers discussed plans to cooperate more closely and pool their resources in order to make up for the shortfalls that have plagued the alliance’s operations in Libya and Afghanistan. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned NATO allies that they should not rest on any laurels from the success of the ongoing military campaign in Libya, and that a cash-strapped America cannot always foot the bill when the alliance falls short.The operation revealed embarrassing gaps in European military abilities that were mostly filled by the United States, and shortfalls in such basic supplies as ammunition. Meanwhile, Balkan countries ravaged by war in the 1990s are uniting to deploy a joint military training team to Afghanistan as part of the NATO force. Defense ministers of Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia agreed yesterday on the details of the mission, which will train the nascent Afghan military police.

[vector7]

Romania approves US missile interceptors

Published: 12.15.11, 20:55 / Israel News

Romania has given final approval for the building of an anti-ballistic interceptor site in the country as part of a United States missile shield. In September, Romania and the US signed an accord to install the interceptors at the Deveselu air base near Romania's border with Bulgaria. Romania's Parliament approved a law earlier this month and Basescu signed it Thursday. (AP)

[American Patriot]

Awesome!

Let's push some Russian buttons!

WOOT!

[Ryan Ruck]

Airborne Laser Test Bed Final Flight

February 14, 2012

The Airborne Laser Test Bed has completed the key MDA Knowledge Points and transitions today into long-term storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The ALTB demonstrated the viability of a directed energy weapon for missile defense by tracking and destroying a boosting, representative foreign ballistic missile in flight.

The MDA is continuing efforts to develop highly efficient electric lasers in support of missile defense to significantly reduce the complexity and cost of future directed energy weapons.