Blog

What’s the rush? asks Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a member of the congressionally mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism.

The U.S. has several nuclear arms containment options, so why rush to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and allow Russia to dictate our missile defense policy?

Last month, the U.S. and Russia agreed to honor the spirit of the expired START, as they continue to negotiate a replacement Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to roughly 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Russia blamed our plans to continue developing a comprehensive missile defense system for the renewal delay. Sokolski, writing at National Review Online:

“The odds of START’s being ratified before November’s elections are hardly on the rise. The next round of negotiations begins today in Geneva…As it is, 41 Senators (all 40 Republicans plus one independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman) have warned President Obama that they are in no mood to approve START unless the White House supports a ’significant’ nuclear-weapons-modernization program. The Defense Department’s Nuclear Posture Review, which details U.S. nuclear-weapons requirements for Congress every five years, was due in December. The administration is divided and has asked for two extensions; the review is now due in March and may be delayed again. Complicating matters even further, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin is pushing to link missile defenses with offensive missiles in START, a potential killer provision for most pro-missile-defense Republicans.”

Senior officials in the administration are keen to “show progress” with Russia, in light of the mid-term elections. They may resubmit a Bush-era nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, whose approval would “pretty much be a slam dunk.” But bringing this agreement before Congress has drawbacks, the most important of which, is that it is sure to force a debate over Russia’s cooperation with Iran in the nuclear weapons and rocket fields. This is unlikely to make passage of START easier in the Senate.

If Obama stops pushing START, and the U.S. diversifies “arms-control portfolio to address nuclear threats outside” Russia , whose deployed nuclear capabilities have diminished in the last 25 years, we might make some headway, without letting Russia call the shots.

Will Obama be proactive and take the initiative in containing Russia , or will appeasement policies prevail?

In October, sources reported that Poland was in the running to receive missile interceptors under President Barack Obama’s new missile defense plan. Last week, Poland’s defense minister announced that the U.S. plans to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, Russia intends to beef up its Baltic fleet. (Source)

Poland will install a base with several launch pads and manned by U.S. troops. Responding to Russia’s plans to shore up its Baltic fleet, a high-ranking source in the Polish Foreign Ministry downplayed the threat. “Let’s stay calm. Such strengthening, even if it becomes true, is no direct threat to Poland. The Russians have known about the Patriots for at least two years. So there is no reason to react to unofficial comments.”

Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland. Although the deal reflects both countries’ aim to protect the region from missile attacks, the plan is seen as offensive in nature from Russia’s perspective, rather than defensive.

Last year, President Barack Obama dropped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, the goal of which was to protect the region from Iranian attacks. Russia opposed the shields and threatened to install missiles near Poland’s border. Obama said he reneged on the agreements to focus on systems that would defend against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range.

“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” the Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes wrote in the New York Post last year, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”

On Military.com’s news and national policy blog, Jamie McIntyre writes about Vladimir Putin’s recent comments on America’s missile defense. Among other things, Putin wants the U.S. to provide Russia detailed data on our missile defense plans and capabilities. The former Soviet Union aspires to modernize its offensive nuclear force in ways that would defeat our missile defense system.

“Skeptics of missile defense should take note of Russia’s paranoia about the U.S. missile defense in Europe…Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin believes something many in the U.S. scoff at, namely that the anti-​​missile system probably works, and Russia has nothing like it.”

Although Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles could take on our interceptors in Europe and Alaska, Russia seeks to impede our progress. Will President Barack Obama allow it?

“The Russian instance that the U.S. scrap its missile shield is a test for President Obama, who wants to extend an open hand to the Russians in his laudable goal of reducing nuclear stockpiles and getting help containing Iran,” McIntyre writes. “Reducing the number of nukes in the interest of both the United States and Russia, as are missile defenses by the way. If Putin could put his pride aside, and his country first, he could see that.”

The U.S. and Russia recently agreed to honor the spirit of the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), while they continue to negotiate a replacement treaty. Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to roughly 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, said the two countries are still trying to replace START and blames America’s plans to continue developing a comprehensive missile defense system for the delay. (Source)

“If we don’t develop a missile defense system, a danger arises for us that with an umbrella protecting our partners from offensive weapons, they will feel completely safe,” he said. “The balance will be disrupted and then they will do whatever they want, and aggressiveness will immediately arise both in real politics and economics.”

Putin adds that to counter our missile shield Russia would make new offensive weapons. As a result, he is demanding that the U.S. provide Russia detailed data on its missile defense plans and capabilities. Logic dictates that Putin wants Russia to receive this information in order to permit it to modernize its offensive nuclear force in ways to defeat the missile defense system.

Will Barack Obama allow Russia to make START’s replacement contingent on whether the U.S. changes its missile defense policy? Obama already dropped plans to deploy missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, although he claimed Iran’s missile capabilities were the reason, not Russia’s negative reaction. President Obama’s explanation is not convincing and suggests that he is bowing to Prime Minister Putin’s demands that the U.S. terminate its missile defense program in order to get the START follow-on treaty.

Next month, the U.S. will simulate an Iranian attack to test its missile defense systems. The long-range “attack” missile would be fired from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, and a missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base would intercept it.

The Missile Defense Agency’s Army Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly said the test will be different from a simulated North Korean attack, which would be slower and less direct.

“Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario…This next test … is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that’s the first time that we’re now testing in a different scenario.”

In September, President Barack Obama dropped plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming he wanted to focus on proven and cost-effective technology that will aid in defending against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range. The decision was seen as a move to placate Russia.

“The development of that (Iranian) long-range threat has been slower than what was originally estimated, and the pace of the medium-range missiles is dramatically higher,” O’Reilly said.

Next month’s simulated attack will cost about $150 million

(Source: Reuters)

 
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s Secretary General, will be in Russia today to discuss the former Soviet Union’s support for the war in Afghanistan, missile defense, and other topics.

NATO is trying to re-establish relations with Russia after criticizing the country for invading Georgia. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s NATO envoy, said earlier this month he hopes the renewed ties will pave the way for a new Euro-Atlantic security treaty in the joint NATO-Russia Council.

Andrew Monaghan, an analyst at the NATO Defense College in Rome, is cynical. “It’s very important that Rasmussen goes there and meets people and I am quite sure there will be something that can be brought back. But really, in terms of turning the relationship around, I think it’s unlikely.”

Russia says it supports the war in Afghanistan, but won’t send troops. Some believe Russia’s support is “lukewarm,” similar to its attitude about Iran. Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions against the rogue state.

“NATO is defending Russia’s national security interests in Afghanistan … There is an understanding in the Kremlin that it is not in our interests to have NATO failing in Afghanistan,” said Tatiana Parkhalina, director of the Center for European Security in Moscow.

If Russia’s able to play hard ball with the U.S. and win, especially without giving up anything in return, there seems to be little incentive for Russia to make nice with NATO.

(Source: Reuters)

NATO may collaborate with Russia on missile defense, a year after criticizing the former Soviet Union’s invasion of Georgia. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s NATO envoy, said he hopes the renewed ties will pave the way for a new Euro-Atlantic security treaty in the joint NATO-Russia Council. (Source)

Statement from NATO foreign ministers: “We continue to support increased cooperation between NATO and Russia on missile defense, including maximum transparency and reciprocal confidence-building measures. We reaffirm the alliance’s readiness to explore the potential for linking the United States, NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time.” (Source)

In related news, the U.S. and Russia have agreed to extend the deadline to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was set to expire December 5. (Source)

Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Last month, Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev said he believed his country and the U.S. would reach an agreement by the deadline.

 
Bill Sweetman, editor of Aviation Week, published an article on missile defense changes under the current administration.

“First was the shift in emphasis from mid-course defeat to ‘early intercept’ and from heavy ground-based interceptors (GBIs) to sea-based and land-based versions of the U.S. Navy/Raytheon SM-3,” he writes. “Nobody was surprised when this was followed in September by the scrapping of plans to install Boeing’s GBIs in Poland and announcement of a phased adaptive approach (PAA) based on SM-3.”

Sweetman says rapid changes in our approach has NATO allies uncertain whether the U.S. is “sensitive” to their concerns. Changes have also caused confusion over the nationality of the commander on the scene during an interception.

“The [phased adaptive approach] PAA is in four phases, determined by a new assessment of the threat (principally from Iran) that downplays the imminence of long-range missile development. Phase 1 in 2011 will derive from the current sea-based SM-3 Block 1A, with “engage-on-remote” guidance from TPY-2 radar. Land-based SM-3 Block 1B missiles (with a new kill vehicle) will be added in Phase 2 in 2015 to expand the defended area, along with new sensors, possibly airborne infrared devices. The big-booster Block IIA SM-3 arrives in Phase 3 in 2018, followed two years later by the Block IIB, a further development—possibly spawned from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s classified budget—which has some capability against intercontinental missiles.

“One question is how these phases mesh with European NATO plans. NATO is following a three-track approach to missile defense: continued assessment of the U.S. PAA, exploration of cooperation with Russia and NATO’s Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program, which is aimed at protecting deployed forces from weapons up to 3,000 km. (1,865 mi.) in range.”

Read the full article here.

 
In September, sources reported that the U.S. was interested in selling $7.8 billion worth of Patriot fire units, missiles, and other weapons to Turkey. The arms would help Turkey, which borders Iran, defend itself against missile threats. Today’s Global Post reports that Russia and China also seek to sell missile defense systems to Turkey.

Defense contractors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin will bid for the contract. If successful, the sale would be the “largest single Turkish purchase of military equipment to date.” However, Turkey’s military said it won’t pay over $1 billion for a missile defense system.

In light of the IAEA’s censure against Iran and Iran’s threat to build 10 more nuclear sites, the arms sale couldn’t be more timely. “It’s clearly not in Turkey’s interest to see a nuclear Iran; they don’t want to see a nuclear-armed competitor on their border,” said Ian Lesser, a senior transatlantic f’llow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “But they do fear that this can happen. And modernizing Turkey’s air defense system looks pretty important from that perspective.”

According to the source, Turkey denies its defense system sale is related to Iran. Why? Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, “We neither have a perception of threat from any of the neighboring countries, nor have any military- or security-related preparation against them.”

Whatever you say, Mr. Davutoglu. After all, Iran has claimed its nuclear ambitions are “peaceful” and “scientific.”

 
Several years ago, Iran admitted having a uranium enrichment plant. The U.S. and other countries suspected this plant wasn’t the only one. After some digging, the U.S. found evidence of construction of a second site.

Today, the United Nations’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) censured Iran for secretly building its second nuclear facility near Qom, an Islamic holy city. (Source) The IAEA monitors the first nuclear site. True to its roguish reputation, Iran said on Sunday it would build 10 more such facilities as a result of the censure. Russia, which refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran, backed the censure.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said his country will “confront the resolution legally.”

Iranian nuclear official Ali Akbar Salehi said, “We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site. But apparently the West doesn’t want to understand Iran’s peaceful message.” (Source) Iran is maintaining the “peaceful” and “scientific purposes” stance, yet the country threatens to build more nuclear facilities.

Although the former Soviet Union backed the censure, presumably out of concern, it will assist Iran in developing its first nuclear power station as planned. Mehmanparast said, “Our plan is still being pursued, we must be on our own and provide our fuel ourselves.”