tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post3050927623016384530..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: A Missile Swap?George Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-22606249555117985912009-02-22T12:57:00.000-05:002009-02-22T12:57:00.000-05:00The Obama Administration wants to spend away on "s...The Obama Administration wants to spend away on "stimulus" but not missile defense:<BR/><BR/>http://ci-report.blogspot.com/2009/02/missile-defense-not-president-obama-is.html<BR/><BR/>In addition there was a really good piece in the WSJ:<BR/><BR/>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414254051961831.html#printModeMDConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088252524433473686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-46528703658844674942009-02-18T13:44:00.000-05:002009-02-18T13:44:00.000-05:00The swap may prevent us from deploying land-based ...The swap may prevent us from deploying land-based long-range interceptors, but we can still deploy THAAD or PAC-3 batteries to any other local ally who will have them, and we're always free to place Aegis BMD systems in the Med and the Gulf no matter who doesn't like it.<BR/><BR/>Israel already demonstrated that they can kick in the door on an S-300-based system with their attack on Syria last summer. Combined with Russia's newfound reluctance to sell hardware to Iran, it could be enough to make Iran reconsider their air defense plans and settle for an indigenous solution.<BR/><BR/>So in the end, we keep a very mildly diminished capability (a handful of interceptors fewer) and Iran has to settle for threatening their neighbors without any plausible way to prevent air strikes. I don't see it as that terrible of a deal, especially if Russia believes that they got a huge concession from us. We've got START renegotiations coming up, and it will be nice to give Sec'y Clinton a strong negotiating position.<BR/><BR/>As for the Bulava, the solid-fuel motors of all three stages of the SS-27 and the Bulava are each different lengths and diameters. In my book that makes them completely different systems. They're both poured at Votkinsk (MITT) but they're not the same by a long shot. Are you sure you're not conflating the SS-27 silo variant and the new MIRVed RS-24? There's a lot of talk that those two systems could be the same booster with different packaging. Re: flight testing, Podvig shows only one "fully successful test" in November of '08, and only a 4/10 success rate in flight tests. I don't think it's clear that they've fixed their problems yet.J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13913599852443572486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-6810560317944907162009-02-18T13:19:00.000-05:002009-02-18T13:19:00.000-05:00J.R.--Check your sources; the Bulava is a derivati...J.R.--Check your sources; the Bulava is a derivative of the SS-27, the only differences are the required mods for submarine launch. And BTW, the Russians have solved the problems with the SLBM variant; they conducted a successful launch of the system almost two years ago. <BR/><BR/>I'll concede that Europe-based missile defenses could never completely eliminate the Russian threat. But as BMD technology advances, it will become more capable against larger numbers of missiles, putting a potential dent in Russia's strategic capabilities. Besides, if Moscow continues on its current path (modernizing its arsenal, conducting wars against its pro-western neighbors), we may be forced (at some point) to reclassify Russia as a major threat, and consider possible use of the BMD shield against their forces. That's still a long ways off, but the potential is there. <BR/><BR/>Finally, there's the perpetual question of why Moscow would oppose a system that is being deployed to deal with the Iranian threat. The answer is obvious; even a small-scale BMD deployment is a threat to Russian military power, which relies more than ever on its strategic arsenal. And putting the interceptors and radars in forward areas sends a powerful signal to Russia about our commitment to emerging democracies in eastern Europe. <BR/><BR/>Well, I should say it "sent" a powerful message. The Obama plan will eventually scrap European-based BMD facilities, in exchange for Russian pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Moscow will continue to modernize its nuclear arsenal, while elements of our own continues to age. <BR/><BR/>If this deal holds, Iran may not get the S-300, but we will emerge as the biggest loser, in terms of missile defense and relations with key allies in Europe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-22450704686516750062009-02-18T12:06:00.000-05:002009-02-18T12:06:00.000-05:00We are swaping a ballstic missile interceptor syst...We are swaping a ballstic missile interceptor system for the Russians holding back on a SAM system. The Iranians will still develop and deploy their ballistic missiles. How does this swap help the U.S. and its allies? The only thing it will do is give the IAF a little less troublesome flight into and out of the target area...if we give them the green light. I would not hold my breath on that one, given our current President's lack of vision, real-politik, and understanding of history.PCSSEPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06409465703196815386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-18639448423362965982009-02-18T07:49:00.000-05:002009-02-18T07:49:00.000-05:00First off, the SS-27 isn't being deployed in subs;...First off, the SS-27 isn't being deployed in subs; the Bulava is. Even if you can't find photos that will convince you that they're different systems, look at the launch successes of the SS-27 (from silos or TELs), and the impressively bad failure streak of the Bulava.<BR/><BR/>Second, the missile defense setup in Europe is not (and never was) intended to deter Russia. Russia can crank out missiles far faster and cheaper than we can do all of the diplomacy required to field additional interceptors, and they already have a head start. Even if we could soak missiles with interceptors on a one-to-one basis, Russia's ability to saturate the skies would remain essentially unchecked.<BR/><BR/>So if we can get Russia to mistakenly believe that they're buying some additional security for themselves, while the only real change is weakening Iran -- for whom the European site *is* intended -- then isn't that a win?J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13913599852443572486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-31726318279179290502009-02-18T01:06:00.000-05:002009-02-18T01:06:00.000-05:00The Empty Suit and Joe the Idiot are in control no...The Empty Suit and Joe the Idiot are in control now. It will do you no good to adjust the knobs on your set. These two are amateurs playing with skilled and ruthless adversaries. Community organizing and the U.S. Senate haven't prepared them for anything but getting their hats handed to them by the good ol' boys who used to bring you the Soviet Union. Seems as if Bush's warning about the right words and people changing their minds and ways was correct.PCSSEPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06409465703196815386noreply@blogger.com