Military Review

US Missile Defense: New President and Old Plans

10
At the very beginning of next year, the new US President will take office. Perhaps this will again be B. Obama, and maybe M. Romney will replace him. Anyway, after the elections, a number of characteristic things usually happen, such as substitutions in leadership positions, correction of the country's political course, etc. Naturally, at the end of the election campaign, the new president and his administration will have more time, which can be used to solve internal and foreign policy problems. One of them is missile defense, in disputes about which many copies were broken.

US Missile Defense: New President and Old Plans


First of all, it is worth noting the main differences between the election slogans of both candidates. From a variety of statements, it follows that in the case of B. Obama’s re-election, Russia may perhaps count on some concessions from his side in the area of ​​Euro-Atlantic missile defense. The words of his rival M. Romney, in turn, do not promise an easy solution. Romney too often repeats his thesis about the need to confront Russia. Obviously, if elected, he will in every way slow down and sabotage any negotiations that could lead to any losses, including small ones. At the same time, so far negotiations on missile defense have also proceeded without much success, so Romney’s pressure may not have the expected effect on the Russian side.

Despite the positions of both candidates, the problem of missile defense systems remains relevant. The main reason for this is that missile defense systems can change the current geopolitical situation. With an appropriate level of development, radar stations and anti-missiles can make enemy nuclear arsenals simply useless. Of course, the current state of missile defense systems is far from this, but the development of new systems and new weapons continues. It is for this reason that an agreement on the limitation of missile defense was signed at the time, because it can hit pretty hard on the concept of nuclear deterrence - one of the foundations of international stability. Various methods of solving the existing problem are constantly proposed. Almost always, they are in one way or another connected with a ban on the development and construction of defense systems. However, their creation requires a certain time. In turn, the development and refinement of missiles also has some deadlines, which, coincidentally, are sometimes approximately equal to the time of the creation of the missile defense system. Given the fact that a number of third-world countries already have certain technologies in the construction of ballistic missiles, the situation with the restriction of missile defense construction takes an even more interesting and complex form.

Previously, it was repeatedly proposed to distinguish between missile defense systems of various classes and impose restrictions on the basis of this separation. In other words, to protect against the missiles of the same Iran, European countries will have enough anti-missile systems, the range of which will be sufficient to destroy medium-range ballistic missiles. Since Iran’s ballistic missiles are currently the “official symbol” of the construction of a Euro-Atlantic missile defense system, then let Europe be able to defend against such an attack. As for the United States, according to this logic, they can not worry - the geographical position reliably protects the country from missiles, whose range is shorter than intercontinental.

The second class of antimissile systems implies protection against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since only a few large and powerful countries have similar means of delivering a warhead, it is proposed to limit the creation of such missile defense systems in order to avoid disrupting the current state of nuclear deterrence. An agreement on the division of missile defense into two main classes was already reached in the late nineties, when the United States and Russia signed a protocol on the delimitation of strategic and non-strategic defense. True, neither side has ratified this document. According to the protocol, the boundary of the separation of missile defense systems was based on the speed of the interceptor missile at 5 kilometers per second. The division of classes according to the speed of the interceptor had certain grounds. So, for interception of short-range and medium-range missiles, anti-missile in most cases is sufficient speed less than those same 5 km / s. Destroying more serious targets, in turn, requires greater speed. Of course, the specific value of the interceptor speed depends on a variety of conditions, but after a series of consultations with specialists, this was chosen.

An interesting fact is that the US military and experts, despite the policy pursued by the Pentagon and the White House, agree on the need to develop a non-strategic missile defense system designed to hit medium and short-range missiles. In February of this year, the report of the commission under the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative was published. Several experts from different countries came to the conclusion that the greatest threat at the present time is far from intercontinental missiles, but medium-range delivery vehicles, whose radius of action does not exceed 4000-4500 kilometers. It is these means of delivery of warheads that already exist and will appear in the coming years in third world countries, including the so-called. unreliable modes. The existence of medium-range missiles has been confirmed in respect of six countries, four of which also have nuclear warheads. Presence of nuclear weapons the other two, Iran and Israel, have not yet been established. In the United States and Russia, such weapons are completely absent after the fulfillment of the treaty on the elimination of medium-range and shorter-range missiles. A few years after the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement, in 2008, then the then US presidential candidate B. Obama offered to open the Treaty to everyone. Russia supported this initiative, but since then no country has acceded to the agreement and has not even expressed such intentions. It is understandable, not all have intercontinental missiles, and medium-range delivery vehicles in this case are the longest "hand" of the armed forces of a developing country.

All countries with medium range ballistic missiles are located on the Asian continent. Accordingly, they can threaten Russia and Europe, but not the United States. In addition, not all countries with such missiles can “reach” to most European countries. Strictly speaking, this fact is the basis of criticism regarding American initiatives on joint Euro-Atlantic defense. It should be remembered that the missile defense system now being developed in Europe is strategic in its characteristics and should be able to destroy intercontinental missiles. So the situation takes on a very interesting look: under the guise of defense from Asian countries, a system is being built in Europe, the capabilities of which far exceed the potential threat. There are two main explanations for this. The first concerns unkind plans to reduce the effectiveness of Russian nuclear forces, the second concerns the complexity and duration of missile defense construction.

For obvious reasons, the first explanation is more popular in our country. However, in fact, both have the right to life. The current state of the Euro-Atlantic missile defense project, as well as the financial situation in the United States in the very near future can have an extremely unpleasant effect on the implementation of the program. Many experts, and a number of American politicians, are expecting a sequestration of the budget early next year, and every day the arguments in favor of this assumption sound more convincing. In the course of spending cuts, the military budget is likely to suffer. Therefore, allocations for a number of programs will be cut, among which, possibly, Euro-Atlantic missile defense will be found. In addition, programs to develop new antimissiles, missile defense ships, etc. may be affected. Thus, the Euro-Atlantic antimissile system has certain prospects. But the volume of real construction and its terms are a big question. More or less confidently, one can speak only about actions up to 2018 of the year, although here too there are certain doubts.

There is enough reason to doubt the reality of the existing plans. For example, not so long ago there was a small conflict regarding the expansion of plans for the construction of anti-missile systems. In April of this year, the Commission of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States submitted its report, which proposed to change the structure of the entire missile defense system. To do this, it is necessary to create in the eastern states of the United States a third missile defense area in which at least a hundred interceptors will be used with a flight speed of about six kilometers per second. Such a promising anti-missile at the cost of additional development costs will significantly save on the European part of the entire missile defense system. The third positional area on the east coast will allow removing missile defense systems from Poland and reducing their number in other countries. True, this requires creating a new interceptor missile, which in current conditions looks like a rather controversial decision.

After analyzing the report of the National Academy, the United States Congress instructed the Department of Defense to submit the Third Position Area plan next year, and to deploy at least two dozen antimissiles in it by 2015. Such initiatives by the House of Representatives have been criticized by the Senate Defense Committee. The conciliation commission of the Congress will be held in a couple of weeks. It should analyze all the differences and find a compromise between the House of Representatives, who wants to strengthen the missile defense system and reduce the costs of foreign parts of the system, and Congress, whose plans include only spending cuts. While different parts of the US Congress were sorting out among themselves and agreeing to hold a special meeting, the Pentagon and the presidential administration said their word. According to the Minister of Defense L. Panetta, the Third Positional Area is not needed and will only complicate all the work to create a defense system. The Obama administration agrees with him, moreover, she intends to veto the draft budget for 2013 a year, if it provides funding for the construction of a new positional area. Given the possible budget sequestration, such disputes are quite understandable and explainable.

As we see, in the creation of a Euro-Atlantic missile defense system there are a lot of issues, both financial and technical in nature. The works are quite complex, so they take a lot of time and effort. For this reason, too, the creation of the antimissile system is being conducted by the United States together with other states, although the participation of Europe cannot be called significant. An alternative to the current approach could be the creation of a unified missile defense system, in which both Europe, the United States and Russia will participate. It is unlikely that Moscow and Washington are now ready to go for it, but it is also not worth it to completely exclude the possibility. A joint project can be started, for example, by signing a so-called. executive agreement. This type of international treaties under US law does not require the approval of Congress and allows you to immediately begin the implementation of its conditions. Unless, of course, the leadership of states considers such cooperation necessary. For example, M. Romney, if elected, will definitely not agree to such cooperation.

Creating a Euro-Atlantic missile defense system is still far from complete and requires a lot of time and effort. Since current trends, in particular the need to reduce budget expenditures, do not help speed up the construction process, the next US president will have to solve the accumulated problems, and with them those that will appear in the future. Perhaps a large number of problems and delays in creating missile defense will affect the position of the United States and they will have to reduce their plans or make concessions. It is unlikely that Washington will begin to abandon a large number of its plans, but it will definitely have to reduce their list. For Russia, this reduction may have positive consequences. For example, due to numerous problems, Americans will finally agree to give guarantees that their missile defense system is not directed against Russian nuclear forces. The likelihood of such a development is small, and the previous actions of the US leadership directly confirm how important it is for the lack of guarantees. However, everything is possible in politics and such a development cannot be ruled out.


On the materials of the sites:
http://peacekeeper.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://bbc.co.uk/
Author:
10 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gregor6549
    gregor6549 21 September 2012 09: 13
    +8
    The primary task of both RomneyObamov was and is the task of providing his military-industrial complex with profitable work, moreover, one whose effectiveness is not expected and will never be able to confirm, because clearly understands that no missile defense can guarantee an acceptable level of protection against retaliation or preemptive strike by countries with serious nuclear missile capabilities such as Russia, China, etc.
    Given the sensitivity of the United States and its allies to even an insignificant level of losses of their population, and also the fact that the territory of the United States itself has never been subjected to massive air strikes, it can be assumed that an acceptable level of protection for the United States will be considered a level close to 100% Provide such a level of protection, and hence the effectiveness of missile defense is impossible in principle, which has long been an axiom for both the developers of missile defense systems and the "exploiters" of such systems.
    By the way, this is an axiom not only for the United States, but for all countries without exception. Naturally, the exchange of retaliatory blows that follow the first blow, no matter who struck it, will lead to the fact that there will be no one to continue discussions on this topic except maybe some Mumbo Jumbo tribes who are lucky enough to stay away from this exchange. And this Romney Obama also understands very well. So the whole idea of ​​missile defense is nothing more than the next stage of a scam started immediately after the Second World War, when, with the advent of weapons of mass destruction, it turned out that the entire potential of the US military-industrial complex created during this war seemed to be of no use to anyone. True, there was a moment after the collapse of the USSR, when people in the United States began to ask a question like "Why the hell do we need this military-industrial complex?" The answer was immediately invented and implemented in the form of Pearl Harbor number 2, i.e. attacks by some idiots of terrorists who, after a short course in flying clubs, managed to hit such "apples" as the WTC towers and the Pentagon. After that, the question disappeared by itself and the list of terrorists included not just individual people but entire countries, especially those where oil splashes underfoot.
    Well, then everything went on as usual. New oil-bearing zones and oil transportation routes that need to be controlled, which means new threats, which means the need to build a "fence" for which you can throw stones with impunity.
    But when you constantly mark the neighbors stones for the fence, then invariably there comes a time when one of the neighbors is bored and a return stone flies from behind the fence. Sometimes the first and last for the one who started throwing stones first
  2. Redpartyzan
    Redpartyzan 21 September 2012 09: 40
    +3
    In one of the articles on military review, the idea was made that europro was nothing but a garden scarecrow. To build it is not enough money or technology. More and more inclined to this opinion.
    1. xmike
      xmike 21 September 2012 10: 02
      +2
      Redpartyzan "In one of the articles on the military review the idea sounded that Europro is nothing more than a scarecrow for the garden. Neither money nor technology will be enough to build it. I am more and more inclined to this opinion.",

      Well, hamsters then believe that the backs are covered! (they’ve shot down a satellite in space, so you can shoot down anything they think) bully
      And in general, it is more expensive to defend than to attack, they will make our new missile and let them collect a trifle in their pockets.
    2. gregor6549
      gregor6549 21 September 2012 10: 17
      +3
      Not only Euro, but all missile defense in general. The same Israelis built their Iron Dome system to fight the primitive, in general, the Qassams and Katyushas. The most recent "super duper" technologies were used, but what's the point? God forbid that 70% of targets are intercepted when they are not massively used, And if you have to intercept the clouds of these and more "smart" missiles and shells that the same Nasrallah already has. This system will "lie" and do not go to the fortuneteller. Here, after all, you have to rely only on the "automatic machine", and any automatic system of this type tends to produce a lot of false ones for each true target track, which a person could deal with if he had time for these disassembly, but there is just no time. And if you add to all this organized interference, anti-ballistic missiles and other nasty things, then the situation with missile defense becomes more complicated at times. It was not for nothing that at one time everyone was so stirred when there was a problem with medium-range missiles. There was no time to adequately respond to them
  3. Veter
    Veter 21 September 2012 10: 04
    +4
    One way or another, after the election, a number of characteristic things usually happen, such as replacements in leadership positions, correction of a country's political course, etc.

    Neither any correction, nor any changes in the policy towards Russia will not be!
    The President of the UWB is not an independent political figure, it is only a puppet in the hands of a certain circle of people. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the 1st exercise the "soft" version of pressure on the Russian Federation, while the 2nd - the "hard" one. In general, the essence is the same!
  4. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 21 September 2012 10: 09
    +7
    In one of the articles on military review, the idea was made that europro was nothing but a garden scarecrow. To build it is not enough money or technology. More and more inclined to this opinion.

    I hope that it is so. Anyway, I think that you can’t have anything to do with the United States.

  5. Apollo
    Apollo 21 September 2012 10: 50
    +4
    The fact that the Americans still do not give guarantees about the missile defense against Russia only says that if not directly then indirectly it is directed against.
    The second point, I think that no matter who will be the next president of the United States,missile defense expansion will continue.
    The difference will be who will be the next head of state,
    incrementally (M. Romney) or step by step (B. Obama). IMHO
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 21 September 2012 11: 51
      +3
      What kind of guarantees are we talking about, especially in this matter? As Comrade O. Bender used to say, a full guarantee is given only by an insurance policy. And Ostap Ibragimych knew what he was talking about. So with naivety, like with innocence, it's good to leave on time.
  6. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 21 September 2012 11: 23
    +1
    in my opinion, relations with cif will continue to be just as tense and it does not matter who will be at the helm ... yes, nothing has changed since the Cold War ...
  7. Nechai
    Nechai 21 September 2012 11: 43
    +2
    Quote: xmike
    then you can bring down anything they think

    In the summer, the United States conducted missile defense firing over the Pacific Ocean. From THREE goals, only ONE was shot. Most comfortable. And for two others, there was not even a twitch. Well, their speed, course, altitude parameters did not fit for a successful interception. What can you do?
  8. Bosk
    Bosk 21 September 2012 21: 38
    0
    The longer this roundabout with missile defense is wrapped up, the more it seems that our specialists are powdering the brains of amers .... it’s painfully active in our efforts to slow down their missile defense project .... but note that I’m sure there is something rustling somewhere. ..and hegolov something over time that nashurvat that mother is not scorching.
  9. mind1954
    mind1954 22 September 2012 01: 21
    -3
    Also, I don’t know how many times, I would like to remind you that the United States only
    the headquarters of TransNational Capital and he decides by whom, than
    and where to sacrifice, for their own interests! And do not care about his interests,
    Yes, and the life of the peoples of the controlled countries!

    And our situation is very, mysteriously ?!
    Where are we going to strike back?
    To whom is unacceptable damage?
    They will "shoot" at us from anywhere, from all sides,
    and we are only from our territory, ACTUALLY !!! ???
    What we intercept falls, as I understand it, into our territory!
    Their missile defense, as they dream, will intercept us on take-off,
    again in our territory!

    It takes a lot of missile submarines to damage with a high probability,
    torpedo nuclear submarines to combat their missile nuclear submarines and fleet,
    and to cover their submarines need an ocean fleet !!! ???

    And what the fascist regime of raw thieves-traitors represents
    seized power in our country, does not inspire confidence !!!
    Logically, one can expect from them, rather, betrayal,
    than protecting the national interests of the country !!!
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 22 September 2012 04: 45
      0
      Let's say that the United States is someone's headquarters. So what? They have no time for Russia now. They would be able to keep in their very skillful hands what they have already crushed under themselves. And it is already difficult to keep it, tk. the handles have become much weaker while those of US opponents around the world are getting stronger. Therefore, Russia in the list of the United States, if not the last place in the list of scarecrows, is not at all in the first place. They would have to cover the sources of oil in the Black East and the ways of their transportation from the Iranian ayatollahs and push away from these sources China, which is increasingly "squeezing into that region. The same China began to openly push the United States and Japan away from those zones of the World Ocean that should (according to China) is controlled only by him and no one else.No wonder, after all, Obama recently announced in his barracks that the center of gravity of US foreign policy (including aircraft carrier) is shifting to Southeast Asia, and more specifically to the zones adjacent to the Chinese territorial waters. What should Russia take? All that had to be taken has been taken for a long time, and not by military force, but as an exchange for cabbage, Therefore, the main desire of those in the barracks is that she does not get confused under her feet and does not supply those with whom the United States is going to "hang around" time with modern weapons.That Russia would use this time window to get on its feet and gain true independence from its sworn friends, not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of education. vania, culture, technology and everything else that makes the citizens of the country people. And in terms of defense capability, it is real, and not in terms of "will." After all, before you buy weapons in your military-industrial complex, you need it, this military-industrial complex is capable of making everything you want to buy. And then teach the servicemen to manage everything purchased. Which is also not easy and takes time. And instead, a blizzard is constantly chasing about foreign intrigues.
      Of course, looking for an enemy under the bed is much easier than getting out of bed and going to plow so that there is no more time to think about machinations. Then they, these machinations, will resolve themselves. And those who do not resolve will let those engaged in those who get sickly salaries get in opposition to the machinations. Let it be practiced, at least partially.
      1. mind1954
        mind1954 22 September 2012 23: 14
        0
        Sorry, you yourself understood what you wrote ???!
  10. valton
    valton 22 September 2012 20: 55
    0
    They, the American missile defense system, will sink them.
  11. codvosem
    codvosem 24 September 2012 12: 40
    0
    http://iid.edu.vn/forum/member.php?action=profile&uid=31913
    http://formulakino.ru/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=519247
    http://www.gpgpu.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=421075
    http://www.thepokeball.com/forums/member.php?action=profile&uid=161317
    http://forummoskva.ru/member.php?u=269187
    http://forum.dvcn.org/member.php?431269-broker-Ralm
    http://www.sniperselling.com/forum/member.php?action=profile&uid=6131
    http://www.dogion.com/member.php?action=profile&uid=66889
    http://krik72.ru/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=203746
    http://www.canallitoral.com.br/index.php?action=profile;u=446354
    http://www.forextradingleader.com/member.php?402777-broker-gogy