Costs of War: NMD Reset
By Shaun Waterman for ISN
Importantly,
external pagethe decisioncall_made, though widely reported as a cancelation, actually means the US will continue with the deployment of land- and sea-based systems designed primarily to counter short- and medium-range missiles.
external pageAccording to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorskicall_made, the US will also move ahead with the deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland.
external pageRepublicans lambasted the decisioncall_made as a “slap” to America's Polish and Czech allies, who had provoked Russia’s public displeasure in agreeing to host the now-canceled long-range interceptors - designed to defeat Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which Iran has yet to develop, but which are the backbone of Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
“We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror,” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell McConnell said.
But the decision is backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and uniformed military leaders, who have always had deep doubts about the system’s efficacy, external pageaccording to the Washington Postcall_made.
The Post reported that earlier this year, the Pentagon budget request - approved by Gates and the military chiefs - envisaged a 15 percent cut in missile defense spending. The cuts principally involved scaling back the deployment of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), long-range interceptors, and cancelling altogether three Reagan-era BMD programs.
Skepticism about the efficacy of BMD technology is widespread. “This technology has not been adequately tested and has no demonstrated capability in a realistic attack scenario,” external pagewrote the Union of Concerned Scientists back in Julycall_made. The tests “have been conducted under highly scripted conditions with the defense given advance information about the attack.”
The scientists said the tests done on the ground-based interceptor systems have excluded realistic counter-measures or phenomena like tumbling warheads.
Although external pagebeltway hawkscall_made are painting the decision as a strategic step-down in the face of an Iranian threat that looms large in their world-view, it was in part based on recently revised US intelligence estimates about Iran’s progress in developing ICBMs.
external pageAccording to the Associated Presscall_made, the move follows a consensus assessment by the 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran would need six to 11 years to produce a nuclear-capable ballistic missile - years longer than previously believed.
As a external pageCouncil on Foreign Relations analysis pointed outcall_made, Obama’s decision “also leaves the door open to deploying long-range interceptors once that technology is proven to work and the Iranian threat advances beyond the merely theoretical.”
Republican critics have also sought to portray the decision as an attempt to appease the Russians. “They may try to call this hitting the reset button on our relationship with Russia,” external pagesaid GOP Senator Lindsey Grahamcall_made. “It looks more like retreat. The Russians will take our actions not as a sign of goodwill, but weakness.”
The president himself has dismissed the idea that the decision was designed as a sop to Moscow. “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," external pageObama told CBS' Face the Nationcall_made in an interview at the weekend. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."
Nonetheless, supporters are painting the decision as opening the door to a new era of cooperation with Moscow on disarmament, counter-proliferation and - yes - missile defense.
And it is significant that the president’s announcement was followed the next day by the external pagefirst major policy speechcall_made from NATO’s new Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in which he proposed that the US, Europe and Russia work together to head off the ballistic missile threat from rogue nations.
“We should explore the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time,” Rasumussen said.
But if Obama’s supporters expect a new era in relations with Russia as a result of the decision, they might be in for a nasty surprise.
Although external pageRussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reportedly called Obama’s move “correct and brave,”call_made other officials, perhaps less schooled in the diplomatic arts, have been external pagemore cautiouscall_made.
"We are already hearing voices in the West ... that it is a huge concession to Russia. But I wouldn't want us to become overwhelmed with some kind of childish euphoria," Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said.
external pageAccording to the private sector intelligence firm Stratforcall_made, the Russians “do not see the scrapping of the planned BMD system as a concession - and certainly not something that would spark a concession from Russia … Instead, Russia is linking the BMD move to the deal on [allowing US materiel to transit Russia and central Asia en route to] Afghanistan.
“As far as the Russians are concerned,” Stratfor concludes, “they owe the United States nothing until real concessions are made.”
The issues that Obama’s supporters hope to make progress on with Russia - the START talks on nuclear disarmament, sanctions on Iran, and other counter-proliferation initiatives - will be high on the agenda at his meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. Only after that meeting will it begin to become clear who is right about the way the Russians will respond.
external pageRepublicans lambasted the decisioncall_made as a “slap” to America's Polish and Czech allies, who had provoked Russia’s public displeasure in agreeing to host the now-canceled long-range interceptors - designed to defeat Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which Iran has yet to develop, but which are the backbone of Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
“We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror,” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell McConnell said.
But the decision is backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and uniformed military leaders, who have always had deep doubts about the system’s efficacy, external pageaccording to the Washington Postcall_made.
The Post reported that earlier this year, the Pentagon budget request - approved by Gates and the military chiefs - envisaged a 15 percent cut in missile defense spending. The cuts principally involved scaling back the deployment of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), long-range interceptors, and cancelling altogether three Reagan-era BMD programs.
Skepticism about the efficacy of BMD technology is widespread. “This technology has not been adequately tested and has no demonstrated capability in a realistic attack scenario,” external pagewrote the Union of Concerned Scientists back in Julycall_made. The tests “have been conducted under highly scripted conditions with the defense given advance information about the attack.”
The scientists said the tests done on the ground-based interceptor systems have excluded realistic counter-measures or phenomena like tumbling warheads.
Although external pagebeltway hawkscall_made are painting the decision as a strategic step-down in the face of an Iranian threat that looms large in their world-view, it was in part based on recently revised US intelligence estimates about Iran’s progress in developing ICBMs.
external pageAccording to the Associated Presscall_made, the move follows a consensus assessment by the 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran would need six to 11 years to produce a nuclear-capable ballistic missile - years longer than previously believed.
As a external pageCouncil on Foreign Relations analysis pointed outcall_made, Obama’s decision “also leaves the door open to deploying long-range interceptors once that technology is proven to work and the Iranian threat advances beyond the merely theoretical.”
Republican critics have also sought to portray the decision as an attempt to appease the Russians. “They may try to call this hitting the reset button on our relationship with Russia,” external pagesaid GOP Senator Lindsey Grahamcall_made. “It looks more like retreat. The Russians will take our actions not as a sign of goodwill, but weakness.”
The president himself has dismissed the idea that the decision was designed as a sop to Moscow. “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," external pageObama told CBS' Face the Nationcall_made in an interview at the weekend. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."
Nonetheless, supporters are painting the decision as opening the door to a new era of cooperation with Moscow on disarmament, counter-proliferation and - yes - missile defense.
And it is significant that the president’s announcement was followed the next day by the external pagefirst major policy speechcall_made from NATO’s new Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in which he proposed that the US, Europe and Russia work together to head off the ballistic missile threat from rogue nations.
“We should explore the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time,” Rasumussen said.
But if Obama’s supporters expect a new era in relations with Russia as a result of the decision, they might be in for a nasty surprise.
Although external pageRussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reportedly called Obama’s move “correct and brave,”call_made other officials, perhaps less schooled in the diplomatic arts, have been external pagemore cautiouscall_made.
"We are already hearing voices in the West ... that it is a huge concession to Russia. But I wouldn't want us to become overwhelmed with some kind of childish euphoria," Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said.
external pageAccording to the private sector intelligence firm Stratforcall_made, the Russians “do not see the scrapping of the planned BMD system as a concession - and certainly not something that would spark a concession from Russia … Instead, Russia is linking the BMD move to the deal on [allowing US materiel to transit Russia and central Asia en route to] Afghanistan.
“As far as the Russians are concerned,” Stratfor concludes, “they owe the United States nothing until real concessions are made.”
The issues that Obama’s supporters hope to make progress on with Russia - the START talks on nuclear disarmament, sanctions on Iran, and other counter-proliferation initiatives - will be high on the agenda at his meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. Only after that meeting will it begin to become clear who is right about the way the Russians will respond.