[9mm_fan]

From wtopnews.com
"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe...It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."- President Vladimir Putin [said in an interview published Sunday in Italy's Corriere della Sera and other foreign media]
From news article:
Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes.

[Big A]

Is kyrgystan an ally? Isn't turkey the closest to iran though? The arabs also fear the iranian nuclear plans, wouldn't they agree to host the ABM's?

[Drugmachine]

Why does US need missile defence in europe against iran? Are they under the impression that rest of the world is as stupid as americans? Why not place the ABM in middle east, turkey or some where closer.

Perhaps:

1. because the Russians are at the foremost in contributing to the Mullah nuke effort? thus threaten them with a Regan outspend-and-defeat again?

2. Putin is slowly but surely rebuilding the Soviet Union, now based on fascist, rather than communist principles.

3. Where would you host an ABM system in the ME? Europe is relatively politically stable ground compared to say Turkey and UAE and such.

4. Perhaps the system is a middle stage attacker, that needs a bit of geography to work? Just a wild guess...

5. Maybe the East Europeans, esp. Poland, asked to host it?

[Peptobismol]

2) Putin will go soon, Lets see who the successor would be.

It will be Putin.

3) Didn't turkey host US missiles during cold war? Israel is the country that needs to be protected against shababs, so Israel is another candidate. I was under the impression UAE is politically stable. The US deployed 15 Jupiter IRBM missiles in Turkey through the end of the Cuban missile crisis. Since these were obsolete it was a free give away to the Soviets as part of the de escalation following the Cuban missile crisis.

[doctorzlo]

1) With the oil and gas money they have and the ICBM's which makes the american ABM redundant, I can't see this strategy succeeding. I would rather try to draw russia away from the arabs than push them further towards them.

The Russians are attracted to the ME, perhaps like moths to a flame .
2) Putin will go soon, Lets see who the successor would be. Most definitely a hand appointed ex-GGB/exGRU aparachnik with a penchant to: 1. kill any free press, 2. control as much of the economy as possible, 3. actually kill any and all internal critics of any worth, 4. focus all the world ills on American militarism, imperialism, yada dada doo...
3) Didn't turkey host US missiles during cold war? Israel is the country that needs to be protected against shababs, so Israel is another candidate. I was under the impression UAE is politically stable. I thought this is more in line with serious (= permanent) Aegis+ type radar installations, not like the kind of footprint a Patriot takes up, could be wrong thoug. As for Israel we have a program already, that beats THAD and the like for the time being.

4) Not sure so I can't comment... well it was idle speculation

[brraverishhh]

The Russians are moving to abandon their ICBM strategic rocket force because it's so incredibly expensive to maintain. ICBM's are managed under the Start I/II treaties whereas M/IRBM's are not. Russia's ICBM's degrade out of service from 5-10% per year down from a high mark of ~726 lauchers. Launchers have a service life out to maximum of 2013 if not earlier.

Russia's ace in the hole is therefore it's M/IRBM force. These are the intermediate range missiles. The problem for the Russians is that any ABM forward force in Europe would tend to reduce the effectiveness of those missiles, even the new generation which are maneuverable would suffer some attenuation against some ABM force deployed in Eastern Europe. Let's say for the sake of argument ABM's are 40% effective which is probably quite high but from a planning perspective looking 5-7-9 years out in the future it might be possible. That means that Russia's ace in the hole now has to build out 5/3rds more gear, about 66% more costly. At 66% more costly that's an appreciable difference given they've already given up their ICBM's. Moreover with the rapid disintegration of the Russian Navy into a coastal defense force it no longer has a credible first or second strike naval strategic capability. The newest operational Russian boomer is 17 years old. Total inventory is no more than 20 subs of which between 0-10 are actually service ready. So this leaves air power. There are about 60 Tu95 Bear bombers which are at least 30 years old now -the production line was shut down in the early 1990's. The newer Tu160 Blackjack has only 15 or so deployed.

So when presented with a series of bad choices the M/IRBM seems to be the best one. Now the problem for them is economic issue associated with putting all their nuclear eggs in one basket as it were. Confronted with an early generation ABM against their only 'strategic gambit it distorts badly for them the entire notion of functional deterrence. Now the US can act with a great deal more nuclear flexibility in the face of not having a massive strategic threat nor a fully 100% functional tactical threat. So now you see the problem for them.

[softy54534]

Now the US can act with a great deal more nuclear flexibility in the face of not having a massive strategic threat nor a fully 100% functional tactical threat. So now you see the problem for them.

Or it could be an actual, credible threat, to the territorial integrity of Russia: China. Maybe Putin is just grimacing at Bush, while *economically* (as you mention) redistributing his national defense against a growing, potentially aggressive, giant on the border. The intermediate range missiles would then make double sense if every side of the country is protected, and there's not much chance it would not.

Thoughts?

[Ifroham4]

Is the cold war arms race starting up again?

Sergei Lavrov the Russian foreign minister reckons so:

He claims that "strategic stability" was being damaged by American plans to create a "Son of Star Wars" shield able to take out incoming missiles.

"I think that those who are professionally aware of this problem understand that there is nothing ludicrous about this issue because the arms race is starting again, strategic stability is being damaged." - Sergei Lavrov.

..and Russia tested at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia the new RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile which Sergei Ivanov, the first deputy prime minister says can "overcome any existing or future missile defence system". Apparently this baby can carry up to 10 warheads (what size? I dunno, go ask a Sergei).

So, is it time to get the white sheets ready and start practising some duck and cover moves or not?