NATO declares European missile shield up and running

CBS

Last Updated 8:23 a.m. ET

(CBS/AP) CHICAGO - NATO says that its European missile shield is up and running with a basic capability to shoot down incoming missiles.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Sunday the declaration of "interim capability" at the alliance's summit in Chicago is a first step toward a goal of establishing full coverage of Europe by 2018.

A final stage is planned for 2022 that would also provide coverage of the United States from Europe.

The Obama administration has touted the progress as a sign of alliance solidarity. But it is mainly paid for and operated by the United States.

In Chicago, the administration turned over operational control of parts of the system to NATO.

The administration said that other NATO allies committed over $1 billion to support infrastructure for the system.

"The United States and our European allies [are] investing in common security, and it is an excellent example of the renewed culture of cooperation, which we call 'smart defense,'" Rasmussen told reporters.

NATO: Obama warns of "hard days" ahead in Afghanistan

NATO has also stated that it wants to cooperate with Russia on the missile shield, but has rejected a proposal to run the shield jointly.

Russia has opposed the missile defense system believing the program is aimed at its missiles; the U.S. has said the system is designed to counter a missile threat from a rogue nation, such as Iran.

It has been a sore point between the two nations since President George W. Bush announced plans to install interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe, what Moscow considered its backyard. Russia maintains the system could undermine its nuclear deterrent, while Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russian intervention.

Russia ups rhetoric over missile shield
Putin calls NATO "relic of the Cold War"
Medvedev: Russia must counter missile shield

In August 2008, after a year and a half of negotiations, American and Polish officials signed an agreement in which the U.S. would augment the country's defenses with Patriot missiles.

In 2009 President Obama announced a redesign of the planned missile deployment - what Defense Secretary Robert Gates called an "outdated" plan, given advances in U.S. missile interceptor and missile-tracking sensor technologies.

Last year Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed concerns that the modified defense system pursued by Mr. Obama could still be upgraded to counter Russia's arsenal.

Obama: US, Russia working on missile defense

On Sunday France's new president Francois Hollande said that Russia and other countries should not feel threatened by the planned NATO missile defense system.

Speaking at the NATO summit in Chicago, Hollande also laid out four conditions for French support for the anti-missile defense - including cost, rules of engagement, industrial support for European contractors and compatibility with France's nuclear deterrent.

[nancy_naive]

Since there is ACTUALLY someone here who claims to know something, David, this un's fer you.

Iran has yet to build a nuclear device, let alone test one. Best estimates still put that 2 years hence, and it may not work (witness NK fizzels). A 1st-generation nuclear weapon is about the size of a "Smart Car" and 800-lbs; a 2nd-generation device is about the size of Refrigerator Perry (if you remember him) and 250-lbs.

It took the US 15 years to move from 1st to 2nd generation; we'll give Iran 7 because of supporting technology advances, if they can aquire them. So, that 9 years from now. Note: Pakistan & India took 25 years and they had help from some petty tech-savvy people (like us and us...sr).

Their theatre-level ballastic missile can carry Refrigerator Perry about 1250 NAUTICAL miles (that's for George). As you pointed out, they have an ICBM that can carry 150 lbs, or a healthy American teenaged girl (ooh a social commentary).

In order for the "Missile Shield" (hahahaha) to be even in the running, they need to increase the ICBM payload 3-fold ( that's 2^3 as in "folding 3 times), or move to a 2nd generation nuke.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a missle DOUBLE it's payload?

Any way you slice, making a bigger missile, and/or a smaller nuke is a minimum of 10 years from now, or 7 from their 1st SUCCESSFUL test, whichever is smaller.

[nancy_naive]

Now, about that "shield" (hahahahaha). The military likes to break things into phases, so let's do that. There are 3 phases to an ICBM flight, boost, midcourse, and re-entry.

Our "shield" (hahahaha) is a single-shot, single-target interceptor. You want to shoot multiple targets, you shoot multiple missiles. That means we have to hit the missile in boost, or in early mid-course before deployment of decoys (more on this later). Our best intercept chance (as in high probability) is boost phase. This requires the interceptor missile be in an egg-shaped area within 100 miles behind the lauch site, or 400 miles in front of the launcg site and the interceptor MUST be launched within 60 seconds of the launch to run down the ICBM. Maybe 90-120 seconds if you are far enough in front. Otherwise you are chasing a fast long range target with a very fast short-range bullet... the outcome is obvious.

[nancy_naive]

Now, when the ICBM enters midcourse, it's going to start sheading some things, like cowlings and decoys (things that are inflatible mylar) that will travel pretty much with the warhead. They may wobble, and lag, a bit, but pretty much they are going to be right there.

Our "shield" (hahaahaha) has successfully distinguished a 20-ft ball-shaped inflatible decoy from a 6-ft conical-shaped warhead... oooohhh hard test. 1 decoy, 1 warhead in a test about as hard as distinguishing J-Lo from Fatimah Yechberg.

When we launch an ICBM in hostility, it will have 9 warheads (MIRV) and something like 20 decoys. MIRVs are really tough. So, Iran will launch 1 warhead and 20 decoys. And they won't be ball-shaped.

NMD -- Still the biggest RIP-OFF since, well no. The BIGGEST rip-off.

[bradkt1]

This is supposed to protect NATO countries, but as far as I am concerned, if NATO isn't paying for it, then NATO doesn't really want it. The U.S. wants it because the U.S. is paying for it. However, the catch is that it only protects part of Europe and not the U.S.

So why are we really doing this? This sounds like it it more about U.S. domestic politics than it is about either the defense of NATO or the U.S. NATO is an outdated military alliance of the Cold War. By offering to locate this antimissle system in their countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia are dragging us into a military alliance that we are paying for to protect them from Russia...

...which was NEVER the original purpose of NATO in the first place. Mission creep anyone?

Once again, Uncle Sam is being played for Uncle Sucker. The U.S. is doing everyone's bidding except our own...

...and is paying for it for purely domestic political reasons.

[cubscout09]

Google "spartan missile defense" and you will quickly realize that the difference between a nuclear ballistic missile and a nuclear anti-ballistic missile is targeting and fusing. The treaties with Russia are all about targeting. That's why we haven't had WW III. Much ado about nothing

[venusvegasvada]

I have to say I'm not really sure just what those are doing there either. Placebo?

[bigmanfrommaine]

Obama is putting up a missile shield? Wow he really is an apologist isn't he? As in "Sorry, incoming missile, I can't let you land here...ZAP!"

[robert1129]

The Obama administration has touted the progress as a sign of alliance solidarity. But it is mainly paid for and operated by the United States. In Chicago, the administration turned over operational control of parts of the system to NATO.
The administration said that other NATO allies committed over $1 billion to support infrastructure for the system.
_____________________________________________

Obama just lost my vote and anyone else I can influence. I will either for for a 3rd party or not vote for President at all. If the NATO countries are contributing $1 billion and we are contributing the lion's share of the cost, that means that once again, we are Uncle Sucker and we are contributing many more billions. If we are going to do this, why cannot the NATO countries contribute on a pro rata share? If we contribute $5 billion why not England contribute $5 billion and the same for France, Italy, etc?

It is even more stupid when you realize that we already have a missile defense system based in Kwajalen and CA. If it is not capable enough, let's just modernize it. It would be much cheaper to do it this way. If we use it to protect Europe too, then charge them a fair share. Why do we always fall for being the economic patsy? By the way, we will have to borrow the money to do either one.

[nancy_naive]

Oh yeah David. You've been given two choices, Obama or Mittens, and you will vote for Mittens because Obama is not as bad?

[wheresmyjob]

Lets see if I have this right we (the US) pays for it...WE Give control to NATO and guaranttee the jobs of implementing it to Europe

[credibility2]

What isn't being discussed by NATO about Afghanistan and should be is that they need to start mining their untapped and geologically known reserves of copper and silver, estimated to be worth at least ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Afghanistan needs to get their own house in order before expecting NATO countries to fork over some $4 Billion a year for ten years post-war. Why aren't the great NATO minds discussing this and why isn't the media covering this?

[Vierotchka]

It is not copper and silver that are worth several trillion dollars, it is the rare earths and rare metals and other rare minerals (especially since China has decided not to export theirs any more) which the west badly needs for the manufacture of its laptops, cellphones and other electronics, both military and civilian, as well as the huge mostly untapped reserve of natural gas and a considerable amount of oil in Afghanistan. Also, there still is the planned pipeline to carry oil and natural gas from the Caspian Basin down to the Arabian Sea, the only route possible going through Afghanistan. So, you can be pretty sure that the US and NATO are not planning to leave any time soon. They might replace their military manpower with that of private "security" paramilitary firms such as Blackwater (whatever it is called today) and Aegis, but the west isn't about to forego these natural resources any time soon.

[Vierotchka]

It has little to do with copper and silver - what is worth trillions of dollars is the large amount of rare earths, rare metals, rare minerals, as well as a huge largely untapped natural gas field and a sizable amount of oil. Then, there is the planned pipeline for carrying natural gas and oil from the Caspian Sea Basin to the Arabian Sea (to Karachi, Pakistan) whose only possible route goes through Afghanistan. This is why the US and NATO are not about to leave Afghanistan any time soon. They might replace their military personnel with that of private "security" companies such as Aegis and Blackwater (whatever new name it has today).

[nancy_naive]

To understand the stupidity and futility of the missile shield that we have spent 100s of billions of dollars to put in place in Europe, one need only run Google Earth and take some measurements with the distance tool.

Ostensibly, the "shield" was placed to protect Europe and Israel from a nuclear missile attack from Iran. The location of the ABM battery is in Southeast Poland.

The range of the Iran's long-range theatre ballistic missile (TBM -- they have no ICBM), although completely incapable of carrying a 1st generation nuclear warhead, is, nevertheless, only 1250 Nm.

What does this mean?

1) If Iran launched this missile from the closest Northwest most point in their country, this missile will barely cross the Black Sea. In range are Bulgaria, Romania, Moldovia, and the Ukraine.

2) Poland is another 100-200 miles beyond the range of the Iranian missile.

How does this effect the ABM capabilities?

1) To shoot down the Iranian missile at it's highest point, the defensive missile has to travel a greater distance than the Iranian missile.

2) Since these things are all pretty much limited in terminal speed, this means we have to shoot the ABM first -- a neat trick.

3) It is not clear that our defensive weapons will hit a missile that is 3/4 of the way in flight.

and finally,

4) any trajectory toward Israel cannot be intercepted by a missile launched from Poland.

CAN YOU SAY, "WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE"?

[Vierotchka]

These missile shields are aimed at Russia and have nothing to do with Iran.

[nancy_naive]

Russia has nuclear missile submarines.

[XChicagoDan]

It will partially work if Europe keeps defense spending up and upgrades its military. The culture of perpetual combat is at an old time low in Europe so most likely is a waste of resources.