Skip to comments.Iranian ICBM Threat Demolishes The Administrationís Missile Defense Strategy
Posted on 04/28/2010 9:12:32 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Less than a year ago, the Obama Administration cancelled plans for the so-called Third Site ground-based missile defense in Europe arguing that the near-term threat did not warrant deployment of a high-end defensive capability. Instead, the administration declared that it was pursuing a phased adaptive approach to missile defenses that would only deploy those capabilities needed to deal with the threat as it emerged. Only a few months ago, the administration published its Ballistic Missile Defense Review validating a new strategy for the defense of Europe based on a different system built around the Aegis ship-based missile defense system with the Standard Missile (SM) 3. Now, just weeks later, it is reported that U.S. intelligence believes that Iran could deploy an ICBM, capable of hitting the United States by 2015. This is also about the time that Western sources estimate that Iran could have a nuclear weapon. The administrations carefully devised strategy, intended to appeal to U.S. arms controls and Russian militarists alike, looks to be coming apart.
The current defense of Europe rests on the deployment of a limited number of U.S. Aegis-equipped ships with the SM-3 Block 1B. This system will be able to defend against shorter range ballistic missiles but not ICBMs. The defense of the United States rests on 30 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs); 26 based in Alaska and 4 in California. In theory this allows for defense of the United States, but not Europe, in the face of an attack of as many as 15 ICBMs (using the standard firing doctrine of shoot-look-shoot again against each missile). However, because of the location of the interceptors, the Southeast coast would require a different firing doctrine that could easily reach four or more GBIs per ICBM (shoot-shoot-shoot-shoot) because of the short time available for an intercept.
(Excerpt) Read more at lexingtoninstitute.org ...
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Instead, the administration declared that it was pursuing a phased adaptive approach to missile defenses that would only deploy those capabilities needed to deal with the threat as it emerged.
By then, it would be too late.
Sufficient for defense against a few ICBMs. ...but not against the ICBM forces of Russia or China.
If Iranian technology manages to develop MIRV technology then there is trouble.
Yep. Only a few MIRVed birds could overwhelm our current ABMs.
MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one.
I don’t think the prospects of near term Iranian Nuclear armed missiles is any “threat” at all to the Kenyan’s strategy. I rather think it dovetails.
The threat “emerges” when Atlanta is vaporized. Actually I am not terribly sure that loss of the Southeast would not be considered a favor to the current regime.
Interesting that Obama’s missile surrender (er, appeasement) strategy is intended to appeal to US-based appeasement interests and Russian-based militarist interests.
Where, I wonder, are the US-based strategic defense “interests” in all this? Are we now appealing to the Russian military interests to look out for our defense? (Rhetorical question, I know.)
The Administration has a defense strategy? That’s news to me.
Missile Defense Briefing Report - No. 271
DEBATING THE SHAPE OF U.S. DEFENSES...
The Obama administration is facing stiff criticism in Congress over its missile defense plans. Since taking office last January, the Administration has cancelled plans for ground-based interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic and reduced funding for the same in the United States in favor of the gradual deployment of missile defenses abroad. The current plan involves the near-term deployment of short- and medium-range interceptors in Europe, and the subsequent development of sea-based long-range interceptors to defend the Old Continent. Defense of the U.S. homeland, however, will only emerge significantly later by 2020, when existing ground-based missile defenses already emplaced in California and Alaska will be bolstered to better protect the continental United States. The April 22nd Politico reports that those priorities have riled Congressional lawmakers, who are reviving their opposition to the Obama plan in the wake of a Pentagon report on Iranian military power that envisions and Iranian ICBM capability by mid-decade. House Armed Services Committee member Representative Michael Turner, for example, has worried publicly that the Presidents plan is not designed to protect our homeland until 2020 a full five years after a nascent Iranian long-range missile capability could emerge.
The shape of future deployment, moreover, is further complicated by the new START treaty just signed by Russia and the United States. Despite official protestations to the contrary, that document contains both implicit and explicit curbs on U.S. missile defense development, something which has riled Congressional proponents of missile defense..
I called the above referenced Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH-03) 202-225-6465 and thanked him for his vigilance of a dangerous president making a series of intentional defense decisions to weaken our national security vis-a-vis Russia, China, Iran.
We were warned by the Kenyan boy-king himself in his 52-second campaign ad for unilateral disarmament.
The LIAR already knew what was happening when he called for dismanteling. He’s working as fast as he can to have muslims control the world.
The good news just keeps coming
But, but, Iran is just a little country, small, insignificant, inoffensive. Relax. All is well. Really. All is well.