Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian ICBM Threat Demolishes The Administrationís Missile Defense Strategy
Lexington Institute ^ | 4/26/2010 | Daniel Goure, Ph.D.

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 administration’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ballisticmissile; gbi; icbm; iran; iranianmissile; missiledefense; nationalsecurityfail; obama; sm3; teheran

1 posted on 04/28/2010 9:12:32 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; txhurl; Jet Jaguar

Ping.


2 posted on 04/28/2010 9:16:25 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Bump


3 posted on 04/28/2010 9:18:15 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; ...
The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

4 posted on 04/28/2010 9:19:08 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

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.


5 posted on 04/28/2010 9:19:52 PM PDT by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
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

Sufficient for defense against a few ICBMs. ...but not against the ICBM forces of Russia or China.

6 posted on 04/28/2010 9:23:07 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

If Iranian technology manages to develop MIRV technology then there is trouble.


7 posted on 04/28/2010 9:24:08 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Yep. Only a few MIRVed birds could overwhelm our current ABMs.


8 posted on 04/28/2010 9:25:31 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

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.


9 posted on 04/28/2010 9:30:24 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

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.


10 posted on 04/28/2010 10:02:39 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DontTreadOnMe2009

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.


11 posted on 04/28/2010 10:05:59 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DontTreadOnMe2009; Doohickey; CPOSharky; patton; neverdem; narses

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.)


12 posted on 04/28/2010 10:13:40 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

The Administration has a defense strategy? That’s news to me.


13 posted on 04/28/2010 10:20:20 PM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; FARS; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; BOBTHENAILER
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 President’s 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.

14 posted on 04/28/2010 10:27:37 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

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.


15 posted on 04/29/2010 2:23:30 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

The good news just keeps coming


16 posted on 04/29/2010 5:22:45 AM PDT by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

But, but, Iran is just a little country, small, insignificant, inoffensive. Relax. All is well. Really. All is well.


17 posted on 04/29/2010 7:02:02 AM PDT by ronnyquest (There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

GREAT POST——


18 posted on 04/29/2010 7:35:12 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (EPA will rule your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson