Who is right about whether US's missile defense is up to speed with Russia, or not?

Question

" The new issue of Arms Control Today offers a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with the missile defense debate, such as it is. Its feature package is a staged set-piece in which all of the players are present in costume: You've got Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering of the Missile Defense Agency spouting the same old official line; you've got Ellen Tauscher questioning the efficacy of the system but not the wisdom of placing it in Russia's European backyard; and then you've got the bearded eggheads on the sidelines of power who actually understand and can explain why the Russians are freaking. As in an absurdist play, everyone is talking past each other.

There is one clash of specifics that creates a spark or two in the debate. It occurs over the question of whether the interceptor missiles slated for Poland would be capable of catching up with Russia's ICBM's. Argues Lt. Gen. Obering: "

http://new.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=13326&AUTHOR_ID=

U.S. interceptors in Europe cannot catch Russian ICBMs because of the engagement distances and greater speeds of the Russian missiles. The proposed European ground-based interceptors would have no capability to defend the United States from Russian launches. They would be in a hopeless "tail chase" in spite of recent claims to the contrary, which do not account for actual interceptor speeds, tracking times, and several other critical factors.

Not so, says Theodore A. Postol, professor of science, technology and national security at MIT and a former scientific adviser to the Navy. In an essay that argues in detailed favor of Putin's Azerbaijan proposal, Postol claims the following, contra Obering:

U.S. interceptors launched from a Polish site could intercept the 18 to 25 Russian SS-25 ICBMs based in Vypolzovo, roughly 340 kilometers northwest of Moscow. Furthermore, missiles launched from all of the other European-based Russian ICBM fields would be much easier to engage. The 40 percent faster speed of the defense interceptors relative to the ICBMs and the early-tracking information provided by the [radar] in the Czech Republic would allow the defense system to engage essentially all Russian ICBMs launched against the continental United States from Russian sites west of the Urals.

Who's right. Heck if I know.

But these are the only kinds of questions that can tell us whether the Russians are being as unreasonable as Condi Rice et al. say they are.

But what about Russia's missile defense system?

Answer 1

You guys are missing the most important piece of the entire scenario. How, I do not know.

The missile shield isn't designed or placed to intercept Russian ICBMs. Its designed and placed to intercept Iranian ICBMs. Keeping that in mind will tell you who's wrong in the argument. If you hear an expert telling you the missile shield couldn't possibly intercept Russian ICBMs, you automatically know that expert is misleading you. His or her assumed premise (Russian ICBMs) is completely false.

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/europe_shield_against_iran.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071018/pl_afp/usmilitarymissileirannuclearrussia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071017/pl_afp/usmilitarymissileirannuclearrussia
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-06/04/content_886755.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile-overview.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm

The whole point is to put a system in place that would deter Iran from using any potential nuclear arsenal, or the threat of one, against Europe. If Iran wasn't deterred, you would need some kind of defense.

Nobody believes Iran could develop or acquire missiles that could directly threaten the US in the near future. So why deploy a shield in Europe? To defend Europe. If Iran gets nukes and missiles that can hit Europe, Iran will be able to hold that threat over Europe's head to keep Europe out of any potential conflict in the Middle East. That is the whole point of this missile shield.

Answer 2

You adult adult males have been given rather protecting while Russia needed to place some missiles in Cuba. you want to make sure a fringe around Russia's entire ecu border. Russia has a component. @poisonous P12: So might u . s . a . of america be asserting this is all ideal if Russia positioned missile protection silos on Cuba? And in Canada and Mexico? Plus, are you asserting the Russians may well be justifiably aggravated in case you place nuclear weapons in, say, Turkey, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands? and then set up a gadget that prevented Russia from retaliating if those have been used? because of the fact this is how the region stands at recent. Even on the time of the Cuban missile disaster u . s . a . of america had purely based over a a hundred nuclear missiles in Italy and the united kingdom, interior outstanding variety of Moscow.

Answer 3

you don't think russia has cruise missile technology by now? or that they couldn't just park a sub near the berring staights

the missile defense argument is meaningless when you consider the sheer numbers it would have to take out if (god forbid) an all out attack was ever launched

Now if those super secret military satelites were OFFENSIVE in nature.... well that's a whole other ball game.

Answer 4

I wonder what the U.S. response would be if China announced plans to place Missile Interceptors in Canada to thwart Mexican warheads?

Answer 5

your not gonna get a straight answere from either side on whose got what, and where, or how many!!!

I'm sure both sides have some stashed somewhere that are never going to "exist" on paper!!!

i could have sworn we were all working at dismantling our nuclear arsenals a while back!!!

seems as though we've shifted directions on the arms race again!!!

Answer 6

The whole SDI humbug has always been just a big tax theft.

Answer 7

Russia talks alot, so does America but America actually has the equipment though they wont use it