No need for European missile defense shield if Iran deal a success

[DV RULES]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says the US will no longer have a reason to build the long-touted missile defense shield in Europe, if Iran fulfills its obligations in the recently-signed nuclear program deal.

“If the Iran deal is put into practice, the stated reason for the construction of the defense shield will no longer apply,” Lavrov told journalists in Rome.

NATO is currently rolling out its new Europe-wide missile defense shield, which will include two interceptor bases close to the Russian border in Romania and Poland, with the first of the first ground missiles becoming operational in 2015. The bases will be able to shoot down short and medium-range ballistic missiles.

Russia has long protested at the placement of such bases on its borders, but during both, the Bush era and Obama’s terms, Washington has insisted that the bases are primarily directed against a potential threat from Iran, and are too close to Russia to stop any of its nuclear warheads.

On Sunday, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for a loosening of substantial EU and US sanctions that have crippled its economy.

The initial term of the deal is six months, though both sides hope this will lead to a permanent rapprochement after a stand-off that lasted a decade, during which the West accused Iran of attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon, while Iran denied this, insisting that it was entitled to enrich uranium.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, while visiting Europe earlier this month, said that the deployment of the missile shield was not likely to be contingent on improving relations with Iran.

“Nothing has changed at this point and I don't foresee it changing,” he said.

The current European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) missile defense system was adopted by the White House in 2009. It generally uses more established technologies than President George W. Bush’s expensive and ambitious system that first aroused Russia’s ire over five years ago. The most ambitious phase of the program, initially scheduled to begin next decade, was also canceled earlier this year.

Nonetheless, negotiations about Moscow’s potential involvement in the defense shield have broken down over a lack of trust, and the recent groundbreaking ceremony at NATO’s base in Romania was swiftly followed by an unannounced test of Russia’s newest ballistic missiles as well as international patrols by its strategic bombers.

Lavrov recently called missile defense a “burning issue” in Moscow-Washington relations, and said that Russia will soften its stance on the Eastern European bases only if NATO provides written assurances that they will never be used to shoot down Russian missiles, a request it has repeatedly rejected.

Lavrov: No need for European missile defense shield if Iran deal a success — RT News

 

[vostok]

If Americans abandon plans to deploy missile defense in Europe, they will present it as a goodwill gesture. In fact, this defense will be absolutely useless against those missiles that are now being tested, not to mention the ones that come to replace RS-20 in 2020.

 

[KRAIT]

Ahh...master stroke.

 

[DV RULES]

If Americans abandon plans to deploy missile defense in Europe, they will present it as a goodwill gesture. In fact, this defense will be absolutely useless against those missiles that are now being tested, not to mention the ones that come to replace RS-20 in 2020.

Well, interesting to see in future what reason will come out to maintain this show card. In general the aim to hold it now went to its own death.

 

[vostok]

Well, interesting to see in future what reason will come out to maintain this show card. In general the aim to hold it now went to its own death.

In the 90's years the rulers of Eastern Europe believed in the illusion that Russia will soon disappear. They from morning till night have been cursing "communist invaders." At the same time, most of their politicians themselves were communist party members. Dope now cleared - Russia is becoming stronger, and America - weaker. Besides, America is very far away, and Russia - is very, very close.
Czech Republic, coming to it's senses, refused the U.S. the right to host the missile defense system. I do not know the reasons, but also in Poland missle defence will not be deployed. Romania remains - let's wait, let's see.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Now that their justification for a missile shield in Europe is gone, they'll have to come up with a new and ever more tenuous excuse to try again.

 

[vostok]

Now that their justification for a missile shield in Europe is gone, they'll have to come up with a new and ever more tenuous excuse to try again.

Yes, they will say that the missile shield protecting Europe against nuclear missiles of Hezbollah. Or say that missile defense in Europe - protects the rights of fagots.

 

[KRAIT]

@vostok After Syria and now Iran deal, Putin is showing the emerging power of Russia on world stage. Love him, hate him but no one can't afford to ignore him.

 

[MarkusS]

I think the missile shield is important for europe. Russia has no say about european politics. It is important that we guard our east european neighbors from russian agression.

 

[DV RULES]

In the 90 years the rulers of Eastern Europe believed in the illusion that Russia will soon disappear. They are from morning till night curse "communist invaders." At the same time, most of their politicians themselves were communist party members. Dope now cleared - Russia is becoming stronger, and America - weaker. Besides, America is very far away, and Russia - is very, very close.
Czech Republic, coming to it's senses, refused the U.S. the right to host the missile defense system. I do not know the reasons, but also in Poland missle defence will not be deployed. Romania remains - let's wait, let's see.

They turned down NATO's offer only after Russia threatens them to nuke and Poland got its lesson after plane crash so rest of states also know economic and strategic interests and threats in both situations they might face or achieve. In actual eastern EU will bowed down toward the party they count more suitable. I will give you example that their status is same as CIS states.

US is not weaker and Russia going more stronger and giant in the region and no state want to play as Georgia.

I think the missile shield is important for europe. Russia has no say about european politics. It is important that we guard our east european neighbors from russian agression.

this time NATO is aggressive not Russia so recent lollypop for Ukraine from EU not a peace deal indeed.

 

[vostok]

They turned down NATO's offer only after Russia threatens them to nuke and Poland got its lesson after plane crash so rest of states also know economic and strategic interests and threats in both situations they might face or achieve. In actual eastern EU will bowed down toward the party they count more suitable. I will give you example that their status is same as CIS states.

US is not weaker and Russia going more stronger and giant in the region and no state want to play as Georgia.

I do not think that Kaczynski plane was shot down. Even Poland did not formally charge. The plane crashed itself. It happens.
Medvedev threatened in 2010, that Russia will place Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region. And that will strike first if Euro missle defense will threaten the possibility of nuclear retaliation.

 

[Declein]

Well, it had nothing to do with Iran anyway, the whole point of it was mainly the radars as they give some precious extra minutes of warning in case of a nuclear launch.

For Romania - the decision will stay, those bases act as a tripwire against any Russian adventurism, guaranteeing the security of eastern NATO members, and sooner or later more east European countries will follow.

More important is that they can be used to pressure a solution to the Basarabia/Transnistria & treasury problems that we have with Russia, and, ofcourse, our politicians can't say no to USA anyway..

Ps: DV Rules, eastern europe is not Georgia

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The most basic principle of anti-ballistic missile defence is that shooting down a nuke is always FAR more expensive than building more nukes.

Anti-ballistic missile defence will always be cost-ineffective, since shooting down one missile is significantly more expensive than countering the BMD. It can be countered very cost-effectively by: Building more missiles, by having more MIRV warheads, by coating the MIRV warheads in stealth paint, by releasing large amounts of chaff to confuse radars, by adding multiple decoy warheads, by adding decoy missiles, or by detonating the final stage to create a large cloud of debris that will confuse radars.

The only thing America is achieving with this, is they are motivating Russia to build more nukes. Since that will always be the most cost-effective solution.

 

[DV RULES]

I do not think that Kaczynski plane was shot down. Even Poland did not formally charge. The plane crashed itself. It happens.
Medvedev threatened in 2010, that Russia will place Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region. And that will strike first if Euro missle defense will threaten the possibility of nuclear retaliation.

It will change nothing how you think or not.

 

[Declein]

The most basic principle of anti-ballistic missile defence is that shooting down a nuke is always FAR more expensive than building more nukes.

Anti-ballistic missile defence will always be cost-ineffective, since shooting down one missile is significantly more expensive than countering the BMD. It can be countered very cost-effectively by: Building more missiles, by having more MIRV warheads, by coating the MIRV warheads in stealth paint, by releasing large amounts of chaff to confuse radars, by adding multiple decoy warheads, by adding decoy missiles, or by detonating the final stage to create a large cloud of debris that will confuse radars.

The only thing America is achieving with this, is they are motivating Russia to build more nukes. Since that will always be the most cost-effective solution.

You don't understand - the point is to detect a launch earlier, giving more times for a response and an edge in responding . It's not about shooting them down (now, with todays technology)