A missile defense system might be nice now …

[darrels joy]

A missile defense system might be nice now …

posted at 9:30 am on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


Iran test-fired a new missile platform earlier today, the Sajjil-2, a solid-fuel missile capable of reaching throughout the Middle East and into Europe. It’s exactly the kind of weapon against which the American missile shield would have defended Europe, had we continued to install our systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as the eventual longer-range missiles these tests will produce. The Iranians used the test to demonstrate its intention to retaliate for any attempt to stop its nuclear-weapons program through military means:

Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West. …

State television broke the news in a one-sentence report accompanied by a brief clip of the test, showing the missile rising from the launch pad in a cloud of smoke.

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi vowed that the Sajjil-2 would be a “strong deterrent” against any possible foreign attack. He said the new version can be fired more quickly and flies faster than previous ones making it harder to shoot down, though he did not give further details.

“Given its high speed,” he said, speaking on state TV, “it is impossible to destroy the missile with anti-missile systems because of its radar-evading ability.”

It may be impossible to shoot down, but not because of “radar-evading ability.” It’s impossible because Iran’s Russian allies successfully pushed
Barack Obama out of deploying the missile defense system where it would work against the Sajjil-2. Iran doesn’t have to worry about having these shot down if they wish to threaten Europe and NATO and extort their silence while Iran completes its nuclear bomb.

The move to the exclusive use of solid fuel (the Shahab-3 used both solid and liquid fuel) is worrisome. With the Shahab-3, we could see the fueling and the staging of the missile before its launch. That would give us time to attack the launch site if we thought it necessary. The Sajjil-2 can be fueled far in advance and then hidden in silos, giving us only a few minutes warning on any launch. If the Iranians put a nuclear warhead on the Sajjil-2, defending against it will be very difficult, even if we do manage to install defensive systems where it counts.

Jammie Wearing Fool notes that Barack Obama’s self-assigned “good, solid B-plus” was predicated in part on Obama’s assertion that he had “made progress toward halting development of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea.” However, as Fox News analyst Michael Tobin reports, this test shows that Iran is accelerating its efforts:

This test also shows Iran ’s aggressiveness with the missile program. “The advance rate is phenomenal,” says Rubin, noting that Iran has now conducted three missile tests in 13 months. It shows just how high a priority missile technology is for the Shiite regime. Rubin says, “They need to keep testing to prove their past successes were not spurious.”

The Iranians have succeeded in stalling the world while it pushes ever faster to both a nuclear weapon and a launch vehicle to carry it. Any idea that we have somehow begun “halting” this push is either a lie or terminal naïveté.

Update: McKittrick at Closing Velocity noted yesterday that the US had shifted the focus of its missile-defense testing from North Korea to Iran, despite an earlier contention that the Iranian threat had “slowed.” He called shenanigans yesterday, and it looks like he was right to do so.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/1...t-be-nice-now/

[darrels joy]

Vladimir Putin threatens Barack Obama's nuclear stockpile cuts

President Barack Obama's drive for the US and Russia to agree cuts in nuclear weapons is under threat after Vladimir Putin insisted the US abandons its missile shield before a final deal can be reached.



By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 9:55PM GMT 29 Dec 2009

Mr Putin insisted his country would develop new "offensive" weapons systems before it considered cutting nuclear warheads Photo: EPA



The Russian prime minister threatened to scupper one of Mr Obama's key foreign policy successes following his initial agreement with President Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 summit in London in April.

In a notable toughening of rhetoric, Mr Putin insisted his country would develop new "offensive" weapons systems before it considered cutting nuclear warheads. He said the new weapons were necessary to prevent America's leaders from thinking they can "do whatever they want".


The Obama administration's missile defence plans were blocking any possible reduction in Russia's nuclear weapons stockpile, he insisted.

"The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one," he said in Vladivostok. "By building such an umbrella over themselves, our partners could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want, which upsets the balance."

One of Mr Obama's signature foreign policy initiatives has been to declare that he wants "a world without nuclear weapons" and he has made plain his hope for rapprochement with Moscow. He said in April: "As a nuclear power - as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act."

In July, he declared his intention to "reset" troubled relations between the United States and Russia.

Two months later, he dismayed US allies in Europe by ditching Bush-era plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which were previously behind the Iron Curtain.

Moscow had been bitterly opposed to those plans and at first welcomed Washington's decision.

But the olive branch has yielded little if anything in return. Instead, Moscow has used Mr Obama's intention to instead build a "smarter, stronger and swifter" system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors as a justification for continued tensions.

Mr Putin's comments are a blow to the prospects of a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was due to expire three weeks ago.

He said Washington should share its missile defence plans with Moscow if it wanted to move forward on arms reduction talks, which could see stoickpiles fall by over 1,000 warheads, leaving the countries with about 1,500 each. "Let the Americans hand over all their information on missile defence and we are ready to hand over all the information on offensive weapons systems," he said.

The US State Department rejected Mr Putin's call, stating that the START successor treaty would only deal with strategic offensive arms.

"While the United States has long agreed that there is a relationship between missile offense and defense, we believe the START follow-on agreement is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing it," said Ian Kelly, a spokesman.

"We have agreed to continue to discuss the topic of missile defense with Russia in a separate venue."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...pile-cuts.html