Russia plays down missile differences with US

[Invincible INDIAN]

MOSCOW (AFP): Russia has said it may be ready to drop its objections to the US-backed missile defence shield for Europe if it receives a formal security pledge from the United States.

The comments by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggest an easing of Moscow's position and precede a meeting between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart on the sidelines of G8 summit in France next week.

Lavrov said during talks with the German and Polish foreign ministers that missile defence negotiations with the United States and NATO were "progressing but slowly."

"We are proposing, and asking for it to be put in writing, that the missile defence system for Europe is not directed against any of the participating states – not NATO, Russia or other European states," Lavrov said.

"We are told there is no need to get this down in writing because this is inherently the case," he told a televised news conference.

"But if it is inherently not aimed against Russia, why not write (that) down?" he asked.

Lavrov's nuanced language appears aimed at easing tensions between Washington and Moscow on the eve of the Group of Eight (G8) summit talks next Thursday and Friday.

Russia has previously sought veto power in the system's operation – a subject not broached by Lavrov.

President Dmitry Medvedev used a closely watch pre-election television appearance this week to warn the United States of a return to the Cold War should the shield be constructed despite Russia's objections.

 

[Chogy]

How can a short-ranged defensive system, designed to target incoming warheads, be "directed against any of the participating states." That's like saying an S-300 or Patriot missile system is "pointed" at a nation. No, these systems defend a nation.

One might say they alter some balance of power or MAD equation, but that's a weak argument, IMO.

 

[nightcrawler]

How can a short-ranged defensive system, designed to target incoming warheads, be "directed against any of the participating states." That's like saying an S-300 or Patriot missile system is "pointed" at a nation. No, these systems defend a nation.

One might say they alter some balance of power or MAD equation, but that's a weak argument, IMO.

DefenceDog: Concrete Proposals to Make NATO's Future Nuclear Policy Work

& a very very great read DefenceDog: Real Face of U.S. ABM system in Europe

 

[CardSharp]

How can a short-ranged defensive system, designed to target incoming warheads, be "directed against any of the participating states." That's like saying an S-300 or Patriot missile system is "pointed" at a nation. No, these systems defend a nation.

One might say they alter some balance of power or MAD equation, but that's a weak argument, IMO.

Tell that to Israel about Iran wanting to have S-300.

 

[iPakMan]

Tell that to Israel about Iran wanting to have S-300.

That`s very different. It`s clear to everyone that Israel will attack Iran if they come close to achieving Nuclear capabilities so they don`t want them to have this defensive technology. I thought this was obvious...

 

[CardSharp]

That`s very different. It`s clear to everyone that Israel will attack Iran if they come close to achieving Nuclear capabilities so they don`t want them to have this defensive technology. I thought this was obvious...

It's different because it's Israel, got it.

 

[iPakMan]

It's different because it's Israel, got it.

Its different because everybody knows we will attack Iran, Israel said hundreds of times that it won`t allow Iran to get Nukes, ever. Did the US say they would attack Russia in the near future by any chance? No.

 

[Thomas]

DefenceDog: Concrete Proposals to Make NATO's Future Nuclear Policy Work

& a very very great read DefenceDog: Real Face of U.S. ABM system in Europe

I see fallacies with the article linked it down plays the capability of the SM-3. SM-2, and PAC-3 in contradiction of what the manufacturer and Missile Defense Command says they can do. It also fails to mention Russian deployment and planned deployment of a Ballistic missile defense.

 

[nightcrawler]

I see fallacies with the article linked it down plays the capability of the SM-3. SM-2, and PAC-3 in contradiction of what the manufacturer and Missile Defense Command says they can do. It also fails to mention Russian deployment and planned deployment of a Ballistic missile defense.

No it doesnt downplay..it just states that this system isn't capable to strike down any MASSIVE nukes from Russia targeted at its enemy...

It was obvious that a few dozen interceptors in Alaska, four in California, ten (as expected) in Poland is not suited well for the reflection/neutralization of a full-fledged nuclear attack from Russia, even in the case of increasing the number of ABMs twice or thrice.

I can bet you haven't read the article...
The autho also states that [when compared with STATIC ABM bases] Russia can be highly endangere by mobile (naval-based) SM-3 missiles; I don't think he is downplaying anything

It should be noted that the most important stage ICBM flight, during which it is most vulnerable, is the first, or active segment of the trajectory; when the engine is running & the main stages of ICBMs along with warheads (or MIRVs) has not yet separated. In addition, at this stage ballistic missile, is easiest to detect. As a result interception of BM in the active portion of this trajectory is a priority for a missile defense system, and here is focused most of the effort - from the placement of the ships with SM-3 prior to the preparation of a laser airborne system.