Missile Defense, More Danger Now, July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009
More Danger from Missile Defense Agency

On July 9 I wrote, The New but Misguided "partnership"
between the U.S. and Russia (see below), warning that we need
to protest the possible new effort of the U.S. and Russia developing
a joint early-warning center to monitor launches worldwide.

Now I feel the need to issue forth another word of caution.
The head of the Missile Defense Agency says that the U.S.
is planning an offensive strategy as part of it's defensive missile
defense program.

He likens the Missile Defense Systems to a football game,
"you have the ability to blitz and interrupt the quarterback when
he's trying to throw the ball,"

This spells a whole new "geopolitical" game to me, whereby the

U.S. would actually strike at a potential enemy before they attacked

us or attacked an ally of the U.S.

Some might call it an pre-empted strike or attack, the kind that is

becoming more and more "popular" in military engagements and

war making. It is this kind of audacity that the U.S. has demonstrated

many times in countries around the world, giving one reason or excuse

or another for doing so. The Iraq invasion and war is just such an example;

while a missile defense system in Europe is similar in some ways...

In any event let us be aware that at this time, only a week since

President Obama spoke with the Russian leaders about missile defense,

even calling for a new partnership with them...and Russia responded a

few days later threatening again to send missiles to Kaliningrad if the U.S.

decides to build a MDS in Poland and the Czech Republic; and now this!

The U.S.Administration, Congress and Military are either confused or are

bent on giving the public mixed messages on their view and policies about

Missile Defense. Generally the government wants to have a review of the

entire missile defense program sometime this year and may or may not

wnat to partner with Russia in building a worldwide monitoring system or

building a MDS in Europe (despite Russia's strong objections) itself.

The House Committee, in Congress, which has held hearings on our MDS

has forbiddn the U.S. from building a MDS in Europe; while the Military

wants to expand and improvise the "system" to include offense along with

defense capabilities and probably spend another trillion dollars supporting

the military industrial complex...

Let us too bear in mind that the U.S. has a lot of high-tech equipment

orbiting in space, some of which might be used in an offensice manner,

possibly in conjunction with the missile defense systems.

General and President Dwight Eisenhower warned us to beware of the

growth and development of the military industrial comples. His words

still ring in our ears, those of us who are concerned about the welfare of

mankind in the future. Let us remind those who refuse to hear that we

need to beware of the dangerous implications of increasing military buildup

with high-tech or offensive components in the programs.

Let us not rely on military means to settle disputes or prevent the

escalation of problems. That is the old way.

We need to begin to disarm and increase diplomatic efforts in troubled

countries and regions in the world as soon as possible, with the aid of the

United Nations, the European Union and other Nations

We need modern thinking now peaceful means using diplomacy

and mediation, to foster cooperative communication leading to

disarmament, agreements, and treaties for long-range

benefits of national and regional security and good relationship

building for peoples around the world.

arn specter, phila.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missile Defense Diversity Equals Strength, General Says By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 14, 2009 - The layers and diversity of the U.S.
missile defense program are its biggest strengths, the Missile Defense
Agency's director said here today.

Army Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly told the Defense Writers Group that

the program was conceived as a layered defense with boost, mid-course

and terminal phases.

Each layer contributes to the overall missile defense effort, he said.

"What has emerged is for the layers to interact with each other," he said.

The general compared missile defense to a football game. The defensive

backfield plays a zone defense, trying to bat down the ball or intercept it.

"What we're re-emphasizing now is the part of defense where you have

the ability to blitz and interrupt the quarterback when he's trying to throw

the ball," O'Reilly said. "We still have the zone, but we're taking advantage

of opportunities to stress the other parts of defense."

Defense officials have pumped up missile defense capabilities and continue

to improve the process, he said.

"If we know where the threats are likely to come from ... and we know

what we are trying to protect, you can put your interceptors in the right

place at the right time so that you can intercept much earlier," he said.

The layered defense puts the offense at a disadvantage, O'Reilly said.

"If you want to defeat a layered system, you have to defeat every aspect

of the missile defense system," he explained. "Our diversity of weapons

systems is our strength."

Most of the Missile Defense Agency's $7.8 billion budget is earmarked

toward defeating the most likely threat for the next 10 years, the general

said. "If you look at our threat projections, the growth area is going to be

3,000-kilometer threats and shorter," he said.

In many places in the world, U.S. forces would be outnumbered by the

offensive missile threat. The budget request will give American service

members three times the capability they currently have, O'Reilly said.

Other promising avenues of research include using unmanned aerial

vehicles to find and track enemy launches, O'Reilly said. The pilotless

aircraft are so accurate they can be tied into the missile defense command-

and-control apparatus.

"There is very little modification that we see to the UAVs themselves, but

there will be work on the ground system," he said. The agency is teaming

with the Air Force to develop the capability.

The agency will continue to field a viable mid-course homeland defense

against long-range threats. American long-range capability has been s

ignificantly enhanced, he said, but the problem is time. If North Korea

launched a missile against the western United States, it would take about

30 minutes from launch to impact.

"It takes about eight minutes to let the missile finish its burn and predict

where its track is going to go," O'Reilly said. "Interceptors fly for about

four minutes and then coast for another two minutes, so six minutes have

gone by, and this missile is approaching the United States."

If the interceptor malfunctions and fails to hit, that is six minutes lost.

"That's a significant impact on our ability to fire another set of interceptors

up there, and it's a real concern to the operational commanders," the general

said. "We want to ensure we have the latest-configuration missile and the

most operationally ready silos."

President Barack Obama has given the agency the order to prove the

missile defense system works. The agency has 144 tests scheduled

between now and 2016, 63 of which are flight tests.

O'Reilly said talks continue with Russia about European missile defense.

Russia has opposed NATO's push for the program that bases interceptors

in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. The program is designed to

defend the continent against a rogue state -- such as Iran -- launching a strike.

"Discussions continue with Russia on the missile threat and how it is a

threat to the United States and their country," the general said. He also has discussed different opportunities for the two countries to work together on

missile defense.

Biographies:
Army Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly

Related Sites:
Missile Defense Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 9, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------
The New but Misguided "partnership"
between the U.S. and Russia

A rather unexpected turn of events has occured in regards to U.S.
and Russian policies and positions on Missile Defense in Europe
and in the Region, reports Jim Wolf in his article,
U.S. seeks "full partnership" with Russia on missiles (see below).

The head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Army
Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly said, "The (new) approach is to
lay out ideas, and not to have a fully developed plan. You need to move
foward at a prudent pace so that there are collaborative decisions,
intermediate decisions made along the way, so that there is true partnership."

Wolf says, Obama, during the two-day visit to Russia this week,
called for a fresh era in bilateral security ties focusing on mutual
interests. He and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
agreed to pursue a plan, first floated in the 1990's
to open a joint early-warning center to monitor launches worldwide.

Too, O'Reilly said he had not received any orders "to deviate" from
expanding U.S. missile defense into Poland and the Czech Republic,
an idea Moscow calls a threat to Russian security.

This new plan came about as the two Presidents worked on an
agreement to cut nuclear weapons and consider missile defense
in Europe. Working together "in partnership" is a far cry to the early
statements issued forth by Micheal McFaul, special assistant to the
president for National Security Affairs.

McFaul said, " We're not going to reassure or give or trade
anything with the Russians regarding NATO's expansion or missile
defense." Fortunately that very hard-line approach was not taken up
by President Barack Obama, who chose instead to table the discussion
on missile defense for another time. Obama's intelligent "tabling" of the
missile defense issue allowed President Medvedev to go along with the
nuclear weapons reduction agreement despite his earlier admonishion
that he would not do so unless the U.S. stopped the missile defense plan
completely. Now. with the use of diplomacy and cooperation, they are
speaking of "partnership" .

However, to open a joint early-warning center to monitor launches
worldwide is a freightening prospect. Not only would it cost both nations,
and probably other nations as well, billions and billions of dollars, it would
give the two mightiest nuclear powers on earth more power and dominance
than ever before in history.

As the Buddha has said, "The real and lasting victories are those of peace,
and not of war",

Real. long-term, victories come from peace-making and not of war-making.
Instead of a world-wide missile defense system we need a world-wide
diplomacy network including as many nations as possible to contribute their
wisdom and resources in order for people to understand and respect one
another. Once that occurs then mutual cooperation, negotiations, mediations,
resolutions and agreements can take place to smooth over troubled differences
between peoples and make peaceful settlements that would have a chance for
long time.success.

More military weapons and counter-weapons, as missile defensive systems
are designed for, would increase tensions and anxieties for millions of people
worldwide in the future.We need less tension not more, a time for security so
that people can recover from the past - especially the recent past with all the
wars and violence still occurring- and begin to recover and reconstruct their
countries and themselves from all the trauma, hurts and pain incurred from
worldwide violence.

To assure people of their national security and some peace of mind we need to
stress disarmament as a key to peacemaking. In some of the statements
in the articles sited below disarmament is mentioned along with the strengthening
of defense. The argument sort of goes that if nations still have mass weapons then
we need to defend ourselves against their possible threats. At the same time we
need to disarm is uttered but little reall effort is generated in actually making that
happen in the U.S. or many other countries. Instead military budgets continue to
escalate and peacemaking budgets (???) are hardly considered.

In all fairness to the Obama administration the deployment of a dozen envoys in
troubled countries of the world, under the auspices of the Secretary of State,
Hillary R. Clinton, is a bold and progressive development. The State Department
has many thousands of people on staff, many who could be placed in countries
around the world (probably best in teams) to help foster diplomacy and
conflict-resolution, foster ways of helping those in need with resources from many
countries; create a worldwide resource network that can be drawn upon by
diplomats and negotiators as needed... We need creative ideas rather than more
weapons that stymie creativity and innovation, increase tensions and sometimes
lead to more violence and war-making.

So, as we applaud the current nuclear reduction agreement because it
gives us some sense of security and the hope for better relations between
the U.S. and Soviet Union (though the reductions of nuclear weapons are
small in numbers), and feel relieved that the missile defense system in
Europe is probably "off the table", let us take a deep breath and consider
the implications of an expansion of military might as a worldwide defense
system and the increased unchecked power and difficulties it would bring
.... and work and lobby for an expanded diplomatic negotiating force
around the world, composed of dedicated people from many nations.....

let us give peace a chance while opposing the joint early warning
center to monitor missile launches worldwide.

Arn Specter, Phila.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current News:
Video and Article on Missile Defense in Europe
and Future Partnership between the U.S. and Russia

Thursday, July 9, 2009 , Video from Yahoo!

arn specter (arnpeace@yahoo.com) has sent you a video.
Future of Missile Defense in Europe,
US and Russia

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=14415903
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article: U.S. seeks "full partnership"
with Russia on missiles
by Jim Wolf, Reuters, July 9, 2009

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090709/wl_nm/us_russia_usa_missiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war",
said The Buddha.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++