NATO missile shield: WHY?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Precisely whose missiles is the shield protecting the "Free World" from?

Not Russia's missiles, because it seems that former USSR will be part of this NATO shield:

Russia-NATO missile shield possible "in mid-term perspective" - Kremlin

A joint Russia-NATO missile shield may be created in mid-term perspective, Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said ahead of the Russia-NATO summit.

Russia-NATO council will convene on Saturday in Lisbon. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is due to take part in the top-level gathering for the first time since the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, which soured Russia's relations with the alliance.

"I think that [the idea of joint missile defense] is real... The process is quite simple. We are ready to integrate," Prikhodko said.

"The issue is purely practical, and its implementation, according to experts... may be carried out not even in long-term, but in short-term perspective, given that [the sides] have political will," he said.

He added that Russia had political will to go ahead with the project.

Russian Air Force Commander Alexander Zelin said on Tuesday the Air Force was ready to work on missile defense systems with NATO. The Air Force is looking into the possibility of using military transport aircraft in the interests of NATO, he added.

The Kremlin insists that the readiness to cooperate on missile defense issues should be laid down in a written document.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen earlier said the alliance hoped to work with Russia on a variety of issues, including the European missile defense.

Moscow hopes that the summit in Lisbon will finally put an end to the post-Cold War period and will set guidelines toward a strategic partnership between Russia and NATO.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20101119/161401517.html

Here's the official, and incredibly lame, MSM-intelligence view:

Missile defence: the $270m 'protective umbrella' for 28 Nato allies

Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 November 2010 22.03 GMT

What is the purpose of the proposed missile defence system?
To protect Nato allies and countries in the eastern Mediterranean from a perceived growing threat, notably long-range Shahab-3 and Qiam-1 weapons, which have a range of some 2,500 miles, being developed by Iran (though Iran will not be singled out, see below).


Why now?
The US has persuaded most of its Nato allies the time has come for a "protective umbrella". Obama abandoned Bush's plan to base 10 land-based interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic. Russia objected.


Have all parties signed up to it?
Yes, in principle. Turkey's objections have been allayed by lack of specific reference to its neighbour, Iran. Russia privately agrees the need for some kind of shield. Its opposition was based in part on Nato failure to consult it. Israel, and the Gulf states, have their own anti-missile systems.


How will it work?
In stages. From next year US will deploy Aegis warships with interceptors in the eastern Med, supported by mobile radar units and run from a control centre in Ramstein, Germany. By 2015, there will be a land-based Aegis anti-missile system in Poland or Romania (or both). Third phase, due in 2018, would bring unmanned drones. By 2020, the idea is to have longer range missiles in place against a threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles which would be monitored by powerful large early radar warning systems, such as that in Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. The US satellite ground station at Menwith Hill, also in North Yorkshire, would also have a key role.


How much will it cost?
About $270m (£169m) over 10 years shared between 28 allies. Defence secretary Liam Fox said the missile system would cost the UK "something like £2m a year" over the next decade.


What is the UK's view?
The government supports it; critics say it could fuel an arms race, and make Britain a target. "We think it's a good thing to have a missile defence system which is Nato-based," Fox told the BBC today. "It's cost-effective for us, and there are some 30 countries now which either have or are developing ballistic missiles." The Labour government once toyed with the idea of having land-based interceptors in Britain, but the idea, opposed by military chiefs, was soon dropped

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...le-defence

NATO's "missile shield" is even more pathetic and pointless than Ronnie the Raygun's "Star Wars" farce. In its stated purpose.

But then "Star Wars" was largely about creating a pig trough, free of public or political oversight, for military-industrial-intelligence contractors. It was also an additional black budget for covert and lethal ops.