Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NATO missile shield: WHY?
#1
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:

Quote: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:

Quote: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.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#2
It's an interesting point you make, Jan. Building a missile defence system in Europe against Iran is like providing fur coats for fish.

I guess China is the US's ultimate target here, especially following Premier Wen Jiabao just told Obama - when asked to help bail out the US by adjusting its currency - "sick patients shouldn't ask others to take their medicine".
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#3
It gets the gravy-train rollin' [more] for the defense contractors who own the politicians who approve these things.

It keeps the general populace afraid there will be war[s] galore and even nuclear war.

Even if it were to defend [sic] against Chinese missiles - which I doubt - it wouldn't work. There is no defense against a determined nuclear attack - only world peace and universal nuclear disarmament. There are submarine, satellite and backpack delivery systems. One could even put a few in the ubiquitous shipping containers from China, set to blow when near a city center.....this is as fake as 'star wars' as far as effectiveness...and if it has ANY military 'logic' [an oxymoronic statement] it is going to be turned for offensive purposes - or used to hide more black budget items, IMO.

Meanwhile, back in reality of 99.9% of the World's population, people are hungry, unsheltered, poor, needing healthcare, the Planet's ecosystem is dying, neo-fascism is growing like weeds many places [including the Western Beast and Niew Heimat], etc. and all 'they' can think to spend their time, money, and energies on is more militarism!!!??? :flute:
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Reply
#4
My understanding of the strategy involved in building a missile shield is that its presence is valid only as an enabler of a first-strike by the people who erect the shield. Any kind of purposeful nuclear attack by a major nuclear-capable entity cannot hope to be defeated by a shield. The shield could and would be overwhelmed by the attack and the physics involved in the attack. The shield's purpose is simply to mop up and provide some (but not total) protection against the few missiles that were launched quickly enough or which survived the first-strike attack. Any first-strike strategy has to accept some losses; the only question is where, and how many. The shield's purpose is to minimize damage after the first strike has landed.

As for the ground-level diplomacy involved in the allegiances (actual, proposed or decoyed), that's another matter. Early diplomacy could be a bluff, a door through which further intelligence might be derived, or as part of some other diplomatic strategy. Watch, too, for the possibility that some parts of the shield might be, at the last moment, disabled by hidden technological means.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Reply
#5
The above titled article by Rick Rozoff is one of the most important and significant I have read from him - and that is saying a lot because he is a real pro when it comes to Nato and Russia. It has a lot to say about the missile deal that heads this thread but for me, it's significance is in finally confirming what has appeared increasingly obvious (even whilst appearing unbelievable) over the past 12 months or so - namely that Russia appears to have finally thrown its lot in with the Anglo/US/NATO Imperial Project.

The last UN Iranian sanctions vote is perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence but it was only the most high profile of a host of other puzzle pieces forming the whole picture; the picture which the Lisbon NATO summit appears now to have completed. The article deals with all this in detail. It clearly pains its author (as it does me) to reach the conclusions he does but it is practically impossible not to.

I guess the question is whether or not Medvedev can continue to carry his countries military with him. All the stuff detailed in Rozoff's article has to rankle with them big time.

It would be nice to think that Russia is playing a canny game of chess and that we are at mid-game with all to play for. But the evidence says it is far more like an extended end-game, with few pieces left and Russia facing a humiliating defeat.

The article is very long so I haven't posted it in full. Maybe Admins will judge it important enough to archive here. If so go ahead. I'm certainly putting the whole thing up on WikiSpooks.
Peter Presland

".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Reply
#6
Peter - thank you. I entirely agree about the importance of the Rozoff article.

It may be that certain leading Russian politicians are in the process of fattening their bank balances. Whether the Russian military will allow their country to be sold out is an intriguing question.

However, I also find the argument in the excerpt below compelling:

Quote:In an analysis published three days before the Lisbon summit, Victor Kovalev, a corresponding member of Russia’s Military Science Academy, warned of what confronts Russia as it intensifies its collaboration with NATO:

“The NATO summit which will convene in Lisbon on November 19-20 will adopt the alliance’s new strategic concept switching NATO from regional defense to global-scale missions. In practice, the reform will institutionalize the West’s victory in the Cold World War III. The already visible results of the victory include the ongoing departure from the Yalta-Potsdam system and the downscaling of the role played by the UN – or at least by the UN Security Council – in international relations.”

“The new world order built as we watch on the ruins of the Yalta-Potsdam system automatically energizes a range of negative global processes and is prone with new wars or major regional conflicts. At the moment, the situation in the Far East already appears similar to that in Europe on the eve of World War II.” This week’s developments on the Korean peninsula bear out the contention.

“Under the circumstances, Russia’s priority should be to avoid being dragged into the epicenter of the coming collapse. Hoping to get rid of competitors in the post-capitalist world and to enforce a ‘final solution’ of the Russian problem, the West is luring Russia into this very epicenter.” [22]

For me, the question is whether Mother Russia batting her eyelids at NATO equates to luring her into "the epicenter of the coming collapse".

Or whether Russia is simply buying some time.

If the Euro collapses, or Germany withdraws and reintroduces the Deutsche Mark, then Europe will be a radically different and more volatile continent.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#7
A $10billion piece of the Military-Intelligence-Multinational-Complex ready for the Business of War in Yorkshire, England.

Quote:'Son of star wars' base in Yorkshire finally ready to open

Peace campaigners slam secrecy over $10bn Menwith Hill project that puts UK in line of fire


Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011 19.33 BST

A "star wars" inspired defence shield that will alert the US to the launch of ballistic missiles is expected to be operational from a North Yorkshire airbase before the end of the year.

The Space Based Infrared System is seen as the successor to Ronald Reagan's unrealised "star wars" programme, which would have detected Soviet missiles and shot them down using lasers.

The new system, which has cost more than $10bn, has taken almost two decades to build and has been subject to numerous delays and cost overruns.

The imminent completion of the project at the RAF Menwith Hill base near Harrogate has revived fears that space is in danger of becoming militarised, with Britain in the vanguard.

"I find this disturbing to say the least," said a local Labour MP, Fabian Hamilton. "It's as if they are saying this is a place in the US and you are foreigners. But hang on one second, this is a bit of Yorkshire. We have no idea what they are doing. If they are developing star wars we have a right to know."

Menwith Hill houses a major US military site that is shrouded in secrecy and is already known to provide a home for Echelon, the US eavesdropping system that intercepts communications from around the world.

The site houses 33 satellite dishes encased in giant "golf balls" called radomes that receive data from SBIRS's four satellites 24,000 miles above earth.

The UK site is linked to Buckley, the airforce base in Colorado, home to almost 100,000 military personnel and the 460th space wing of the US Air Force Space Command. The 460th provides "missile warning, missile defence, technical intelligence, satellite command and control, and robust aerospace communications" according to its website.

But its work is top secret and critics say even the UK government has little idea what happens at Menwith Hill, which has been run by the US National Security Agency since 1966.

When asked about the site, former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth insisted its use was "governed by the terms of the Nato status of forces agreement of 1951 and other confidential arrangements between the UK and US".

Questions remain as to whether the US has sought permission from the UK to relay data from Menwith Hill to Buckley. Hamilton asked: "If the position were reversed and there was an RAF airbase in Massachusetts can you imagine the American military saying 'You do what you like'?"

Confirmation that the SBIRS was now ready to go live at Menwith Hill was revealed only in a terse parliamentary answer from defence minister Nick Harvey, who confirmed: "SBIRS facilities at RAF Menwith Hill are ready for operation." Harvey added: "The specific operational dates are a matter for the United States, although it is likely all SBIRS facilities at the base will be operational by the end of 2011."

A second, yet-to-be-completed project, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, using satellites, will track missiles after SBIRS has detected them.

According to peace campaigners, the systems are a key component in what the US military calls "full spectrum dominance" of land, sea, air, space and information.

Campaigners claim the presence of the US technology at Menwith Hill heightens the risk of a pre-emptive attack on the UK as a means of disabling America's missile-detection system.

They complain that planning approval for major projects at the site, whose main contractors are the US arms manufacturers Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, was granted without consultation, and questioned whether it breaches the Outer Space Treaty which prohibits space becoming a new platform for the arms race.

Brigadier General Roger W Teague, the air force's infrared space systems director, has hinted that the SBIRS has more uses than missile detection.

"It is far more than just missile warning," Teague acknowledged this month, sparking speculation it could be used to gather "technical intelligence" for use by spy agencies.

But, according to its critics, many of the claims for the system are over-blown. "SBIRS is just one part of the highly complex US missile defence system and is a long way off from being operational," said Lindis Percy, joint co-ordinator of the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases. "The US has spent billions and billions of dollars trying to develop this system ever since Ronald Reagan's fantasy of 'Star Wars' in the 1980s. It is still a fantasy, unlikely ever to work and should be scrapped."

According to the CAAB, the US has around 6,000 military bases on its own soil and more than 1,000 worldwide.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#8
Jan, you should have been at the conference I attended Saturday. More when I have it written up...
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  US & NATO Weep Over Loss of Libyan Oil Ports David Guyatt 1 7,980 26-03-2017, 10:43 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  It's NATO That's Expanding Not Putin: The Ukraine Coup Was The USA's Respons Against Putin for Syria David Guyatt 0 5,654 09-03-2017, 02:06 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  NATO - EU Worried by Bannon Bluntness David Guyatt 0 4,243 22-02-2017, 10:10 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Taliban deliver hammer blow to NATO - Escobar Peter Lemkin 0 2,308 18-07-2011, 09:05 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  US moves missile into Poland next to Russian Border Magda Hassan 3 2,752 29-05-2010, 08:34 PM
Last Post: Helen Reyes
  Rick Rozoff Stop NATO list and blog Magda Hassan 0 16,356 16-02-2010, 12:29 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Sweden: The tyranny of Small Steps - From Neutrality to NATO Peter Presland 0 2,339 13-02-2010, 11:05 AM
Last Post: Peter Presland
  The Sword & the Shield: Missile Defense/First-Strike Ed Jewett 0 2,212 05-02-2010, 07:18 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  ‘Flight plans’ Could Spark New Cuban Missile Crisis Peter Presland 2 2,672 02-02-2010, 11:24 PM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO Magda Hassan 0 3,132 28-05-2009, 01:25 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)