Center for Research on Globalization
U.S. Missile Shield: Towards the Establishment of a Worldwide Missile
Interceptor Network
by Rick Rozoff
Global Research, September 27, 2009
Stop NATO
Synchronized announcements on September 17 by President Barack Obama
and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the U.S. was abandoning plans
to station interceptor missiles in Poland and a forward-based missile
radar site in the Czech Republic are now ten days ago and information
surfacing in the interim indicates that its new plans are more
far-reaching than their predecessor.
Two days after the statements by the American president and defense
chief the latter, Pentagon head Robert Gates, was granted a column in
the New York Times.
The most representative segment of Gates’ comments is arguably this:
"I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since
President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have
real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of
new technologies….American missile defense on the continent will
continue, and not just in Central Europe, the most likely location for
future SM-3 sites, but, we hope, in other NATO countries as well….We
are strengthening – not scrapping – missile defense in Europe." [1]
Remarking that the earlier-envisioned system in Poland and the Czech
Republic would not have been operative until 2015 and that opposition
among both nations’ parliamentarians would have delayed the process at
least another two years, Gates evinced both impatience with and far
grander designs for the European wing of the U.S.’s global missile
shield program by asserting, "President Obama…decided to discard
that plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first
phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3
interceptor missiles – weapons that are growing in capability…."
The new deployments, which will be examined in depth later, are to be
more mobile and less capable of being anticipated and defended
against; will be
, according to Gates’ own schedule, at least eight years ahead of the
prior plan’s timeline; and will extend worldwide missile interceptor
networks into far broader swathes of Eurasia, the Middle East and
ultimately the planet as a whole.
Even in the first phase of the adapted – advanced – system that Gates
first described on September 17, more developed technologies are to
supplant what are already outdated ones that would have been applied
to the Polish and Czech deployments. "[A] fixed radar site like the
one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less
adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now
plan to use."
The new system, in addition to being more effective and quickly
operationalized, will be much grander in scope and will include
several times as many missiles as those intended for Poland, although
that nation will still host different variants of medium-range
interceptor missiles and, as Gates states below, will still eventually
station long-range ground-based missiles.
"The second phase, which will become operational around 2015, will
involve putting upgraded SM-3s [Standard Missile-3s] on the ground in
Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will
include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10
ground-based interceptors….[O]ur military will continue research and
development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was
planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up."
Scores means some multiple of twenty and one of America’s top military
commanders has mentioned 100 as a starting point, as will be seen
later.
SM-3s are the missiles employed by the U.S.’s Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense System, which is a sea-based anti-ballistic missile
interception program designed to be based off the coasts of targeted
nations as needed to render ineffective those nations’ missile launch
capabilities, both offensive and defensive.
They are also an integral component of the Pentagon’s Proliferation
Security Initiati
ion international naval surveillance and interdiction project
inaugurated by John Bolton in 2003 ostensibly to "interdict weapons of
mass destruction" by confronting non-PSI nations’ vessels anywhere in
the world.
SM-3s are also to be a staple item for America’s "thousand-ship navy,"
first proposed by the then U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations
Michael Mullen, now chairman of the armed forces Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
In 2005 Mullen addressed the Seventeenth International Seapower
Symposium at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island and said
"the United States Navy cannot, by itself, preserve the freedom and
security of the entire maritime domain. It must count on assistance
from like-minded nations interested in using the sea for lawful
purposes and precluding its use for others that threaten national,
regional, or global security." [2]
A detailed analysis of the Proliferation Security Initiative and the
1,000-Ship Navy is contained in an earlier article in this series,
Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of
World’s Oceans, Prelude To War. [3]
As part of these plans for a U.S.-dominated worldwide navy with
missile interception at its core, the United States has already
recruited NATO and Asian NATO allies like Norway, Spain, Japan and
South Korea into the Aegis combat system with its SM-3 missile shield
capacity. India is slated to be the next partner.
Robert Gates also mentioned the application of SM-3s for ground use
and the Pentagon will now base them both on land and more extensively
at sea.
It was an SM-3 fired from an Aegis class cruiser, the USS Lake Erie,
that destroyed a satellite in outer space in February of 2008, to
provide an indication of what its next phase mission will be.
The updated missile system plan for Europe is also to be more fully
integrated with America’s allies in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization to provide an impenetrable layered shield throughout all
of Europe and North America as well as moving into the Middle East,
the Caucasus
the imminent future.
Voice of America confirmed this development on September 22 by
revealing "The U.S. believes the plan will reinforce and strengthen
ongoing NATO efforts on missile defense, most recently approved by
Heads of State and Government at their April 2009 summit, and is fully
supportive of previous summit decisions to pursue a NATO-wide
multi-layered ballistic missile defense architecture." [4]
NATO remains committed not only to the advancement of a continent-wide
missile shield but to the basing of U.S. nuclear weapons in all
corners of Europe and their first use, even against non-nuclear
powers.
In the midst of otherwise conciliatory comments last week, Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev stated "[W]e should not forget that NATO
is…a military bloc, and its missiles are targeted against Russia. We
do not feel excited about the fact that more and more nations are
joining NATO, that it is expanding further and getting closer to our
borders; we do not like it and we do not conceal our sentiments." [5]
The following day the chief of the Russian General Staff, General
Nikolai Makarov, announced that his nation might still be compelled to
base Iskander missiles in the nation’s Kaliningrad enclave to counter
U.S. missile plans in Poland (and perhaps later in the Baltic states)
and warned that the Pentagon "will develop the missile defense
network, but it will be sea-based." [6]
To confirm Makarov’s contention, on September 24 Vice Admiral Richard
Gallagher, deputy commander of the Pentagon’s European Command
[EUCOM], which shares a top commander and in other ways overlaps with
NATO, spoke of the new U.S. missile shield system and characterized it
as possessing "The intent…to use sea-based defence which, of course,
has great flexibility as those ships can be moved to many different
locations which gives us very good…ability to employ." Speaking on
behalf of the bloc the U.S. dominates, he added that NATO "has not
abandoned the missile defence discussions" and "from the
U.S. perspective, you have n
rotect the region and to work in conjunction with NATO as well".[7]
Gallagher was speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Montenegro
of the U.S.-Adriatic Charter, an initiative first launched by then
Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002 to militarily integrate and
absorb all the nations of former Yugoslavia and the entire Southern
Balkans.
Although he formally disavowed plans first leaked by the Polish daily
Gazeta Wyborcza in late August for the Pentagon to shift its missile
shield focus from Poland and the Czech Republic to the Balkans as well
as to Israel and Turkey, Gallagher was officiating over a meeting to
complete NATO’s incorporation of an area that will be a choice
location for American and NATO missile system deployments in the near
future.
The Adriatic Charter’s first accomplishment is to have added Albania
and Croatia as NATO’s 27th and 28th full members earlier this year and
it is now grooming Macedonia, Bosnia and Montenegro – the world’s
newest nation – to follow suit. Serbia and Kosovo are next in
line. Kosovo, not recognized by over two-thirds of the world’s nations
and as such not subject to international treaties and constraints,
would be an ideal site for U.S. and NATO military deployments of all
sorts, including missiles and radar.
It’s worth recalling that Vice Admiral Gallagher, as deputy commander
of EUCOM, is not a NATO but a Pentagon official, yet is instrumental
in recruiting several of the European nations not already Alliance
members into the bloc. His superior, Adm. James Stavridis, who is both
head of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, was
also present at the conference in Montenegro. All five Adriatic
Charter states – Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro –
have provided NATO with troops for the war in Afghanistan.
Other top American military commanders have also corroborated the
claims by President Obama and defense chief Gates that the U.S., far
from retreating from missile shield plans, is escalating them in
range, depth and effec
he Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly,
recently stated that "We are not scrapping missile defense. Rather, we
are strengthening it and delivering more capability sooner." O’Reilly
is in charge of the Pentagon command that is most immediately in
charge of developing the global missile shield and his words carry
corresponding weight. Note that his expression that the Pentagon is
not scrapping but strengthening interceptor missile plans is identical
to that used by his chief, Defense Secretary Gates, in the latter’s
New York Times column.
Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 24,
"O’Reilly said the old system would only have the capacity to shoot
down five missiles, estimating two interceptors would be fired at each
missile threat. He said the newer system would have much more
capacity. The missile interceptor ships alone are capable of shooting
down about 100 missiles." [8]
His briefing also included the observation that "The new architecture
keeps plans for a radar station in Southeastern Europe, but would also
track radar by satellite and ships. Land-based missiles would be
deployed at two sites, one in northern Europe and another in southern
Europe.
"Placing one of these sites in Poland remains an option…." [9]
Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy also testified before the
committee and echoing previous statements by Robert Gates and others
said, "This is not about Russia. It’s never been about Russia." She
added, "the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was ‘very supportive.’"
Flournoy touted the role of SM-3s for use on board ships and on land
alike, stating "This means greater geographic flexibility, greater
survivability and greater scalability in response to an evolving
threat. That’s exactly what we mean by a phased, adaptive approach."
[10]
O’Reilly concurred, hailing the interceptor missile as "a very capable
weapon due to its high acceleration, burn velocity and its proven
track record" which provides an "ability to rapidly increase to ove
launch site." [11]
Flournoy, O’Reilly and other panelists, including Marine General James
Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "provided
several advantages of the new system. It would begin protecting
European allies in 2011, roughly six years sooner than the old system,
and its missiles, costing $10 million each, are much cheaper than
those planned for the old system, which cost about $70 million." [12]
On September 25 a column appeared in the Washington Post titled
"Reagan’s Missile Defense Triumph" by Andrew Nagorski, vice president
and director of public policy at the EastWest Institute in New York.
The feature celebrates U.S. global missile shield plans, particularly
the innovations announced during the past ten days, as a realization
of former President Ronald Reagan’s infamous Strategic Defense
Initiative, popularly known as Star Wars.
The author wrote that "on a…fundamental level…Reagan would
recognize that the announcement represents a watershed moment in
American politics. It signals that, for the first time since Reagan
made his ‘Star Wars’ speech in 1983 spelling out his vision of a
missile shield…both political parties have accepted his notion that
the country needs an effective missile defense system. The debate is
no longer focused on whether to build such a system but on what kind
of system will do the job better job…." [13]
Further endorsing the new system and exposing claims that it
represents either a retreat from the scope of the earlier version or a
concession to Russia, the writer added:
"[T]he president has argued that his plan will produce ‘stronger,
smarter, swifter’ missile defense than the Bush alternative. In other
words, the Obama administration’s line, as spelled out by the
president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates and others, is unambiguous when it comes to embracing
missile defense as a necessary component of the U.S. arsenal." [14]
A pro-missile defense analyst based in Central Asia recently expressed
a sim
g that "The US policy reversal has…come as a result of the
considerable progress made by the Pentagon in missile technology,
especially in technical improvements to systems using interceptors,
land, sea, air and space-based sensors."
He also provided an insight into the true purpose of the U.S.-led
global missile interception system:
"[A]n anti-missile shield on Poland’s and the Czech Republic’s
territories – and anti-missile radars on Georgia’s territory – would
have decreased the nuclear capabilities of those countries already
possessing nuclear weapons. The Pentagon’s goal was precisely to
downgrade the nuclear potentials of individual countries….
"It was clear that Washington’s proposal for building an anti-missile
system in Europe was intended to be the last nail in the coffin of the
ABM Treaty and bring Russia to its knees in the military sector." [15]
A Russian analyst, Viktoria Panova, recently wrote something to the
same effect, comparing the current American missile subterfuge to the
period of the genesis of missile shield plans, that of the Reagan and
first Bush era:
"America can push Russia either on Iran or another issue of concern,
so it’s very similar to what it was during the last days of the Soviet
Union when America was playing with the ABM system being developed.
"Then, using that ‘threat’ as an instrument, the US managed to alter
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that Russia was pushing for into a
more
favorable one for America." [16]
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was signed in 1972 by the U.S.’s
Richard Nixon and the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev, and the George
W. Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from it in 2002. The
first threat to the treaty, though, was the Reagan administration’s
Strategic Defense Initiative.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) expires this December
5. "The United States plans to let a landmark nuclear arms reduction
treaty with Russia expire in 2009 and replace it with a less formal
agreement that eliminates strict verification requ
ns limits, a senior US official says." [17]
In both instances U.S. missile shield – and space war – policies are
designed among other purposes to place Russia at a strategic
disadvantage in regards to negotiations over nuclear weapons and
delivery systems.
To compound the threat, the U.S. hasn’t even renounced plans for
missile deployments in Poland, as Missile Defense Agency chief
O’Reilly informed the U.S. Senate on September 24.
On September 18 Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski – former
resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington,
executive director of the New Atlantic Initiative and adviser to
Rupert Murdoch and husband of American journalist Anne Applebaum –
said that the 100 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles the
Pentagon still plans to station in his country will be combat
ready. Sikorski affirmed that "Poland has been promised by the
U.S. that it will go ahead with the deployment of a Patriot battery in
Poland and that the missiles will be armed." [18]
Six days later Slawomir Nowak, adviser to Polish Prime Minister Donald
Tusk, announced that the U.S. could task his nation to base short- to
medium-range missiles as part of "its new, flexible missile system."
Nowak was quoted as saying, "If this system becomes a reality it would
actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme."
[19]
Polish Radio announced that "Washington may ask Poland eventually to
host SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles, currently being manufactured by
Lockheed-Martin." [20]
Nowak confirmed the information, saying: "We are familiar with the
SM-3 system and the Americans have assured us that Poland is one of
the countries where they want to place this system." He also offered
an ex post facto refutation of the American missile shield rationale
by stating "We were never really threatened by a long-range missile
attack from Iran." [21]
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was even more blunt in a
column she wrote for the Financial Times a few days before.
She reiterated
ims by President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates in writing, "We are
enhancing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies. We are
not walking away from our allies but are deploying a system that
enhances allied security, advances our cooperation with NATO, and
actually placing more resources in more countries."
Clinton mentioned in particular American military commitments to
fellow NATO states, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, and as
Obama had done on September 17 invoked NATO’s Article 5 military
assistance clause, fraught as it is with the prospect of nuclear
confrontation and even war.
"An attack on London or Warsaw is an attack on New York or
Washington. NATO demonstrated this commitment after the September 11
terrorist attacks." [22]
Western media accounts over the past ten days have been replete with a
steady refrain that Czechs and Poles feel "betrayed" by the new
U.S. missile plans.
Such claims are easily enough refuted by surveys demonstrating that 70
percent of Czechs and 55 percent of Poles were opposed to the
deployment of third position missile shield installations on their
soil.
But to the West the only Czechs and Poles whose opinions are worth
considering are U.S.-trained subordinates, like Poland’s Sikorski, at
the beck and call of their masters in Washington and Brussels.
Residents of the Polish village of Redzikowo where the Pentagon was to
place ten ground-based missiles were exuberant over the news that
their homes might not be turned into ground zero in Europe’s first
missile exchange.
"Mariusz Chmiel, head of the rural district that includes Redzikowo,
was a long-time opponent of the shield who celebrated the US decision
with champagne. ‘I was against this shield from the very beginning,’
Chmiel said. ‘I was very happy. It means our residents can continue to
feel safe.’"
However, his sense of relief may prove short-lived as "Foreign
Minister Radoslaw Sikorki said the US had assured Poland that armed
Patriot missiles will still be located on Polish territory and w
ted in Redzikowo." [23]
Matters are no better in the Czech Republic, which will also not be
granted much of a reprieve. A local news source reminded its readers
that "Clinton said on Friday the Czech Republic and Poland are major
candidates for hosting new mobile anti-missiles that the United States
plans to deploy in Europe instead of the originally planned bases."
It added that "Czech Defence Minister Martin Bartak said after his
talks with U.S. National Security Council chief James Jones on Friday
that Prague will discuss with Washington participation in the new form
of the anti-missile system by the year’s end." [24]
National Security Adviser Jones, a retired four-star Marine general,
was top military commander of NATO in Europe and the Pentagon’s
European Command from 2003-2007 during the initial crafting of Star
Wars plans for Eastern Europe.
Recently the Polish Gazeta Wyborcza, the same newspaper that broke the
story on American plans to shift its missile shield deployments to the
Balkans and the Middle East a month ago, cited Polish diplomatic
officials in claiming "After the White House announced shelving a
planned missile shield in Eastern Europe, Washington is planning to
establish missile bases in Poland." [25]
The same source wrote that "Andrzej Kremer, Poland’s deputy foreign
minister, was due to travel to Washington on Monday to discuss the
plan….Washington’s permanent Polish base is due to be established at
Redzikowo, near the Baltic coast…." [26]
It is not only Russia’s northwest border that will be affected,
though.
A Georgian website recently ran a feature called "Controversy:
anti-missile systems in the Caucasus" which included:
"Although it has not yet been specified whether they [missile shield
components] will be put somewhere in the Black Sea, Turkey or another
country the Caucasus was directly mentioned as a possible site for
these systems, the only possible location specifically given by [a] US
official at a recent press conference on the subject….The Georgian
administratio
US decision." [27]
The deployment of U.S. interceptor missile shield installations in
Georgia, on Russia’s southern border, would be exacerbated if, as an
Armenian news sources claimed on September 24, "[T]he Pentagon is
drafting an agreement with Georgia. Under the agreement the United
States is to deploy two land force and one naval base in Georgia
before 2015. The construction is to start in 2014, to be completed the
following year. Thus, the Pentagon plans to deploy 25,000 troops in
Georgia." [28]
Last week a conference was held on Georgia’s neighbor to the east,
Azerbaijan, in Washington, DC.
The Conference on Strategic Cooperation Between the U.S. and
Azerbaijan: New Bilateral and Regional Criteria held in Washington
included an address by David Kramer, former U.S. Undersecretary of
State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and fellow of the German
Marshall Fund, in which he spoke of the use of Azerbaijan’s "Gabala
radar station for missile defense." [29]
An Azerbaijani website published this report on September 22:
"The plan to scrap missile defence in Eastern Europe could shift the
geostrategic balance of power in the Caucasus….[M]issile defence has
not been scrapped, as critics claim. Indeed, missiles are still going
to be deployed in Europe, as well as at sea, and will actually be
deployed earlier than under the Bush-era plan.
"Georgia…hopes the hunt for more effective bases for missile defence
may increase its importance.
"This is because the Caucasus has emerged as one of the most important
possible locations for a revamped missile defence plan. Situated on a
direct path between Iran and Europe, the region has been discussed as
a possible host site for early-warning systems and missiles for
years." [30]
In a recent article, analyst Rakesh Krishnan Simha quoted Konstantin
Sivkov, Vice President of the Moscow-based Academy of Geopolitical
Problems, on the change in U.S. missile shield designs:
"By temporarily dropping its missile shield, the US is just trying to
sell a dead cat for good
not a breakthrough that gives the US and NATO the right to demand
military and technical concessions from Russia. One of the new radars
and naval missile components could be set up in the Caucasus,
anyway. Georgia has already agreed to host the radar." [31]
On September 22 A. Wess Mitchell, Director of Research at the Center
for European Policy Analysis, was interviewed by the Trend News Agency
of Azerbaijan about new U.S. missile shield intentions. "At present,
the emphasis appears to be on the Balkans, Turkey and Israel."
The news site quoted another expert stating "Concerning Israel, the US
has already installed a powerful missile defense radar in the Negev
desert, so it might be considered a possibility to transfer the
defense shield to Israel" and, citing Ephraim Kam, Deputy Head of the
Institute for National Security Studies of Israel, revealed that "The
U.S. can deploy the MDS [Missile Defense Shield] in Israel, but it is
a possibility not linked necessarily to the abandoning of its missile
system deployment in Eastern Europe or Central Europe." [32]
The Israeli daily Haaretz wrote on September 20 that the Israeli
Defense Forces and the U.S. military were to include missile defense
maneuvers in the course of their biennial Juniper Cobra war games next
month. "[T]he drill is also part of U.S. President Barack Obama’s new
missile defense plan, under which the Pentagon will initially deploy
ships with missile interceptors instead of stationing missile defense
systems in Eastern Europe….The report came shortly before Defense
Minister Ehud Barak was to leave for the United States, where he was
to meet with his counterpart, Robert Gates." [33]
Another Israeli newspaper characterized the development like this:
"Israel and the US are preparing for an upcoming joint military
exercise, dubbed Juniper Cobra – which will include the largest
exercise yet between the IDF and the US Military’s European Command
(EUCOM) and the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA)." [34]
A Washington Post article of last week entitled "
Missile Defenses: Advanced System Could Alter Strategic Decisions in
Region" offered more details on interceptor plans for the Middle East,
ones underway long before Washington’s September 17 revelations.
"Israel and the United States [will conduct] a joint, biennial missile
defense exercise, called Juniper Cobra, to work on integrating the
weapons, radars and other systems of the two countries.
"Israel, for example, has the advanced U.S. X-Band radar stationed in
the Negev desert. Israeli defense industry officials say the country
also has almost real-time access to some U.S. satellite data, an
important part of its early-warning system." [35]
The Middle East, the Balkans, the South Caucasus and the Baltic Sea
region aren’t lone in being intended sites for the expansion of
American global missile shield deployments.
The Korea Times of September 22 confirmed that the plans are indeed
international in reporting that "a local news report that the
U.S. administration of President Barack Obama may ask South Korea to
join the missile shield initiative despite its recent modification of
the BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] plan.
"The report cited a report written by the Missile Defense Agency
affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense, describing South Korea
as one of the nations to potentially join the BMD effort.
"The report categorized South Korea, Bahrain, France, Germany, India,
Qatar and some other nations as the ‘nations expressing interest in
missile defense.’" [36]
For anyone hoping that the threat of unilateral actions by the West to
make itself resistant to missile attacks, conventional and nuclear,
while rendering the rest of the world defenseless and thus fair game
for first strikes was diminishing, this report should clarify matters.
On September 25 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
launched a rocket carrying two experimental missile-tracking
satellites for the Missile Defense Agency.
Reports that the White House was effectively merging what is
technically the civilian NASA
on’s Missile Defense Agency for missile interception and space war
purposes have circulated since the current American president’s
election victory last November. The process now appears well underway.
A local Florida news source wrote beforehand of the launch that "If
the satellites work, it would mean the U.S. would be able to launch
dozens of similar satellites…." [37]
A Florida television station reported that the satellites are part of
the Space Tracking and Surveillance System [STSS], "a $1.5 billion
project" that "will be used by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency to test
the ‘birth to death’ tracking of missiles from launch to re-entry."
[38]
Northrop Grumman’s STSS program manager, Gabe Watson, was quoted on
the day of the launch claiming "We can track missiles in every stage
of flight, from launch to intercept, and do hit assessment as well. If
the MDA [Missile Defense Agency] wants to intercept missiles in the
ascent phase, they will need additional data that [current missile
warning satellites] don’t provide." [39]
To tie together two threads in the U.S.’s new generation missile
shield program, it was reported that "The STSS satellites follow
NASA’s launch of another missile defense satellite – the STSS Advanced
Technology Risk Reduction spacecraft – in early May.
"They may also play a role in two other tests with other defense
systems such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system…." [40]
Former plans for interceptor missile facilities in Poland and the
Czech Republic, employing as they were to have antiquated technology,
have been superseded by new projects that will encompass broader
regions of the world and will coordinate deployments on land, at sea,
in the air and in space.
Notes
1) New York Times, September 19, 2009
2) Cited in Naval War College Review, Autumn 2007
3) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control
Of World’s Oceans, Prelude To War Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
ration-security-initiative-and-
0-ship-navy-contro l-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war
4) Voice of America News, September 22, 2009
5) Itar-Tass, September 20, 2009
6) Trend News Agency, September 21, 2009
7) Reuters, September 24, 2009
8) Courthouse News Service, September 24, 2009
9) Ibid
10) U.S. Department of Defense, American Forces Press Service,
September 24, 2009
11) Ibid
12) Courthouse News Service, September 24, 2009
13) Washington Post, September 25, 2009
14) Ibid
15) Richard Rousseau, Why Obama Needs Missile Defences in Europe
Georgian Times, September 21, 2009
16) Russia Today, September 20, 2009
17) Reuters, May 23, 2007
18) Xinhua News Agency, September 18, 2009
19) Polish Radio, September 24, 2009
20) Ibid
21) Reuters, September 24, 2009
22) Quoted by Radio Poland, September 21, 2009
23) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 18, 2009
24) Czech News Agency, September 20, 2009
25) Press TV, September 25, 2009
26) Ibid
27) The Messenger, September 22, 2009
28) NEWS.am, September 24, 2009
29) Today.AZ, September 21, 2009
30) Alexander Jackson, The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the
Caucasus, Caucasian Review of International Affairs/Azeri Press
Agency, September 22, 2009
31) Rakesh Krishnan Simha, Missile Impossible: How the Russians View
America’s AMD Backdown, OpEd News, September 23, 2009
32) Trend News Agency, September 22, 2009
33) Haaretz, September 20, 2009
34) Jerusalem Post, September 7, 2009
35) Washington Post, September 19, 2009
36) Korea Times, September 22, 2009
37) WESH.com, September 23, 2009
38) Central Florida News 13, September 23, 2009
39) SPACE.com, September 25, 2009
40) Ibid
Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Rick Rozoff
text=va&aid=15408