US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

[WildspitzE]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Obama scraps plans for missile defense installations in Eastern Europe

I wonder if this has anything to do with Russia supporting Venezuela's armament dreams...

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

D-Mack you probarbly know Enghdal already but here is his alternative point of view on defense sheilds to what you hear in the MSM, if not.

Not just Enghdal. It was written up in detail in Foreign Affairs in 2006. That got the attention of the Russians, because Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations and is sort of the debating society for mainstream foreign policy thinkers. There were, however, critiques of the article that were also published.

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Not just Enghdal. It was written up in detail in Foreign Affairs in 2006. That got the attention of the Russians, because Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations and is sort of the debating society for mainstream foreign policy thinkers. There were, however, critiques of the article that were also published.

Even earlier known as Conplan 8022

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051400071.html

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

What defense contracts will be affected by this and whose districts are they in?

Overall, this favors Raytheon and Lockheed at the expense of Boeing:

The strategy emphasizes the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, both by Lockheed, as well as Raytheon’s Standard Missile-3, Stallard said. The change curtails Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and the Airborne Laser, both made by Boeing Co.

On the other hand, I hadn't heard that ground-based midcourse defense itself is being axed, so I presume Boeing still has some work up in Alaska.

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Even earlier known as Conplan 8022

Is that the same? The blurb you quoted doesn't seem to describe a first strike on a major nuclear power, with missile defense to mop up any surviving warheads from the stricken enemy's arsenal... Did I miss an implication?

[Diarmuid]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Not just Enghdal. It was written up in detail in Foreign Affairs in 2006. That got the attention of the Russians, because Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations and is sort of the debating society for mainstream foreign policy thinkers. There were, however, critiques of the article that were also published.

Thanks Ash interesting read - I will have a look around for the critiques, when I get a chance, unless you can point me in said direction.

Found one - for anyone interested.

Nuclear Exchange: Does Washington Really Have (or Want) Nuclear Primacy?
Peter C. W. Flory, Keith Payne, Pavel Podvig, Alexei Arbatov, Keir A. Lieber, and Daryl G. Press
Could the U.S. government really destroy all of an adversary's nuclear weapons in a nuclear first strike? Does Washington want that ability? And what--if anything--should be done about it?
Read

Cheers

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Is that the same? The blurb you quoted doesn't seem to describe a first strike on a major nuclear power, with missile defense to mop up any surviving warheads from the stricken enemy's arsenal... Did I miss an implication?

It's not a first strike, but that's where the shift started to emerge for using nuclear weapons preemptively.

I don't know how things are now, it seems it has been scrapped or renamed

STRATCOM Cancels Controversial Preemption Strike Plan

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

TPC, I will admit from my own fairly narrow point of view, the US government (and by extension its allies), which is now eating its own population alive (fiscally), and without salt, has being doing the same to much of the rest of the world for some time, in order to do so and to continue to do so, a fairly large hand gun and bullet proof vest is necessary - so at least imo in this case it is not the metaphorical old lady buying the weapons.

I view all such pronouncments from said entity, which has been shown to be utterly corrupt, with great skepticism.

On the other hand I have great repect for the ideals the USA is supposed to enshrine in its declaration of independence etc.. and a great fondness for Americans per se, having been over there many times and experienced much decency, warmth and community, this decency and sense of fairness, I think is also repersented well by many of the members on this particular forum, I hastened to add ;).

Agreed .

[ASH]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

It's not a first strike, but that's where the shift started to emerge for using nuclear weapons preemptively.

I don't know how things are now, it seems it has been scrapped or renamed

STRATCOM Cancels Controversial Preemption Strike Plan

Thanks for the info. That does serve to demonstrate why even a limited missile defense capability could be de-stabilizing.

[seanm123]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Obama scraps plans for missile defense installations in Eastern Europe

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is overhauling Bush-era plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, based partly on the latest analysis of Iran's offensive capabilities, President Obama said Thursday.


President Obama on Thursday says the Bush-era missile defense plan will be replaced with a new system.

The "new missile defense architecture in Europe ... will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the... program" that former President George W. Bush proposed, Obama said.

Obama said the change of gears was based on an "updated intelligence assessment" about Iran's ability to hit Europe with missiles.

I'm on my way home from Redstone Arsenal, so this story seems apropos.

I had been critical of America's disregard for Russia's point of view regarding missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, reasoning that what we could get away with during a period of strength might return to haunt us in a period of weakness. I think this is a very important development for relations between America and Russia, and indicates that we are taking a more conciliatory approach. Perhaps we have bought help (or, forbearance to hinder, at any rate) in terms of access to the Afghan theater?

Note that contrary to the headline, the new proposal is for a different missile defense configuration in Europe that is less obnoxious to the Russians, rather than an abandonment of missile defense in Europe entirely.

Definitely not an abandonment, after all we (GWB) opted out of the ABM treaty in Dec of 2001 right after 9/11 using that as an excuse the old "rouge state" argument. Since then we have sold lots of PAC-3 (Patriot) missiles to Europe. Germany, Greece, Spain, Netherlands. We also have lots of Navy boats with the AEGIS system deployed in and around Europe and the Middle East. Nice fast Mach 5 missiles that work. I have a relative that worked on AEGIS it is quite an effective system.

We aren't giving up on missile defense just delaying it for now. I fully expect it to be deployed in my lifetime, regardless of how effective the 1972 ABM treaty was as a deterrent.

Latest Plan is here.... http://www.cfr.org/publication/20225/

[D-Mack]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Friday September 18, 2009
Russia's Putin hails U.S. shield move, calls for more


..

Putin told an investment forum in the Black Sea resort of Sochi he now expected further steps from Washington including the complete removal of all trade restrictions and full U.S. backing for a joint bid by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

"The latest decisions by President Obama to cancel plans to build the third positioning region of the missile defence system in Europe inspires hope and I do anticipate that this correct and brave decision will be followed by others," Putin said.

Putin said those decisions should include "the complete removal of all restrictions on cooperation with Russia" and the transfer of high technology as well as U.S. support for the joint bid by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus to join the WTO.

..

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...c=Worldupdates

Is this just a move to prevent Russia from selling the S-300, or something else?

Engdahl thinks they don't really know what they are doing or that ii marks a failed strategy. I don't think that's true

Dangerous Crossroads: Missile Defense and Washington’s Foolish Eurasia Strategy
The Obama Biden Policy of Denigration and Confrontation

by F. William Engdahl

Eight months into the Obama Presidency the outlines of Administration foreign policy are becoming very clear and what is emerging is a foreign policy establishment flying blind on automatic pilot, evidently unable to make the fundamental policy changes required of its new geopolitical and economic position in the world since the collapse of the Greenspan “revolution in finance” September 2008. For the first time since it emerged as the world’s dominant power after 1945 the US policy establishment is unable to combine its military “stick” with any economic “carrot.” The Obama effort marks the end of an era of geopolitics. Latest reports that Obama has decided to cancel US plans for an anti-nuclear missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic suggest that a major internal battle is underway among US policy elites over what has clearly been a failed US foreign policy strategy.


Nowhere has the deficit in creative new strategic thinking been evident than in Washington policy towards the three pivot powers of the Eurasian continent—China, Russia and Iran. The recent calculated affront to Russia by Vice President Joe Biden was typical of the impotence of recent US foreign policy to regain American advantage across the strategic expanse of Eurasia—the undisputed “key” to world hegemony.


...

Far from being an irrelevant player, as Biden and Obama were earlier prepared to declare, Russia is a decisive strategic factor in what is a growing move across the world to lessen dependence on the United States as “sole superpower.” The evident decision by Washington now to rethink its missile defense provocation of Russia indicates some in the Administration realize the US military bluff has been called. Now it remains to be seen if Washington is also willing to roll back its demand that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Were that to happen, it could signal a major US shift in strategic policy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=15256

[we_are_toast]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

The whole concept of large scale geographic missile defense is a bit of a joke anyway. Trade it away for anything you can get.

Military claims of 80% success with the Patriot during Oil War I, could not only not be supported, some now claim it was 0%.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/patriot.html

[Diarmuid]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Is this just a move to prevent Russia from selling the S-300, or something else?

Engdahl thinks they don't really know what they are doing or that ii marks a failed strategy. I don't think that's true

In regards the S300 - it is certainly possible but have not seen any sources to provide evidence for such speculation.


My own personal take is in the short term it maybe likely to do with Russian co operation in Afghan supply routes and the possibility of Russia making life very difficult for the US in this regard (especially as troop numbers increase) as evidenced this spring, I see it as most likely a quid pro quo, and a rearrangment rather then anything fundamental (I think Engdhal may have got it wrong too).



http://www.reuters.com/article/lates...s/idUSL4525000

Russia will grant President Barack Obama permission next week to ship U.S. weapons supplies across its territory, or through its airspace, en route to Afghanistan, sources on both sides told Reuters on Saturday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...anistan-build/

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is privately requesting between 30,000 and 40,000 more troops, a request that has produced "sticker shock" and "huge resistance" among key lawmakers, sources told FOX News.

[don]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

"Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history, removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France, and many other nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking on paths leading to death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial pre-condition of a world without war. (p71)

"If the Democrats win they will attempt in the name of 'progressive internationalism' to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslavian war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers built into the NATO system. There is important bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush was in the process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council of Foreign Relations' vague and banal statement of March 2004 report...which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old glory.

"Brzezinski is far subtler than most, and rejects the Bush Administration's counterproductive rhetoric that so alienated former and potential future allies. But he regards American power as central to peace in every part of the world and his global vision is no less ambitious that the Bush Administration's was. He is for the US maintaining 'a comprehensive technological edge over all potential rivals.' His is a call to 'transform America's prevailing power into a co-operative hegemony- one in which leadership is exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by assertive domination.' And because it is much more salable to past and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange of men and women who most recently guided American foreign policy." (p75-76)

from Gabriel Kolko's, World in Crisis (2009)

"Many believe that Obama's decision will inevitably lure Moscow closer to Washington's line on Iran and, at a minimum, test the resolve of Russian officials who were unwilling to cooperate with the West due to the proposed missile shield.

By instantly removing that barrier, the Obama administration has generated an entirely new momentum for a coherent united front against Iran. Tehran has hardly missed this point.

At the same time, by arguing that Iran is not at the moment a credible strategic threat through long-range missiles, the White House has also diminished Iran's image and delivered a heavy blow to its alleged regional aspirations. Although Iran has always maintained that it harbors no ill intentions toward Europe, the Iran-focus of the defense shield system was a plus for Iran that has now been taken out of the equation. This is bound to affect Iran's calculations for the nuclear talks.

There are innumerable consequences for all the parties involved. For example, the US may now act tougher against Iran to deflect domestic criticisms that dropping the missile shield plan had increased the US's vulnerability to "rogue regimes".

It is also now doubly difficult for Iran to consider freezing its nuclear fuel cycle - a source of national pride, thus potentially hardening Iran's negotiation posture.

The immediate impact of Obama's decision on the Istanbul nuclear talks may turn out to be negative. It could lead to yet more inconclusive dialogue. Still, it will take time for the ramifications of this "game-changer" to be tabulated by Tehran."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI19Ak01.html

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: US not on the road to confrontation with Russia

Is this just a move to prevent Russia from selling the S-300, or something else?

My guess is that this has something to do with Iran and Israel. The U.S. is being nice to Russia in exchange for something. Israel is likely feeling threatened by both Iran's nukes and by further possible deterioration in the U.S. finances, either of which could pose an existential threat to Israel. Israel is perhaps the most dangerously unpredictable predictably dangerous nation on this planet when it feels seriously threatened.