Tied Interceptors? / News / News agency Inforos

News of the hour: Pentagon not yet assessed damage caused by use of Russia’s newest Oreshnik missile

Current events

Ukrainian crisis

Middle East trap

Ukrine WaterShed

United States elections

Russia under sanctions

TOP Reading

TOP discussions

TOP sympathy

Rate it

/ World / Security / Made in USA /

Tied Interceptors?

21.07.2008 12:18 Boris Podoprigora

In the time of the Soviet Union it was a well-know notion: “a tied product”. If you buy a TV set in short supply, you have to buy also “a tied product”, say, an iron, and thank God, if it is electric. In our case a product labeled “democracy” is offered with “a tied product” – the National US ABM Defense System.

Europe has got already accustomed to the fact that any military decision of Washington is implemented under a slogan of “expansion of democracy”. The United States asserts that the ABM fortress to be built in Europe will help to save Europeans against Iranian missiles. But as a matter of fact even the Pentagon itself does not see such threat. Because at least before 2015 Iran will be unable to produce an intercontinental ballistic missile. However as soon as US Secretary of the Air Force M. Wynne and his Chief of Staff (i.e. Commander) General T. Michael Moseley just suggested it, they were dismissed at the first pretext. Their former chief, Admiral M. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also prefers a political solution of the Iranian problem: “Opening up a third front (after Iraq and Afghanistan – Author’s note) right now would be extremely stressful on us. This world region is very unstable, and I see no need to aggravate the situation ".

As far back as 2001, US State Secretary C. Rice said to French Figaro on the eve of the decision-making on the European ABM segment: “The principle threat to the world today, in my eye, is that a Russia with its back to the wall would let part of its nuclear arsenal fall into bad hands. I also know that at certain times the views of the Kremlin will conflict with ours”. This idea was developed in more diplomatic matter by Press-Secretary of the US State Department Shone McCormack in July 2008: “Russian point of view makes no difference to NATO when it votes”. At the same time the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is preparing a resolution titled “On improvement of relations with Russia”. It expressly emphasizes partnership in disarmament and importance of the Russia-NATO Council. Thus, the “Polish” interceptors and “Czech” radar offer a test for Russian-US negotiability. If we fail to solve this allegedly local problem, what strategic partnership may we speak about? Moreover, the new US nuclear doctrine reduces the threshold of the nuclear weapon use. It may evolve from the deterrence tool into a battlefield weapon. What consequences may be expected from the combination of three politically similar circumstances: denial or departure from previous limiting agreements, cunning conduct of Washington with respect to Moscow and prevalence of a forceful component in international relations?

The Old World also already starts understanding the fact that the European ABM Defense segment becomes a threat to Europeans. Let’s review the evident facts. Sooner or later the “Polish” interceptors will have to be tested. Surely, in the adequate geographical conditions. Who may guarantee that their fragments did not at least touch average 1500 vessels daily sailing in the Baltic and Northern Seas? By the way, nobody promised that the interceptor will “intercept” “the hypothetical ICBM” over the sea area. But even if the “Polish” interceptors are tested over the Pacific ocean the silos themselves will be inevitably “under control” of our “counter-interceptors”. Similar as ours under their control. Therefore 48 per cent of Germans called the USA “a state that poses a principal threat to the world”. It is noteworthy that among the German youth this percentage is equal to 57. In this respect Iran is considered the principal threat by respectively 31 and 25 per cent of German respondents. But the most important is that 56 per cent of Poles and 76 per cent of Czechs speak against the deployment of the US ABM elements.

So, what about the will expression of those for whom the “democracy is expanded? And are the American GBIs an analogue of the notorious “tied iron”?

Add comment

First name *

E-mail *

Comment*

Captcha *

→

▼	USD	26/11	97.9241
▼	EUR	26/11	104.8872

More on the topic «Made in USA»:

Top 10 news

Day after day

Partners

Сообщите об орфографической ошибке

More on the topic «Made in USA»:

Top 10 news

Social

Day after day

Partners

Сообщите об орфографической ошибке