Closing Velocity

Missile Defense Agency's New Obamanized Logo?

One of the signature accomplishments of the Obama '08 campaign was its deployment of an excellent logo. My dark little businessman's heart actually admits a measure of admiration for his ubiquitous campaign brand:

Its effectiveness became so popular that even a master of consumer products marketing, Pepsi, was accused of rolling out a new marketing camapign and logo based on Obama's. Contrast Obama's pithy-yet-powerful badge with some of the snoozers from the somnolent world of missile defense:

 
Strategic Defense Initiave Organization: Reagan Era

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization: Bush-Clinton Era

Missile Defense Agency: Bush Era now in TechniColor

Which brings me to the jarring discovery I made while visiting the Missile Defense Agency's new website. As many of you know, I am an MDA contractor and I check their site frequently. So imagine my surprise when the one department in Obama's Pentagon that has been targeted for the most massive budget cuts apparently has a new, suspiciously familiar logo:

 

A few things jump out that give me, er, Hope, that Obama's narcissism has not reached such literal heights. First, there has been no formal announcement from the MDA that it has indeed adopted a new logo. Second, the "old" one still appears on letterhead --- even co-existing in cyberspace with the "new" one on press releases (like this recent one).

So, I have to believe this "new" logo is the work of a zealous MDA bureaucrat eager to quickly bank some brownie points with some world class O-bsequiousness. Anything to save a budget, I guess.

Biden: SM-3 Interceptors To Be Installed In Poland

Former Redzikowo Airbase, Poland

At the very same shuttered airbase that would have housed the siloed Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) originally planned:

Biden was presenting a revamped U.S. missile shield replacing a scrapped Bush-era project that would have placed 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to intercept long-range missiles from Iran. His one-day visit to Bucharest was part of a swing through eastern Europe designed to reassure Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic — all staunch U.S. allies — that America's commitment to the region remains strong.

The Obama plan would include SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles at a former air base in the Polish town of Redzikowo, the same site that was to host U.S. missile interceptors in underground silos under the Bush plan.

How does this exact same geographic deployment of missile interceptors not irritate the Russians? Easy:

Moscow perceives the new plan as less threatening because it would not initially involve interceptors capable of shooting down Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles, experts say.

Sounds nice, but two things jump out:

1.  While these initial SM-3's can't down Russian ICBMs, ummmm, they also can't down Iranian ICBMs. McKittrick's broken record time: the original Euro BMD plan was designed to defend the eastern seaboard of the US against ICBMs launched from the Middle East. Obama's new plan does not have this capability. But... but... it will, assert the new plan backers, those next generation SM-3's will be able to defend the US against ICBMs! Really? Interesting, because

2.  Which do you think the Russians would be more concerned about, ten (ten!) highly-visible, immobile & siloed GBI's in Poland or several hundred SM-3 Block IIB interceptors parked in mobile launchers on land and at sea in and around Europe? Interceptors specifically tasked with countering massive raid size ICBM attacks?

Don't get me wrong --- I look forward to the new SM-3's, and the more the better. But I don't agree with the wisdom to scrap the GBIs. Our missile defense doctrine has always been to have a layered defense with multiple platforms able to engage threats at all the different phases of ballistic flight. Stripping out GBIs from this layered approach is a mistake.

US Considers Using UKRAINIAN Missile Defense Radars

Yep, given Obama's recent prostration before the Russians, this will get far:

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has begun talks with the United States on the possibility of Washington using information gathered by its radars, Interfax Ukraine cited Kiev's envoy as saying on Thursday.

The news is likely to irk Russia, which is highly sensitive to any hint of U.S. military partnership with former Soviet republics.

Washington last week denied it wanted to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine, after President Barack Obama scrapped a planned missile shield based in central Europe.

Just last week, Washington and Kiev had to furiously backpeddle when US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow first let the cat out of the bag:

WASHINGTON — The United States on Friday sought to reassure Russia that Washington had no plans to deploy radars or weaponry in Ukraine as part of its new missile defense plan.

The Defense Department was forced to clarify its plans after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced concern over the new missile shield and said a report that Ukraine might be part of the system was "rather unexpected."

US Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow had told reporters on Thursday that Ukraine and other countries have expressed an interest in hosting a radar site for the shield.

But the Pentagon said: "He (Vershbow) did not make any reference to the stationing of US radars or any other missile defense systems on the territory of Ukraine, and no such proposal has been made to the government of Ukraine."

Granted, this news got screaming headlines in the Ukraine and Russia last week, but that was because it appeared the US was simply going to set up its own radars --- with its own personnel --- on Russia's doorstep. That's not the case:

The announcement made headlines in Ukrainian media. Some analysts and politicians were quick to point out that the Ukrainian constitution forbids hosting foreign military facilities. President Viktor Yushchenko was quick to say that the US never made any suggestions on those lines.

Now it appears that, rather than hosting an American radar, Ukraine will offer one it already has to become part of the system. It currently possesses two long-range radars, one in the capital of Crimea, Sevastopol, and another one in the city Mukachevo in western Ukraine. [ed --- see map above]

On the one hand, since Russia itself has repeatedly offered the US use of two of its own missile defense radars at Gabala, Azerbaijan and Armavir (instead of the one planned for Brdy, Czech Republic), one would think Russia would have no problem with the US utilizing a similar arrangement with the Ukraine. On the other hand, one would be dreadfully wrong.

Lest the aura of Nobel prizes have temporarily blinded you, let me remind you that Russia just successfully cowed Obama into giving up long-planned missile defense sites in the territories of two stalwart NATO Allies, the Czech Republic and Poland. Ukraine was a former Soviet Republic (not a satellite), is a NATO aspirant (not a member), and oh yeah, home to the frickin' Russian Black Sea Fleet. Yup, Putin will have zero problem with this Ukrainian radar scheme.

In the meantime, the Ukrainians are enjoying this small opportunity to poke the bear in the eye:

[Ukrainian Ambassador to the US] Shamshur suggested Russia had missed its chance to use information from Ukrainian radars. Russia canceled a post-Soviet radar data sharing deal last year, complaining the installations in Ukraine were outdated.

"We are also talking about the question of using our defense radars across Ukraine's territory, which, as you all know, Russia has declined to use," Shamshur was cited as saying.

The Ukrainians are playing a very dangerous game here, and in an apparent attempt to soothe eastern European fears over his recent retreat, Obama could also provoke Moscow much more intensely than the old Bush missile defense plan ever did.

Indeed, to appreciate the gravity of the Ukrainian situtation, be sure to check out this must read article on the poisonous climate of Russian-Ukrainian relations:

In August, Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, gave his Ukrainian counterpart, Viktor Yushchenko, an unprecedented diplomatic mugging. In a seething letter, and subsequent video message, Medvedev reprimanded Yushchenko for his "anti-Russian" stance. He told him that, as far as Russia was concerned, the pro-western Yushchenko was now a non-person.

After reeling off a list of grievances, Medvedev said he would not be sending an ambassador to Kiev. He also said he was reviewing Russia and Ukraine's 1997 friendship treaty – a hint that Moscow may no longer respect Ukraine's sovereign borders. The message was blunt: whoever wins Ukraine's presidential election in January has to accept Russia's veto over the country's strategic direction.

And what is ground zero of all this Russian animosity? Why, the Crimea --- site of one of those Ukrainian missile defense radars:

The flashpoint, Gorbulin says, is Crimea, the lush peninsula beloved by 19th-century Russian writers and Soviet tourists. It is Ukraine's only Russian-majority province. It is also the home of Russia's Black Sea fleet – anchored just around the coast from Yalta in the historic port of Sevastopol. Under the terms of a lease agreement with Ukraine, Russia is supposed to vacate the base in 2017. But it doesn't want to.

In recent weeks, pro-Kremlin newspapers have been speculating that Crimea might soon be "reunited" with mother Russia, solving the fleet issue. The best-selling Komsomolskaya Pravda even printed a map showing Europe in 2015. The Russian Federation had swallowed Crimea, together with eastern and central Ukraine. Ukraine still existed, but it was a small chunk of territory around the western town of Lviv.

Georgia is peanuts compared to the Ukraine ... especially now that the Russians are considering nuclear first-strikes against neighbors even during a conventional war.

With the humiliating betrayal of allies coupled with this clueless thwacking of a Ukrainian hornet's nest, Obama appears to be blindly stumbling into what may become a very ugly European crisis.

Obama Pentagon: Euro Missile Defense Changes Had Nothing To Do With Russia

Really? What pathetically transparent spinning:

"This is not about Russia. It never has been about Russia," said Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy. 

...

"Nothing that we did had anything to do with Russian saber rattling, or their consternation about ground-based interceptors or the Czech radar. The decision was not part of any trade-off or quid pro quo," said Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Then why, at the very moment Flournoy and Tauscher are testifying before Congress, do the Russians say otherwise?

“Within our efforts aimed at preparing a new strategic offensive arms reduction treaty, as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reiterated, we rivet special attention to the need to underscore an interrelation between offensive and defensive arms. We hope that a decision taken by U.S. President Barack Obama will allow American negotiators to take into account this interrelation within the context of the new treaty,” [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov pointed out.

.

Video: Surprise: Russian Paranoia Over Missile Defense Continues, US To Place Aegis BMD Ships "In The Arctic"

Aegis cruiser USS Ticonderoga in rough seas

In the days after Obama's surprise introduction of his new European missile defense plan, many wondered how the Russians would react. The conventional wisdom quickly settled on the "Obama as Chessmaster" view, in which his pragmatic swapping of fixed, ground-based interceptors (GBIs) & radar in Eastern Europe for mobile SM-3's oh-so-cleverly brought the Russians to our side right before Obama dropped the bomb on Iran at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. Brilliant! A masterstroke! (crowing video here) 

I had a different take:

Does anyone really believe the Russians will suddenly be all hunky-dory over a new land-based system after their screeching just successfully killed the old one? Dream on.

For a refresher on what will change under Obama's plan, here are two key highlights from the Pentagon briefing. In the first clip, Gen. Cartwright describes the future SM-3-based system (sea- and land-based), its global mobility, its "substantial capability" against ICBMs, and the geometric increase in interceptor inventory it enjoys. The second half is Gates talking about Russia:

So we're ditching 10 siloed interceptors in a tiny, easily monitored, fixed location in Poland ... for hundreds of extremely mobile ones --- specifically designed to counter massive ICBM missile raids --- in and around Europe both at sea and (probably) on mobile ground launchers. Yep, the Russians will absolutely love that.

What's that? They don't?

You mean the guy who originally touted the nefarious Polish GBI-as-nuke scenario that Gates described above has a new paranoid conspiracy? Why, yes. Yes, he does --- American missile defense ships in the Arctic countering Russia's ICBMs:

[Russia's ambassador to NATO] Dmitry Rogozin's comments showed Moscow's distrust as it awaits details on Pentagon plans to create new mobile interceptor missiles, dropping an earlier U.S. scheme to set up fixed bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Where are the guarantees that this mobile thing, be it a boat, a cruiser, or a battleship with a mounted missile-defense system and with missile interceptors, will not sail into our northern seas?" Rogozin said at a press briefing.

Wait a tick: what about the Arctic permapack and Ice Station Zebra and all that, you ask? How can American Aegis cruisers ply the rock hard Arctic Ocean, Dmitry? Easy, he explains:

He added that the reduction of sea ice in Arctic due to climate change could lead to the all-year-round opening of the Northern Sea Route, is a shipping lane running along Russia's Far Eastern and Siberian coasts that is usually only free of ice for around eight weeks a year.

"The ice would retreat, it would melt, which means that NATO would definitely be present in the Arctic. They have been planning it for a long time, and under the very bad circumstances the U.S. strategic missile defense would arrive there onboard these ships," Rogozin said.

Global warming --- is there anything it can't do?

Vindicated: Reagan's Vision For Missile Defense

As I stewed over President Obama's surprise introduction of his new plan for European missile defense last week, two important aspects were overlooked by most commenters and analysts. While most on the right (myself included) reflexively reacted with scorn and disbelief at his treatment of steadfast NATO allies and his kowtowing to the Russians, I repeatedly heard and participated in these observations within the halls of the missile defense establishment:

1.  European missile defense was never about Eastern Europe; it was always about the Eastern United States.

Regular readers here have heard me make the case countless times. It was no accident --- nor sinister neocon geopolitical masterplan --- that Poland and the Czech Republic were chosen as sites for our defense against long range Iranian ICBMs.

Having never shared the exact nature of the work my team does for the Pentagon and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), I'll give you this glimpse. Utilizing complex, physics-based models & simulations, for the past decade my folks were integral to the systems engineering decisions that led directly to the very precise selection of the long range interceptor site in Poland and the X-Band radar in the Czech Republic. Running several thousand scenarios of hostile ICBM launches out of the Middle East targeting the major population centers of the Eastern United States, we determined that the trajectories and other classified flight characteristics of these threat ICBMs dictated these ideal defensive locations in Europe. Eastern seaboard-bound ICBMs must overfly Europe on their way to their American targets. The mullahs do not select this path, Sir Isaac Newton does.

Which brings us to the gaping hole in Obama's new plan. By scuttling the long range interceptors in Poland, Obama has chosen to make the Eastern (and Southeastern) US more vulnerable. The dirty secret of missile defense is our lack of an East Coast interceptor base. While they can boogie cross-continent to intercept an East Coast ICBM threat very late in its flight, our West Coast interceptors in Alaska and California are primarily tasked with defending against North Korea. Moreover, the very radars that would cue and guide these West Coast interceptors are themselves vulnerable:

The "Third site" in Europe was positioned for long-range ballistic protection for the U.S. Homeland and two early warning missile defense radars in Thule, Greenland and Fylingdales, England as the current and future deployed Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) in Alaska and California are dependent on these two fixed radars sites to protect the U.S. Homeland from long-range missiles from Iran.

While indeed protecting Europe, Obama's new reliance on sea- and land-based SM-3 interceptors is inadequate for the homeland defense scenario (ICBM's fly too fast & too high) --- which, again, was the whole point of Bush's original plan. Obama and Gates simply wished away this strategic hole by wishing away the threat. There is no reason we cannot both defend Europe against short- and medium-range missiles with Obama's system and defend the Eastern United States with long-range interceptors in Poland. We can walk and chew gum...especially when chewing gum means saving New York.

But enough of the Gloomy Gus stuff and on to my second observation, because I am an optimist. Just like a certain president that came up with this concept...

2.    Missile defense is FINALLY embraced by the Left.

As the Limbaughs and Becks unloaded on Obama's weakness and betrayal of allies, an utterly amazing transformation occurred right before our eyes: after decades of ridiculing Reagan's vision for missile defense as a silly fantasy --- complete with their own derisive nickname "Star Wars" --- liberals became some of the most strident cheerleaders for missile defense we have ever seen. It was as if Nancy Pelosi suddenly started singing the praises of concealed carry and privatized Social Security while frantically sketching Laffer curves.

Indeed, check out this throaty defense of Obama's plan by Hillary Clinton in front of the lefty Brookings Institute (from an amusingly titled post from an ultra-lib blogger, Clinton: If You Support Missile Defense, You Have To Support Obama):

Let me be clear about what this new system will do, relative to the previous program which was many years from being deployed. With the president’s decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran’s short and medium-range ballistic missiles. We  will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program, with more interceptors in more places, and with a better capacity to protect all our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven, so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money, and we will preserve the flexibility to adjust to the threat as the threat evolves.

Writing in the Washington Post today, Andrew Nagorski was as dumbstruck as I:

But now the 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.

...

The larger point is that, in political terms, Obama has done for missile defense what Bill Clinton did for welfare reform.

In other words, only Nixon could go to China, and only a doctrinaire liberal like Obama could get the left on board with missile defense.

So while Obama has slashed missile defense, ironically, he has personally ushered in the mainstream acceptance of missile defense as a sound, normal component of our national defense. In that light, Obama indeed killed "Star Wars" last week --- but not missile defense.

And Reagan smiles.

Full Video: Pentagon Briefing On European Missile Defense

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright discuss President Obama's new plan for European ballistic missile defense in the following four videos (transcript):

.

Video: Obama On European Missile Defense

.

Here It Comes: Obama Officials On Their Way To Eastern Europe To Officially Betray Allies

You're Welcome.

It was just a matter of time, Michael Goldfarb reports:

According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration. This represents a complete capitulation to Russia's Vladimir Putin, who had demanded that the proposed deployments be halted as a price for improved relations.

You'll never guess who's leading the delegation:

Four senior Obama officials, including Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security “Sandy” Vershbow, are apparently in the air right now on their way to Poland.

Closing Velocity readers are quite familiar with Tauscher. Before joining the Obama Administration, then-Rep. Tauscher (D-CA) made her stance on Polish interceptors clear:

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, visited the two countries Dec 16–17. “I am unwilling to dig holes in Poland and fill them up with untested rockets.”

And then, after being tapped for her current position at the State Department, now-diplomat Tauscher had these diplomatic words for some of our staunchest allies in Eastern Europe --- all while totally discounting the Iranian ballistic missile threat:

Tauscher, who has been asked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said that advocates of the European plans "have been running around with their hair on fire," the Associated Press reported.

The writing has been on the wall for some time. It will be interesting to see how the currently beleagured Obama White House spins this humiliating capitulation to Putin and ugly rebuke of our allies.

A European columnist responds:

The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.

(h/t: memeorandum for the Goldfarb post)

UPDATE: An unnamed Senate aide makes the same point I've always made here: European missile defense was never exclusively about defending Europe --- it was about defending OUR largest east coast cities:

A senior GOP Senate aide said that the effect of the administration's switch to short- range systems, such as the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), was that the program would no longer have any capability to defend the U.S. homeland and would only be able to protect parts of Europe.

"The important fact here is that if you go with the land-based SM-3s, you don't protect the United States," said the aide.

"It changes the nature of the debate," the aide continued. "Why should the U.S. spend 6 or 7 billion dollars just to protect Europe? That's going to be a completely different argument."

Exactly. That's why the unanimously adopted Lieberman-Sessions Amendment to the defense bill is so crucial:

“The Senate today made clear that we will only support alternatives to the current plan that can defend both the United States and our European allies.”

If Obama is allowed to proceed, he will have empirically made the United States less safe. That's a cold fact.

London In Iranian Missile Range Within 3-4 Years

Tick Tock

According to Israel's leading missile defense expert Uzi Rubin, Iran's recent advances in multi-staged, solid-fueled missiles will put most of Europe within their reach --- much, much sooner than any US intelligence estimate:

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Aug 20 (Reuters) - Iran could have the ability to strike most of Europe with a ballistic missile within three or four years if it made an all-out push, the former head of Israel's missile defense program said on Thursday.

If correct, the timeline cited by Uzi Rubin, a leading authority on Iran's program, puts a fresh note of urgency into a diplomatically thorny debate over building a multibillion-dollar anti-missile shield in Europe.

U.S. officials have cast the timeline further out, leaving longer to sort out defenses.

"If they push it -- put all the budget, put all the engineers -- three or four years" is all it would take to give Iran's existing ballistic missile a range of 3,900 kilometers (2,438 miles), enough to hit London, Rubin told a U.S. Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama. "Will they do it? I'm not sure."

Why is Rubin's timeline so much more accelerated than his American peers'? As has occurred with most militaries throughout history, the Iranians simply had a breakthrough --- it happens:

The Breakthrough: Iran's Sejjil-2

Rubin said Iran had achieved "a technological and strategic breakthrough" with its Sejjil, a two-stage, solid propellant missile. On May 20, Iran test-fired the Sejjil 2, which is said by Tehran to have a range of about 2,000 kilometers.

"Based on its demonstrated achievement in solid propulsion and staging, Iran will face no technological challenges" in close to doubling its range with a one-ton warhead, said Rubin, who oversaw development of Israel's Arrow anti-missile system while running the Jewish state's missile defense effort from 1991 to 1999.

"The predictions (about Iran's growing missile reach) are coming true, perhaps sooner than anyone thought," he added in reply to a question after a presentation. "I think there was an underestimation of Iranian capability."

As I reported after the Sejjil-2's unexpected success in May, over 20 European capitals are already within range. As Rubin correctly observes, they've achieved the breakthrough (solid fuel & staging) --- now it's just a matter of perfecting it in order to reach the rest of Europe.

With Iranian missile technology advancing by leaps and bounds, an intransigent Russia, and a pusillanimous Administration, what a great time to be going back to the drawing board on European missile defense...

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir and AOSHQ headlines.