Closing Velocity

Video: Iran Tests Longest Range Missile, "Leaves North Korea Behind"

Iran continues unimpeded toward perfecting an indigineously designed ICBM:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran announced Wednesday it successfully test-fired an upgraded version of its longest-range missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe and which it said is now faster and harder to shoot down.

Wednesday's test was for the latest version of Iran's most advanced missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran's sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe.

The two-stage Sajjil-2 and is powered entirely by solid-fuel while the older, long-range Shahab-3 missile uses a combination of solid and liquid fuel in its most advanced form.

Reporting on the Sajjil-2 breakthrough last August, former head of Israeli missile defense Uzi Rubin predicted the Iranians would be able to hit London very soon:

"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 ... "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."

With today's launch, folks should be listening to Rubin:

First, Iran made a quantum leap forward with its missile technology.  The predecessor to the Sejil was the Shahab missile, which was a liquid-fueled single-stage rocket, copied from the North Korean Nodong missile.  The Sejil shows that Iranian engineers have left North Korea behind and are producing indigenous missile technology.  Rubin says the Iranian missile capability has jumped from the type of missiles the U.S. had in the 50’s to the type the US had in the 60’s.

This test also shows Iran ’s aggressiveness with the missile program. “The advance rate is phenomenal,” says Rubin, noting that Iran has now conducted three missile tests in 13 months. It shows just how high a priority missile technology is for the Shiite regime.  Rubin says, “They need to keep testing to prove their past successes were not spurious.”

Back to the Iranians, their defense minister takes a victory lap (AP story):

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi vowed that the Sajjil-2 would be a "strong deterrent" against any possible foreign attack. He said the new version can be fired more quickly and flies faster than previous ones, though he did not give further details.

"Given its high speed," he said, speaking on state TV, "it is impossible to destroy the missile with anti-missile systems because of its radar-evading ability."

Impossible to destroy? No, not really.

But intercepting the Sajjil-2 is certainly more challenging, especially with a stripped-down European missile defense architecture that focuses exclusively on short- and medium-range missiles. Yesterday's announcement that the US is planning an unprecedented missile defense test against an Iranian ICBM could not be more timely. It will be the first time we've wargamed our longest-range GBI interceptor against an Iranian threat rather than our traditional North Korean scenarios.

And again, one of the two reasons President Obama discarded long-range GBI interceptors in Europe was because of an intelligence assessment claiming the Iranians would not produce ICBMs any time soon. How's that working out for you?

Iranian TV video:

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir, Ace headlines and No Runny Eggs.

Long-Range Missile Defense To Be Tested Against Iranian Threat

Secretary of Defense Gates inspects a GBI at Ft. Greely, AK

Unlike the recent massive Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise which tested our ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) against short- and medium-range Iranian missile threats, the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will soon conduct an unprecedented test:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will test its core missile defenses for the first time in January against a simulated long-range Iranian attack, a top Pentagon official said on Monday, amid tensions with Tehran.

Speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, said the roughly $150 million test was a departure from the more standard scenario of a North Korean attack.

There is a reason that our longest range interceptors, the 3-stage Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs), were first deployed in Alaska and California. Ever since the late 1990s, the North Korean ICBM threat has always been the most immediate one to CONUS. The systems engineering, wargaming, and eventual deployment of GBIs exclusively on the West Coast were specifically executed to counter this growing threat.

Which makes this upcoming test so very remarkable:

It also would be more difficult testing the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system against a missile that would be faster and more direct as it races toward the United States than a simulated strike from North Korea.

"Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario," O'Reilly said.

"This next test ... is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that's the first time that we're now testing in a different scenario."

Now wait one damned minute.

A mere three months ago, President Obama decided to scrap our long-range interceptors in Europe (again, specifically designed to counter Iranian ICBMs bound for the US east coast) because the long-range Iranian threat no longer existed:

The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3, is developing more rapidly than previously projected.  This poses an increased and more immediate threat to our forces on the European continent, as well as to our allies. On the other hand, our intelligence assessment also now assesses that the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in 2006.

If Iraninan ICBMs are no longer a threat, why this test?

Well, the easy answer is we plan these tests years in advance, and this GBI test was laid down long before Obama's pronouncement. That said, there are some disconcerting optics here. Conducting an expensive test against a recently rubbished threat just doesn't look good.

Besides having been on the slate for a while, there's another possible reason for this test.

As I have argued before, Obama's new European BMD architecture may do an adequate job defending Europe from Iranian missile threats, but it does nothing to protect the Eastern United States. Only the long-haul GBIs have the horsepower to engage fast, high-flying ICBMs. While Aegis-based SM-3s and THAADs do an excellent job against short- and medium-range missiles, they simply can't beat the massive GBIs in the ICBM scenario.

Therefore, I'd bet some smarty at MDA doesn't exactly discount the Iranian ICBM threat as readily as the President and the SecDef do. With European-based GBIs now off the table, American-based GBIs must fill the defensive void. Nothing else can do the job, so they damned well better work.

Rather than the standard NK simulation where we fire the target ICBM from Kodiak Island, Alaska and intercept with a GBI from Vandenberg AFB, California, this target will come screaming across the Pacific from Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll:

The test would fire an interceptor missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at a simulated incoming missile, launched from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. An aide to O'Reilly estimated the cost at about $150 million.

Experts compare the simulation to a bullet hitting another bullet in space. O'Reilly said the goal was to destroy the target over the north central Pacific when the missiles had a combined closing speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

"Whenever we have a situation where we're taking on a missile more head on than from the side, that increases the challenges," O'Reilly said.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE (12-16-09): Stay tuned, indeed! --- the Iranians just tested their longest range missile, "leaving North Korea behind." HotAir links.

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.

Juniper Cobra 2009 Underway: US & Israel Conduct Massive Missile Defense Drills

Aegis BMD Destroyer USS Decatur (DDG-73) at Haifa, Israel

Delayed a week, Juniper Cobra 10 is now in full swing in Israel:

TEL AVIV — A massive air defence drill under way in Israel will join Israeli and US systems to create the world's most advanced anti-missile umbrella to protect the Jewish state, officials said on Thursday.

The Juniper Cobra 10 exercises, the fifth in a series of joint air defence drills between the allies, began this week and comes amid heightened tension between Israel and arch-foe Iran.

Some 1,000 US soldiers will take part in the two-week exercise combining Israeli and US systems to "create the world's most advanced air defence system to protect our citizens and homes from attack," the commander of Israel's Air Defence Corps, Brigadier General Doron Gavish, told reporters.

Unlike past Juniper Cobras, this one will employ the widest spectrum of missile defense assets yet, including the US's Aegis BMD ships, Patriot PAC-3 batteries, THAAD batteries, the mobile X-Band radar currently stationed in the Negev, and Israel's own Arrow 2 batteries. Interoperability between allied systems is the main goal.

While planned well over two years ago, this iteration of Juniper Cobra is seen as an early indicator of how Obama's new European missile defense plan will take shape:

In this series of exercises we continue to advance our understanding of the art and the science of ballistic ."missile defense," Rear Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. officer overseeing Juniper Cobra, told reporters in Tel Aviv.

"This exercise is not directly related to recent announcements about ballistic missile defense in Europe, but the lessons and the insights that we gain from this exercise will certainly relate to developing that capability."

Admiral Richardson also goes on the dispel the scuttlebutt of the US leaving its missile defense hardware behind in Israel after Juniper Cobra is finished:

None of the American materiel used in the drill will remain in Israel after it winds up in mid-November, they said. But the United States does have a small military garrison at a strategic radar, X-band, stationed in Israel's southern Negev desert.

"The Israel Defense Force can defend Israel alone," Gavish said. "But it is good to know that U.S. capabilities are available."

.

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):

.

Russia's NATO Diplomat Celebrates: Rotting Corpse Of Missile Defense Finally Removed

Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Ambassador to NATO

Leave it to Russian ultra-nationalist and NATO ambassador Dmitry Rogozin to humbly accept President Obama's gift to the Kremlin:

A senior Russian official told the BBC the decision was a breakthrough for relations between Moscow and Washington.

"It's like having a decomposing corpse in your flat and then the undertaker comes and takes it away," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato.

"This means we're getting rid of one of those niggling problems which prevented us from doing the real work."

So in Rogozin's formulation, Obama was the helpful undertaker. Bring out your dead.

Rogozin has been the go-to posterchild for Russian paranoia over European missile defense since its inception. On Russian talk radio shortly after the election of Obama and Medvedev's instantaneous threat to target Poland with nukes, Rogozin had this to say about the kinetic interceptors (i.e. no explosive warheads) planned for Poland:

The missiles planned for Poland are double-purpose, very fast and modern weapons. They can be guided by radar to intercept ballistic and other flying targets, as well as targets on the ground. They would be able to reach Moscow in 4 minutes after take-off and are so precise they can hit the window of our president's office in the Kremlin. I believe that their deployment is intended for a disarming and disorganizing attack on the capital of Russia (Ekho Moskvy, November 28).

And Obama got rolled by this loon? Wonderful.