US News
US to press forward on missile defence despite Russian objections
Apr 4, 2007, 0:10 GMT
Washington - The United States will move forward with plans to install missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic despite objections from the Russian government, a senior US defence official said Tuesday.
Undersecretary of Defence Eric Edelman said that the United States would prefer to work closely with Russia in deploying a system of 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, to protect against an Iranian ballistic missile threat, which could materialize in less than 10 years.
'I don't think, if for some reason we're unable to reach a commonly agreed way ahead, that we would want to accede to Russia being able to dictate what we do bilaterally with other countries, or what NATO does as an alliance,' Edelman said.
The estimated cost of the programme is 1.7 billion dollars, he said.
US plans, which still need the approval of the Polish and Czech governments, have angered Moscow and sparked fears in Europe of a revived, Cold-War-style arms race. The United States has played down those concerns, saying the system is designed against Iran's growing missile capability and poses no threat to Russia.
'We think the threat is one that (the Russians) face, as well as one that we face. In fact, they come within range of these missiles before we do,' said Edelman, who estimated Iran's missile technology will be 'mature' and capable of reaching the United States by 2015.
Edelman and other US officials have been in Europe recently, trying to counter political and public scepticism of missile defence as they prepare to negotiate with the Polish and Czech governments on building the systems.
The Pentagon believes the system could be fully functional around 2013 if negotiations can be completed quickly.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Military industrial lobby, and the theoretical maintenance of invulnerable pre-emptive strike capability (subject to effectiveness, in practice).
Remote controlled missiles in Europe controlled by the US. They say defensive against who ? Yah right. Since when is any weapon only defensive. This will be US controlled weapons for any type of use and any target. Bush wars for world domination and oil appropriation.
The U.S. can install weapons wherever they want, but let another country even remotely suggest doing it, they are given ultimatums for instant removal????
'The good guys always win - in the end...'
What if Russian government decided to install the same stuffs in Venezuela.
'Defense'? The USofA has proven that it is not interested in 'defense' by it's 'offensive' 'strike first' policy. Another reader asked the correct question: 'Why'? Missal batteries are a 'means to an end', it is not a 'why'. 'Motivation and intent' like so much here 'are temporary constructs created for the sake of appearances' ... the Art of War. All unfolds according to prophesy.
TO Jamscared,Spot on mate nice comment.
Bush proves once again that if you give him a mouth, he'll put his foot into it. On its face, the plan seems to have merit ... assuming he's talking about anti-missile missiles. But not long ago, someone (and his Secretary of State) warned the U.N. of supposed dual-use facilities and equipment. Even with our own sophisticated satellites, we could see a warhead on a missile ... but still could not tell if the warhead contained a defensive or offensive component. And if we can't tell the difference, why should we expect others to just take our word for it? And if we are quick to worry about dual-use, why shouldn't we expect others to be equally worried?
I'd like to send Bush a case of lollipops. At least he'd have something other than a foot to put in his mouth. And to those who believe his plan is wise, I should probably up the ante from lollipops ... sending them cases of all-day suckers.
...that Russian Iranian nuke reactor progress slowed once the Polish interceptor issue was outed.
Since these are non-nuclear, they are no first strike weapon. Furthermore, they actually protect Russia, since any launch of rogue ICBM's intercepted, saves Russia the retaliation that would happen if Russian warheads landed anywhere.
Apparantly, Mr. Bush understands the issue just fine!
yah but sp4 doesn't understand a thing ..except tinfoil hats.
talk about stupid
Hands up ... all those who think George W. Bush is doing this as a 'favor' to Russia?
page: 1
NoharnessApr 4th, 2007 - 00:49:48
Why?
I have yet to hear or read a good reason for this.
Report this comment