Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
Kalinka, you should consider the following:

1. Iran has no ballistic missile designs that are capable of hitting the US territory (in fact, Iran can't hit even EU with its current missiles).
2. It would be years or even decades before Iran could create an intercontinental ballistic missile.
3. It would take years to enrich enough Uranium to create at least one device.
4. Even if we imagine that Iran has the technology, funds and facility to create such weapons, the most probable target would be Israel rather than USA.

5. On the other hand, North Korea has succeeded in testing its ballistic missiles which experts say could soon be powerful enough to hit targets in North America. And it succeeded in testing a nuclear device also.
1. But they are trying to develop some, something that their recent missile test shows
2. What makes you say that? That's a pure guess from anybody except for those who have the intelligence. And with a little help from the right people, they could have the capability in the very near future.
3. Why does the world's largest producer of natural gas suddenly want nuclear technology? Years turn fast into days and minutes. The eventual base in Poland won't be built in a day either. Why wait until the threat is imminent?
4. A) Israel already has the patriot missiles capable of intercepting low-flying targets B) From a pure risk mitigation scenario, I don't think USA is likely to accept the risk of a nuclear strike on their country just because Israel is more likely to be hit first.
5. Very true. And no country is in the trajectory path, analogous to Poland. I am sure the US Navy has deployed similar missiles in the Pacific ocean.


Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
There are several questions:

1. Why doesn't the US make haste in building an ABM installation near Korea considering a more real threat from there?
2. Why wouldn't US build an ABM facility in Turkey instead? Turkey is the most advantageous region for that purpose - you could hit enemy missiles on the acceleration phase when they are the most vulnerable. And Turkey is a NATO member - you don't need tons of paperwork as it has been with Poland and Czech.
3. Russia has the radar in Azerbaijan that covers the whole Iran territory. Why didn't US use it?
1. As I tried to explain to Оля, for the technology to work, you need to be at the right location near the trajectory of the ballistic missile. Apart from Russian Kamchatka, there are no foreign territories to place them in. But I am sure the US Navy has thought about that threat and taken the appropriate measures. Implying otherwise is simply ludicrous.
2. A) This whole deal is done outside of NATO. NATO has not sanctioned this American plan.
B) Both Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO members
C) Turkey isn't in an as advantageous location as Poland. Add to the fray a Muslim country with strong resentment to America... you get the picture.
3. That's a good point, and Putin did offer it to Bush. According to the American officials, it is too close to Iran to serve as a mid-course radar, which is the operation range of the ABM. Add to the mix that the American military would have to rely on Russia for their homeland security, then you can understand why they are a little hesitant. Especially when the reliability of Russian support (and gas) has been, in the West's eyes, questionable.


Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
I'll tell you why.
Building radar facilities in Poland allows NATO cover the whole European part of Russian airspace. US can claim we're friends but this doesn't demean the fact that this ABM facility gives an early warning about ballistic missile launches. So this facility provides an advantage in case of hypothetical nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. Thus many russian nuclear silos risk being destroyed even before missiles are launched (some older types of missiles require 20-30 minutes to fuel up while SLBM launched from the sub in Arctic can hit the launch site in 5-10 minutes).
The nuclear parity has been guaranteeing peace for the last 60 years, now USA is trying to shift the balance. Of course its 10 interceptors won't hold the whole Russian arsenal, but who said that there will always be only 10 of them?
Again, this isn't a NATO installation. Besides, NATO already has powerful radars in Latvia and Estonia looking deep into Russian territory. The world is an evolving place, and what worked for 60 years might not be suitable for threats of the future. Look at it from America's standpoint. If this threat from Iran is real (and that is debatable), they need to do something to prevent it from happening. This is exactly what they are doing. Russia has the right to be suspicious and the right to express their concerns, but I think they are greatly exaggerating.

Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
There's more:
If USA is concerned about nuclear program of Iran it could invade it and bomb it to dust as it did with many other countries, but no - they maintain that they're building the site for defending Europe from some hypothetical nuclear threat in future while they could spy on Russian airspace even today with this radar. I repeat - it will be years or even decades before Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear payload onto USA (if this ever happens).
You seem to be an expert on Iranian technology capabilities, quite excellent! And bombing Iran is an option that Israel is actively considering. I don't think America has the willpower or the capability to start another war. The forces are stretched too thin and some generals have even publicly said that would be a great mistake. Furthermore, the American people are fed up with the Iraq war, and you'll see that reflected in the presidential election...