Is the Interceptor Base in Eastern Europe a Threat to Russian Security?

[woleka]

" WARSAW, Poland — Poland and the United States struck a deal Thursday that will strengthen military ties and put an American missile interceptor base in Poland, a plan that has infuriated Moscow and sparked fears in Europe of a new arms race. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/14/us-poland-reach-agreement_n_119053.html"

The United States have stated the system is intended to counter Iran's potential capabilities, however they have also rejected the Russian offer to station an interceptor in Kazakhstan, closer to Iran and the Middle East.

Politics aside, I have two specific questions:

1. From a technical perspective, is Eastern Europe the optimal location for such a system, or does the Russian claim have some truth to it?

2. Once built, how difficult would it be to use this base to fire ground to ground missilies,or in which way could this potentially be used to threaten Russian security?

 

[FredGarvin]

IMO, a missile interceptor base is not the same thing as Russia parking ICBMs in Cuba. A Patriot missile shot at a ground target is not going to make the same impact as a ground to ground missile. They're just not made to do that. It is tough to get a grip on this when you really have no idea what "missile interceptor base" really entails.

 

[mshinavar]

European infrastructure vs. infrastructure afforded in Kazakhstan. its far easier to build in Europe, than shipping all the equipment and personnel to desolate or otherwise less technically advanced regions of the world. additionally, if the middle east was to attack somewhere, Europe would be a reasonable and likely target. a missile base in Poland would allow an intercept somewhere mid course. a missile base in Kazakhstan would mean the interceptor would have to play catch up the whole flight.

i was of the opinion that Russia was concerned that it would counter their offensive missile force, not use our interceptor as a ground attack missile.

 

[FredGarvin]

I saw the item #2 at the bottom and misread it thinking they wanted to use the interceptor missiles as ground missiles in stead of bringing in new missiles.

I think my two statements stand in that it is not as serious as parking ICBMs there and also that there is no clear cut definition of what they mean by an interceptor base.

 

[chayced]

Worries me the most that a defensive missile base is being taken as a provocation. If Russia put up a defensive missile base in one of their neighbors I would have no problem with it so long as we could verify that they were defensive missiles.

To put this in comparison, why would someone start complaining if cops started wearing bullet proof vests, unless they felt their ability to shoot cops was being limited.

Also, missile defense systems only work with SMALL numbers of missiles. I have never seen a missile system that could do anything more than shoot down a couple missiles, and even then they are not 100%. If Russia really wants to destroy Europe they will still be able to do it after the defense system is in place. The only difference is that it will be much more difficult for terrorists or rouge nations to launch missile attacks.

 

[LURCH]

The perceived threat is the same as it was for the "Sars Wars" missile defense program. It upsets the ballance of "Mutually Assured Destruction," because if one side has a way of intercepting the other's missiles (or any reason to believe they could), then those missiles no longer constitute a deterent. The side with the intercepters may believe they can launch against the other side with impunity.