Lob und Kritik für den Missile Defense Review 2019
Ein neuer Missile Defense Review der Trumpadministration ist erschienen-lesbar unter:
Zum einen wird eine neue Bedrohungslage für die US-Sicherheitslage beschrieben, die wie das Centre for Strategic Assessment (CBSA)und die Rand-Corporation von einer „multipolaren Bedrohungslage „ausgeht, wenngleich sie diese eher in der Inflation neuer Waffensysteme von mininukes, EMP-Waffen , global strike bis hin zu Cyber- und Spacewar sehen und nicht eben nur in Rakteten, die man abwehren müsse. Dennoch werden als Hauptgefahren für die USA China, Russland und die rogue states Nordkorea und Iran beschrieben, .Erstere könne man aufgrund ihrer schieren Zahl an Interkontinentalraketen nicht mittels einer Raketenabwehr abwehren, weswegen man auf traditionelle Abschreckung setzen solle. Letztere Nordkorea und Iran seien aber potentielle Gefahren, die es insofern abzuwehren gelte, als dass neue Raketenabwehr in den USA und bei bedrohten Verbündeten wie Japan oder Europa THAAD- Patriot- und neuere Systeme stationiert werden müssten.
Die Trumpadministration hat ihren neuen Missile Defense Review 2019 herausgegeben. Dieser wird nun in den USA seitens der Demokraten und der Republikaner und den ihnen nahestehenden Thinktanks Brookings Institution und Heritage Foundation diskutiert und bewertet. Die Einschätzungen der Brookingsexperten Brookings experts react to the new Missile Defense Review“ kann man nachlesen unter:
Während die Brookingsexperten im wesentlichen kritisieren, dass die Kurz-und Mittelstreckenabwehrsysteme unterfinanziert blieben, Trump in seinen Äußerungen nicht so klar zwischen rogue states ud Russland und China unterscheide, zumal auch 2020 Systeme für Interkontinentalraketen testen wolle, Strobe Talbott Trump polemnisch kritisiert er wolle analog zur Mauer gegen Mexiko nun eine „Wall in the Sky“bauen, geht der Heritage Foundation der Missile Defense Review nicht weit genug. Vor allem wird kritisiert, dass weltraumgestützte Interzeptoren nicht berücksichtigt würden. Jedenfalls scheint die befürchtete Aufrüstung im Weltall und ein neues Starwars/SDI-Projekt ala Reagan vorerst nicht geplant. Bleibt abzuwarten,wie die Reaktion der Gegenseite ausfallen wird.Die wesenliche Aussage des Missile Defens Review ist: Keine weltraumgestützte Raketenabwehr, kein Starwars und SDI. Das ist schon ein Deeskalationszeichen, wenn er Tests nur für 2020 der Raketenabwehr für Interkontzinentalraktene androht ist ehrr als flankierende Drohung zu dem Ultimarum des INF-Vertrags gedacht, wohl gemerkt eine Drohung die Russland abwenden könnte, wenn es denn seine INF-Verpflichtungen einhalten würde. Von daher eine recht gemässigte Reaktion
New Missile Defense Review Is a Well-Considered Response to a Changing Global Threat Landscape
Thomas Spoehr / Megan Rohn / January 17, 2019
Commentary By
Thomas W. Spoehr, a retired Army lieutenant general, is director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.
Megan Rohn is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
Amid reports that Russia is developing new cruise and ballistic missiles—including one that violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty—and assessments that North Korea now has a missile that can reach the United States, President Donald Trump visited the Pentagon on Thursday to release a report on America’s preparedness to combat global missile threats, the 2019 Missile Defense Review.
The Missile Defense Review is the culmination of the Defense Department’s year-and-a-half-long assessment of the current global offensive missile threat, along with the United States’ recommended missile defense strategy and guidance for associated weapons programs.
In summary, the Missile Defense Review is a strong and insightful response to the growing missile threat facing the United States and our interests.
The review, while painting a sobering picture of the advancing capabilities of our adversaries, also lays out a thoughtful path to maintaining U.S. security.
The previous Missile Defense Review was released in 2010. There’s a great deal of continuity between the 2010 and 2019 reviews, including several recommendations that have been updated and carried forward.
While there’s a thread of continuity between the two reviews, there’s also change.
The global offensive missile threat landscape has vastly changed since 2010. Iran and North Korea have remained adversaries of the United States, albeit increasing in capability, but Russia and China now pose a vastly greater threat than they did in 2010.
As the review notes, not only are all of these nations rapidly improving their current weapons systems, they are also adding new systems to their arsenals. Of still greater concern, our potential adversaries are working hard to seamlessly integrate those weapon systems into their strategic and tactical military operations.
With regard to regional engagement, this Missile Defense Review underscores the need to make missile defense system solutions “tailored” and adaptable to the existing local and regional defense frameworks and geography.
In terms of the United States’ allies, the Missile Defense Review encourages increased cooperation, integration, and interoperability with allies. While the review places slightly more emphasis on increased contributions from allies, it also streamlines the process through which allies can obtain U.S. defense systems and aid more easily.
The Missile Defense Review proposes deploying more Patriot, THAAD, and Aegis missile defense systems in certain strategic areas, as well as having mobile or relocatable defense systems for flexible crisis response.
In response to this changing threat landscape, the review reclassifies China and Russia as explicit threats to the homeland and recommends the appropriate strategic changes.
Unlike the 2010 review, which advised dialogue with China and increased cooperation with Russia, the 2019 review takes a much more clear-eyed view of these countries.
To protect the homeland, the Missile Defense Review proposes increasing the quality and quantity of missile interceptors in Alaska, developing new kill vehicles for those interceptors, adding new missile detection sensors to the Pacific Ocean, and studying a new interceptor site in the continental U.S.
The review also suggests investments in new capabilities, such as sensors and lasers, improvements to the U.S. early warning system, and conducting the first test of a Standard Missile-3 IIA against an intercontinental ballistic missile in 2020.
Although the Missile Defense Review accurately describes the increase in threats from Russia and China, it only recommends using nuclear deterrence to counter their ICBMs. That’s disappointing.
Providing missile defense capabilities to counter a limited Russian or Chinese ICBM strike, particularly an accidental or unauthorized launch, would provide the president additional flexibility and options.
Additionally, space-based interceptors, thought by many to have the potential to provide more effective missile defenses, are not given much attention in the review.
Given the heightened global offensive missile threat landscape, on balance, the Missile Defense Review is an appropriate response. This review sufficiently addresses the increased offensive missile threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran by recommending wise investments and improvements to the current force.
While retaining the sensible ideas from the previous review, the 2019 review updates and makes prudent adjustments to the strategy, such as increased interoperability with allies, increased numbers of systems, and “tailored” mobile regional solutions that attempt to integrate local defense mechanisms and geography.
This Missile Defense Review is a strong complement to the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review and National Defense Strategy, and the nation would be wise to follow its recommendations.
Dear Readers:
Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.
The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.
Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.
President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.