“You get the conflict with Russia and no benefits”
If Norway will become a full participant in the controversial missile defence system, it would cost her many billion. This is the opinion of the independent Russian military expert. In addition, Norway will have to pay for the fact that it would anger Putin.
“In the debate over missile defense, there are two levels. One political, the other purely strategic: what is the impact of the system. In these debates, the distance between these two levels was extremely high,” says Michael Meyer (Michael Mayer), research fellow, Institute for defence studies in an interview with Dagbladet.
From the moment Klassekampen in January reported that the Norwegian authorities examine the possibility of the Norway’s participation in NATO’s missile defense system, the Russian side responded to these plans very sharply. In particular, the Ambassador Teimuraz O. Ramishvili in an open letter accused the authorities of the country and the media is that they behave in relation to Russia’s “insidious” and engaged in “intrigues” against her.
In a letter sent to Dagbladet, the Russian Embassy again warns about the consequences if the missile defense system will be expanded and will also include Norway.
This can lead to the undermining of strategic stability. This means that international relations will become less stable and become more unpredictable.
That’s the price you have to pay, said independent Russian analyst Pavel Podvig. He lives in Geneva and works in the UN Institute for the study of problems of disarmament (UNIDIR).
In elite American Princeton University Feat is also involved in the research program on science and global security.
“You get the conflict with Russia, and not any advantages,” — says the Feat in an interview with Dagbladet.
“A political gesture”
His assessment is that the possibility of a missile defense system to protect against the threat — which he considers unrealistic — very limited.
“With the missile defence system is always having problems. It may seem like a solution, but actually it is not. Is a lightweight solution and a political gesture,” says the Feat and recalls the ambitions related to the so-called anti-missile shield that the US is carrying from the time of Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1980-ies.
These days the group of analysts, consisting of researchers of the research Institute of the Norwegian Armed forces and Missile Agency of the armed forces of the United States (MDA), finalizing the report, which should be the basis for the decision of Norway. According to Klassekampen, the report should be ready before the end of the year.
Feat believes that threat assessment in itself gives grounds to conclude that Norway should participate in the missile defense system or not.
“First, I don’t think Russia is planning to attack the neighboring country with missiles. Second, Russia has no large Arsenal of missiles that can reach Europe. Russia has missiles on submarines and missiles “Iskander”, and from them the missile defense system can not guarantee the security,” says Dagbladet Feat.
In addition, Russia has also created a new cruise missile is contrary to the existing treaties on disarmament.
The problem with the Russian rocket of middle radius of action is that the response time in case its use becomes less. It can be run right across the border, but time to respond is not enough. Even if the missile defense system can intercept a Russian attack, it can protect only a limited area. Russia has thousands of missiles “Iskander” and she can “supersaturate” the missile defense system by launching multiple missiles simultaneously.
Directed against Iran
“A major reason is that the missile defense system in its present form is primarily directed against a potential threat from Iran,” says Michael Mayer of the Institute for defence studies. He refers to a radar station in Turkey and also in Dutch and American frigates in the Mediterranean sea.
This U.S. contribution in the form of frigates aegis and placed on land systems “aegis”, which used missiles SM-3, the backbone of the missile defence systems of NATO. This technique worked well during testing, but how it will operate in the event of a crisis, when a potential aggressor uses the so-called “penetration aids,” i.e., a fraudulent system to outwit the missile defence system — in this issue there is considerable uncertainty.
States that the purpose of a missile defense system, primarily curb, trying to stop Iran to gain freedom of action in the region, threatening an attack against Europe.
The fact that Iran has missiles and medium-range missiles “Shahab” and SIC Kvadr, today constitutes a threat for countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. Range-range missiles “Shahab” is that they can hit and southern Europe. In addition, the Iranians have and missiles “Sail” that can reach many regions in Europe.
Therefore, the rationale of the NATO missile defence system is that we need a system that will link together what can offer all members of the Alliance, which will be a kind of collective insurance policy in the event of a potential threat from Iran or the aggressor is not a state.
Pavel Podvig, however, does not consider the probability of an attack from Iran is too high.
“Even when the reality of this scenario, the missile shield is not particularly helpful. Iran could pose a threat in many other ways,” he says.
“Although the system is directed against threats from Iran, it acts as a sedative on NATO members who believe that they are threatened by Russia,” says Meyer.
The upgrade price to many billions
If the group of Norwegian analysts and the government, however, would think that Norway should participate in European missile defence system, controlled from NATO’s command centre in the German Ramstein, it remains to solve another important issue: cost.
If Norway decides to participate and promote cooperation in the field of missile defence, in the future it will require billions of kroner. Here is a list of what Norway can do:
* RLS “globe-2” in the ward already being planned modernization, it is estimated at 300 million crowns. Initially it was assumed that modernization caused not by the need to adapt radar to the needs of the missile defense system, and the need to increase the service life.
The radar X-band radar AN/TPY (X-group) in Turkey, by contrast, is an important component of the missile defense system. It can automatically scan the sky and to select possible targets and missiles. In addition, this radar system is compatible and can communicate with other components of missile defense system.
According to preliminary estimates, cost almost eight billion crowns.
* May be relevant, although this is unlikely, the use of the F-35 as sensors for missile defense, since they can communicate with the system “aegis” frigates.
* Five of the Norwegian frigate “Fridtjof Nansen”, equipped with American aegis, in need of further modernisation:
— Upgrade radar SPY-1F, are now on Board. He is much weaker than the one used by the Danes and the Dutch.
— To date, the frigates are equipped with installations vertical launch MK41, but the question is, will they be able to launch interceptor missiles SM3, and that may have to do to be able to do it.
— May be required to frigates, which will have the function of auxiliary vessels, or frigates for ships “aegis”.
Modernization of three frigates at a cost of Denmark’s 1.5 billion Norwegian crowns. Each interceptor missile of the type SM3 is 120 million kroons.
This is unlikely to happen
Michael Mayer does not think that Norway will advocate participation in the system.
“If Norway decides to participate in the NATO missile defense system, most likely, will be provided no interceptors, and frigates that my touch power is able to strengthen the system. But there will need to compromise. After all, if the frigates in place to implement missile defense, for example, in the Mediterranean sea, a number of other tasks that can be solved, will be limited. This is one of the reasons why the United States want the system “aegis” was located on land,” Mayer said.
Pavel Podvig believes that the Norwegian modernization at the cost of several billion is hardly appropriate.
“It is clear that for Norway it is not the best investment. If you want my opinion, it will be wasted money,” says the Feat in an interview with Dagbladet.