X hits on this document

PDF document

Version of 2011-07-13 - page 48 / 119





48 / 119

out for people who do not know any better. That [radar in Gabala] is an old aging early warning radar – it has no ability to track a missile. It simply sees a launch. It detects a launch and says that is a launch, OK? That is the useful thing if it is tied to the radar back there – it can track. So if there is something about, may be first of all you have to upgrade Gabala radar but it still has to be linked to that track radar in much further back in Europe. Same thing with the interceptors. His [Putin’s] proposal for interceptors in Turkey assuming Turkey would host them, by the way nobody asked Turkey to host them – if they would do that thing, it is too close because if you look at the geometry of it, it is almost instantaneous – that a missile might be launched in Iran then interceptor missile has to be launched in Turkey. And if you do not get it right there it is gone. It is too far. That is why we want the missiles further back. And as for putting them on ships, that was the idea the United States had years ago, unfortunately and, in my view, erroneously, the United States did not follow through on that program as quickly as it should. The reality is that today that technology is not available. We can not put interceptor missiles on ships for short and medium-range missiles. Not for longer-range. So I think the answer is what Putin suggested was simply disingenuous. It was an attempt to derail the American proposal. There are constructive things Russia could do in cooperation with the United States if it wanted to but that is not the one.

Q: What about a Georgian location? There has been talk that the system could be stationed in Georgia…

A: If I recall correctly, Maia, there was one statement, six months ago, by the General [Henry Obering] who runs the Missile Defence Agency which is the technical organization that is basically designing the system, that it might be useful to have a radar in the Caucasus.

Q: Some commentators assumed that Georgia was the most likely site…

A: This is what I am saying – I do not think the General said Georgia, I think the press jumped on and said ‘well the Caucasus – it is not probably Russia, it is probably not Armenia,’ and then jumped on Georgia and we got into ‘yeas, no, yes, no game’. In theory, what I’ve just told you about Gabala radar or a new radar, it would be useful to have an early warning radar much closer. Not instead of - in addition to. The tracking radar. Because the early warning radar gives you that much more time. Look, missile defence is game of time. The more time you have, the more times you can fire and intercept a missile. So you can increase the time, then you can may be add opportunities to intercept that missile so you become much more effective and the engineers can figure out statistically exactly what percentage, how much more you will be affected. So what I think was intended was that the system could use a radar that was off there. And I think people interpreted Georgia. That would be true but not instead of which is what Putin came – he said use the Gabala radar instead of that and either you really do not understand, which I doubt, or this was an indigenous solution. To my knowledge, I am not speaking for the government of the Unites States but to my knowledge, the United States did not approach Georgian government or any other government in the Caucasus about putting such a radar. I am simply speaking to you technically as somebody who used to work on missile defence. I do not need to know much to tell you that obviously if you put an early warning radar much further forward, it would be very useful.

Document info
Document views122
Page views122
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 19:58:16 UTC 2016