Europe Facing a New Missile Gap?

By Charlie

Nato: Missile threat to Europe warrants shield

Europe faces an increasing threat from attacks with long-range missiles and could help avert the danger by building a missile-defence network, a senior North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) official warned on Wednesday.

"There is a growing threat of long-range missile attacks on Nato territory and it is timely to examine ways and means of addressing that threat," said Marshall Billingslea, head of Nato's Conference of National Armaments Directors.

He refused to comment on what countries posed such a threat.

Hmmm... wonder what countries those could be..

The head of Israel's military intelligence said late last month that Iran, which has taken an increasingly hard line over its nuclear programme, had purchased North Korean long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Europe.

On April 29, Pakistan successfully test fired a nuclear capable missile with a range of at least 2 000km, the military said.

According to Global Security.org, the disposistion of the global strategic missiles is decisively aligned against Europe proper.

Iran has about 20 Shahab-3 missiles, with a range of 1,400 miles, and an unknown number of Shahab-4s, that can range 2,000 miles. Syria has about 200 sub-standard SCUD Bs and 60 SCUD-Cs.

I find it interesting that the folks bringing up this issue are from NATO, not from the various defense ministries across Europe. NATO forces are probably safe from the foreign ballistic missile threat, due to in-place theatre missile defense systems. The vulnerabilities in Europe are its cities, population centers, infrastructure, dams, power supplies, (electrical, hydro electrical, and nuclear), airports, seaports, and cultural centers. Any one of these could be targeted and threatened by enemy missile systems that can range them.

The Cold War was serious because USSR missiles could range our cities. The EU needs to get serious about its own defense, and realize that the American divisions that have been parked in Germany are going to be increasingly oriented toward protecting America, and not serving at the behest of the EU.

Europe has decided to take all of its grievances to the diplomatic table of discussion instead of the battlefield. That’s fine, and I think that it is a high-water mark of a civilization when it can solve disagreements without resorting to shooting each other. The problem is, some people in the world still prefer the shooting method –and trying to negotiate with them in the same manner you would work out a trade deal with Luxembourg is counter-productive and usually a waste of time.

So they have the luxury of keeping the “diplomatic process” open with Iran, and probably will continue to “negotiate” with other rising powers with ballistic missile capabilities in the coming years, because the EU knows that the blanket of security that protects it is paid for and provided by the United States of America. Now, I said this in an earlier post, but when you rely on someone else entirely for your own success, you set yourself up for failure in the future. What the EU has essentially done since its formation is funnel defense money into social programs that perpetuate its stagnant economy, declining birthrates, and bloated welfare dependency. America isn’t always going to be around to protect Europe, especially as their anti-US rhetoric grows. I hope the threat of a Shahab-4 sailing into Denmark during the next round of cartoon riots clarifies their situation for them.

May 12, 2006 01:59 PM Strategery