acc\u00e8s payant<\/a>); confirmation que la question du syst\u00e8me BMDE est tr\u00e8s, tr\u00e8s fortement d’actualit\u00e9, aux USA comme en Europe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tComme d’habitude avec AW&ST<\/em> dans les moments d\u00e9licats, l’article est \u00e9crit sur la pointe de la plume. Il faut savoir lire entre les lignes, voire entre les mots. C’est avec cette r\u00e8gle \u00e0 l’esprit, et particuli\u00e8rement le titre choisi pour le texte mis en ligne (\u00ab Industry Unsure of Obama’s View on Missile Defense<\/em>\u00bb au lieu de \u00abDefense Complex<\/em>\u00bb dans la revue-papier), que nous diagnostiquons une anxi\u00e9t\u00e9 bien r\u00e9elle, avec m\u00eame des pouss\u00e9es d’angoisse, au sein du complexe militaro-industriel (CMI), chez les industriels mais aussi chez les bureaucrates-militaires.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abProponents of missile defense are concerned that President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team and the Democrat-controlled Congress will demand funding cuts to the burgeoning system.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe program costs about $10 billion per year. Despite advances in fielding elements of the system, doubt remains about its ability to protect the U.S. and allies from attack. The Missile Defense Agency, however, defends the system’s maturity and is hoping to make its case to the new defense team.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbDecisions taken by Obama would likely have implications far beyond the U.S. NATO in recent years has become more active in the missile defense realmlargely prompted by the Bush administration. If the U.S. now slows its missile defense effortsparticularly related to building a European site to the ground-based midcourse system with interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech RepublicEuropean partners will use that as an excuse to delay NATO’s efforts, warns a senior German officer. If there is no European site, then the entire discussion in the alliance changes as well, he notes. A NATO summit in April should provide some clarity on the way forward.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tL’article se fait \u00e9galement l’\u00e9cho de confidences du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Obering, chef de la MDA (Missile Defense Agency) qui est en charge du programme anti-missiles, et donc du syst\u00e8me BMDE. Obering quitte son poste (d\u00e9part \u00e0 la retraite) le 21 novembre et ses appr\u00e9ciations sur l’\u00e9quipe Obama sont particuli\u00e8rement lestes et m\u00e9prisantes. Ce sont celles du sp\u00e9cialiste incontest\u00e9 \u00e0 l’encontre d’amateurs qui pr\u00e9tendent prendre en main les destin\u00e9s d’une si belle entreprise qu’est le r\u00e9seau anti-missiles qui, depuis 1983 et la guerre des \u00e9toiles de Reagan ne cesse de faire des merveilles pour un co\u00fbt apr\u00e8s tout modique (pr\u00e8s de $200 milliards d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9pens\u00e9): \u00abObering says MDA’s plan is first to educate the Obama team. A lot of folks that haven’t been in this administration seem to be dated in terms of the program, Obering says. They are kind of calibrated in the 2000 timeframe and, frankly, we’ve done a hell of a lot since then.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tEt Obering de rappeler ce qui est en jeu, qui est le sort de la libert\u00e9 du monde, le sort de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l’Europe sous la menace de l’Iran, le sort des soldats US en Europe qui, au risque de leurs vies, ont besoin de protection. C’est aussi, pr\u00e9cision plus int\u00e9ressante, le sort de l’influence US dans l’OTAN qui est en jeu, selon Obering; cela est dit dans la mesure o\u00f9 une partie importante de l’activit\u00e9 militaro-bureaucratique US \u00e0 l’OTAN se concentre d\u00e9sormais sur le syst\u00e8me BMDE. On voit effectivement que l’OTAN tend \u00e0 devenir de plus en plus une simple agence de soutien \u00e0 la promotion du syst\u00e8me, ce qui situe effectivement le degr\u00e9 et l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’\u00e9volution en cours de l’OTAN.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abObering defends the U.S. threat assessment and says that shifting the plan for European protection would undermine U.S. leadership in NATO, since the alliance has made the U.S. system a cornerstone of its missile defense activities. The plan today, if funded, is to flight-test the two-stage GBI designed for Europe in 2010 and begin putting weapons in silos in 2012. Silo construction would start next year. All 10 GBIs should be in place by 2014, and the radar operational at least a year earlier. Tehran can already launch weapons into Europe, Obering notes. There is an issue here of timing. We cannot wait until the Iranians fly an ICBM, he says.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl y a aussi un flot d’appr\u00e9ciations techniques dans l’article, dont l’effet est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de noyer toute possibilit\u00e9 d’une r\u00e9flexion raisonnable et de bon sens. Ces appr\u00e9ciations techniques sont sans beaucoup d’int\u00e9r\u00eat, d’autant plus lorsque l’on voit le r\u00e9sultat (technique, op\u00e9rationnel) obtenu par toutes ces agitations, et les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices qu’en retire Lockheed Martin. Bref, nous ne nous y sommes pas attard\u00e9s. L’ensemble donne sans aucun doute l’effet d’une tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieuse inqui\u00e9tude de l’industrie, mais \u00e9galement des militaires de la MDA sur le sort du syst\u00e8me. L’agressivit\u00e9 du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Obering vis-\u00e0-vis de l’\u00e9quipe Obama est particuli\u00e8rement significative. Elle illustre le m\u00e9contentement de la bureaucratie de voir le (nouveau) pouvoir civil pr\u00e9tendre faire une incursion dans les programmes qu’elle contr\u00f4le et vouloir les orienter selon ses propres conceptions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 17 novembre 2008 \u00e0 06H32<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Un article, long, fourni, des meilleures sources proches du complexe militaro-industriel (CMI), confirme le malaise o\u00f9 se trouve l’industrie US pour ce qui concerne les rapports \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de ce qu’on voudrait \u00eatre un couple uni, entre Obama et le syst\u00e8me BMDE. Confirmation, dans tous les cas, de la crise o\u00f9 est entr\u00e9 le syst\u00e8me… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3453,4314,7905,6485,584],"class_list":["post-70347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-anti-missiles","tag-bmde","tag-mda","tag-obering","tag-otan"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70347","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}