The US Shield Is Jamming Romania

There are klutzes everywhere in the world, on all social levels, from building-site teams to politicians and even in the U.S. Army.

Politicians who make ridiculous promises that they then botch or even forget about exist everywhere, on Romanian rivers as well as in the White House. In this instance, we are talking about the American klutz who is following an old American dream of his — the anti-rocket shield that will protect the United States and Europe in the eventuality of attacks from Iran. It is an ambitious plan, a black hole in the U.S. Army budget, dust in the eyes of the American electorate and a dangerous trumpery for the U.S.’ so-called “strategic partners” in Europe, such as Romania and Poland. Turkey is not even worth mentioning, since Turkey is a real strategic partner!

A report coming from the U.S. Department of Defense tore down the anti-rocket shield project, which is a key program of President Obama’s. The officials who put together this report, acquired by the Associated Press and quoted by the online edition of Fox News, mention the major delays, cost overruns and critical technological problems, as well as production glitches. Therefore, it is not just the countries opposed to planting this shield in Europe — Russia, Ukraine and France — who should be worried about the radar with low power and about the sensors that do not distinguish between a warhead and other objects, but also the Romanians living in Deveselu [where the missile shield is to be installed] and the mobile phone companies in our country. According to the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army intends to install in Romania the intercept radar for Iranian missiles, without performing any previous tests, which means that the radar might interfere with mobile phone, television and radio waves in Romania. To make things worse, Cristian Diaconescu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated that the U.S. and Romania are working together to include in final documents for the Chicago summit the role of the anti-missile shield, along with the conventional and nuclear arms relating to NATO’s defense and deterrence policy.

May I remind Mr. Diaconescu about a statement made by French politician Jean Michel Boucheron: If there is a risk that Iran attacks us, our response would be nuclear. It is not the interception that matters, but the capacity to react. In a time when our budgets are restricted, I would prefer that we spend money on an armament system. I believe that the anti-missile shield is an ineffective [device employed] against a threat that does not exist. Our friends the Americans tried to lure us into a star war.