add to facebook
On a Negotiated Plan for Missile Defense
Travis | Jul 16, 2009 |
0 
This post ends with an endorsement of Cheney. No joke!
The CSM reported this week that the Missile Defense Agency is considering alternatives to the Bush administration’s plan for missile defense in Europe. The defense policy blogosphere had mixed reactions, particularly to the spicy quote from my colleague Chris Hellman who said missile defense supporters were a “small cadre of ultraconservative, ultraparanoid people.”
The pro-missile defense Heritage Foundation was understandably irked, so they accused Obama of seeking to “appease” the “former Soviet Union.” Cute. To the anonymous Heritage author, I sentence you to spend 30 minutes reading Jeffrey Record’s Parameters article on the use of “appeasement” and “Hitler” in national security debates.
The anonymously authored (and excellent) CSIS PONI blog posted more interesting reactions, which I want to respond to.
PONI: “…it is not clear that the Russians are open for [cooperation] - at least on the subject of European missile defense.”
Nukes of Hazard (NOH): At a July 2007 summit in Kennebunkport, Maine, Putin offered the possible use of radars based in Russia for the U.S. missile defense system. So Russia has been potentially open to cooperation. I wouldn’t take current Russian public posturing on missile defense as the ultimate sign that they aren’t willing to cooperate. Such posturing helps them gain better terms during negotiations with the United States, right?
PONI: “…it is difficult to believe that [Russia] sincerely think[s] that 10 (count that, 10) interceptor missiles in Poland and some radar units in the Czech Republic seriously stand in the way of some 2,000 strategic and 4,000 tactical weapons.”
NOH: Yeah, I hear this point a lot. However, technical experts have written that while missile defense interceptors based in Europe might be aimed at Iran, they would still be capable of engaging Russian ICBMs launched against the United States from Russian missile sites west of the Urals. From this perspective, missile defense in Europe becomes a slippery slope. The slated deployment might only be for 10 interceptors, but Moscow logically assumes that more will be added after the infrastructure is in place.
To put things in perspective, recall that in the 1960s the Soviet Union installed a short-range missile defense system around Moscow comprised of 64 launchers with Galosh nuclear-tipped interceptors. The United States responded with the increased deployment of strategic warheads and moved to develop penetration aids and MIRVs. Did the Soviet system pose any real threat to the U.S. retaliatory capability? No. Did the United States get spooked, overreact, and drastically augment its offensive forces? You betcha.
Current Russian objections and threats over the European missile defense system may be a little over the top, but they comport with the U.S. response in the 1960s. These aggressive reactions are why strategic missile defense systems are considered destabilizing. (For more on the Moscow Galosh system and the U.S. reaction, see this and this and this)
PONI: “74% of people…believe that it is at least ‘somewhat important’ that the U.S. build and deploy an effective missile defense program.”
NOH: Not sure how to say this without being a jackass, but here goes. Public opinion polling is not always that useful when it comes to really complicated issues like strategic defenses. If you ask the average person whether or not the United States should build a system to protect itself against missile attack, of course they are going to say “yes.” But does that person understand the theoretical and historical reasons why strategic defenses can actually destabilize superpower relations and trigger an arms race in offensive forces? Probably not.
I mean, 65 percent of Americans think we spend too much on foreign aid. Yet when asked how much of the U.S. budget is devoted to foreign aid, the median response has been 15 percent. In reality, Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget request devotes $26.5 billion to foreign aid – about 2.3 percent of the non-war discretionary budget. I’m sure I attacked him viciously when he used to say it, but Cheney had something of a point when he used to downplay polls on defense policy.
When you endorse Cheney, it’s time to stop writing. I’m done.
Security Matters, Missile Defense (all tags)
|
On a Negotiated Plan for Missile Defense | 0 Comments | Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.
