We all know that the current Russian administration doesn't like proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe. In a previous post (Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern European Missile Shield), we've established that even pro-western Russian moderates such as Yegor Gaidar are "extremely worried about this [ABM] program". But what is the government's official stance on this program? In May of 2007, two proponents of this policy were called before Congress and asked to explain if the United States and Europe need a European missile defense system. Together they presented the following argument:
The world’s most threatening and unstable regimes can develop and deploy lethal nuclear arsenals and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to Europe and even the United States ... The Intelligence Community estimates that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States by 2015 if it chooses to do so ... The missile defense system that we are proposing to place in Europe—in cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic—would provide an extra layer of protection against possible missile attacks not only to the United States, but also to NATO allies and other European friends ... We cannot have U.S. security decoupled from that of our NATO allies. We cannot take a unilateral or isolationist approach to security.There is no reason to believe that traditional nuclear deterrence would not work both ways in relations between Europe and Iran. The real problem is that Europe is not sufficiently motivated to take military action against Iran, especially after the 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate which stated with high confidence that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.
...
The 10 interceptors we hope to field in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic would have little or no capability against Russia’s large strategic offensive force, which could overwhelm the U.S. system’s limited number of interceptors regardless of their location. In theoretical one-on-one engagements, U.S. interceptors located in Europe would have little or no capability to intercept Russian ICBMs launched at the United States as the U.S. interceptors are too slow to catch Russian ballistic missiles.
In addition, these plans made unilaterally with Poland and the Czech Republic because NATO was not willing to collectively sign onto the process. This unilateral action left the United States holding the bill for the cost of the system. But though the fiscal cost is significant, the diplomatic cost pales in comparison. It needlessly served to worsen US relations with Russian and led to Russia suspending its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (-BBC News).
_______________
Full transcript of the hearing:
Do the United States and Europe need a missile defense system? : joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, May 3, 2007.
2 comments:
Alright, just a couple of points...
First is your contention that traditional Nuclear Deterrence will be adequate for Iran specifically, and continued proliferation in general, is doubtful. We are facing a bold new world here, and the cold war ideal of mutually assured destruction will no longer fly. Simply because with the possibility of North Korea and Iran with nuclear weapons, the idea is forced that it will no longer be a country launching nuclear weapons at us, but rather a small, independent terrorist organization. An organization that could launch out of a neutral country, just so we strike back at innocents.
That being said, while this scenario is a possibility, I don't find it very likely due to the technological complications, as well as easier delivery devices (like carrying it) available to these threatening organizations. But it is certainly a possibility that need to be taken into account with continued nuclear proliferation.
Your point on unilateral deployment of the missile shields though is well taken. As we now have a history of unilateral action w/o UN or NATO approval, I doubt we should be dipping our toes into that particular lake any time soon. However comparing Afghanistan, which was multi-national, and Iraq, which was unilateral, their current situation is similar, although I would agree that Afghanistan is better off.
In conclusion I believe missile shields are a solid defensive tactic. However, the current political climate is one that forces us to consider multi-national perspectives. The possibility of Russia being an ally when it comes to the stabilization, of not only the middle east, but the entire Asian landmass is a powerful motivator, and may in fact nullify the need for the missile shield in the first place.
Vladimir Putin was recently quoted during a state address "It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world," That's right, he used the words "arms race" I think I just heard Europe crap their pants...
But the other side of the same coin read http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234960.stm
Post a Comment