Can someone explain two things to me. First why are countries like Russia so up in arms about a “Missile Defense” system and two why would it be a priority for “Defense cuts”?
Maybe I’m not understanding the full function of the system but it seems to me that it’s mostly, probably entirely, a “Defensive” weapon. IOW the system poses no threat to anyone, more like wearing a body armor than carrying a gun. Is this not a correct assessment and if it is why the objections?
Second why would we want to cut this from our “Defense” budget. If the ultimate goal is to have a nuclear weapon free world doesn’t it make sense that the first step would be to be able to defend ourselves from those nuclear weapons and thus making them obsolete? Right now our “Defense” against nuclear attack is a little policy called “Mutually ensured destruction”. You launch yours we launch ours we all go back to the stone age. With a nuclear defense system we could disassemble our nuclear arsenal which would encourage others to do the same.
Short answer and I am no expert but…if I have body armor and my enemy doesn’t…might make my decision to shoot a lot easier.
So the concern is not that it’s a defense, but since it make their offense obsolete we can go on the offensive more easily. I guess that makes sense, however I would offer the missile defense system up in conjunction with dismantling the nuclear weapons or at least severely cutting them back. So we are wearing body armor without a gun, or at least a smaller one.
Right now our ‘Defense’ against nuclear attack is a little policy called ‘Mutually ensured destruction.’"
Actually, it’s “Mutually Assured Destruction.” I’m not just being pedantic here, because the acronym is telling. The MAD policy might conceivably have made a modicum of sense back in the days of the Cold War, when one could make the simplying assumption that all the actors were rational enough to follow the principles of Nash’s game theory. It makes no sense at all in today’s world, where we start considering such potential nuclear powers as Iran and North Korea.
I can understand why opposing nuclear powers would be against the U.S. having this. It is a complete shift in the balance of power.
I can see that, I do question why Russia and others aren’t developing the same thing.
Also call me crazy, but I don’t see any “Sane” country or superpower wanting anything to do with a nuclear war. Any country that nuked another would suffer nearly the same fate and untold casualties from the fallout, economic disaster and likely global lash back.
**I have never understood how anyone in this country would be against the U.S. having this technology. Mystifying. **
Right now our ‘Defense’ against nuclear attack is a little policy called ‘Mutually ensured destruction.’"
Actually, it’s “Mutually Assured Destruction.” I’m not just being pedantic here, because the acronym is telling. The MAD policy might conceivably have made a modicum of sense back in the days of the Cold War, when one could make the simplying assumption that all the actors were rational enough to follow the principles of Nash’s game theory. It makes no sense at all in today’s world, where we start considering such potential nuclear powers as Iran and North Korea.
Do you have any evidence that Iran and North Korea, or more specifically their leaders, have not been acting rationally lo these many years? When I say “rationally,” I meant acting in their own best interests. I have not seen any indication that they will act suicidally, which is what a nuclear strike would be. Do you believe that these leaders don’t actually know that it would be the end of them with such actions?
I haven’t really spent much time thinking about this, so I don’t have a strong opinion either way. But I could imagine people being against it because it is antagonizing to Russia. If they are pissed off, that can cause externalizes in a number of areas. Also, it kind of says, “we don’t trust you”, and that is a huge issue with certain nationalities… You really need to look at all of the stakeholders, and what their reaction is, you need to have an external (not internal) focus to see why it would/could be a less than favorable decision.
With so many countries in possession of nuclear technology, the concern is over the “sanity” of their leaders… (Iran, NK, Pakistan)
That is how I figured it…the global trust issue is a big one I would think. I know I know…fuck them! We ain’t nobodys bitches, love it or leave it…all that stuff
I can see that, I do question why Russia and others aren’t developing the same thing.
Because it is extremely expensive and very technologically challenging.
Although GMD funding was reduced and MKV was cut, other MDA programs budgets were increased (THAAD and AEGIS). The priority of funding is shifting to terminal systems that have a better operational/testing track record than the long range GMD. The long range GMD programs (including MKV) will still be worked on, but in a reduced R/D role.
The OP was correct and incorrect with Russia’s objection to missile defense: 1) it can be seen as a threat to MAD policy; but this is a red herring because current and future MDA systems would have zero chance of defeating a Russian mass raid style attack. 2) it is really just used as a bargaining chip on the world political table. 3) Russian serious objections were only really relevant about the 3rd site (eastern Europe) for GMD silos. This site was objected to not so much because it expanded our defensive capability, but because America would be expanding our presence into Russia’s backyard.
With so many countries in possession of nuclear technology, the concern is over the “sanity” of their leaders…
I think it’s pretty obvious “We don’t trust them”, referring to some of the “Nut job” countries out there. OTOH protecting oneself from the “unknown” is not a message of “We don’t trust you”. I don’t take offense when I see a cop in body armor. I don’t look at him and say “Oh he doesn’t trust me”. I look at him/her and say, they have to be prepared for any nut job or any situation, that’s their job.
The US military holds the same job for protecting the US. They have to be prepared for anything.
it can be seen as a threat to MAD policy; but this is a red herring because current and future MDA systems would have zero chance of defeating a Russian mass raid style attack.
Lots of misconceptions on this thread about missile defense.
First, Russia already does have missile defense…they have interceptors around Moscow. One site was allowed under the old ABM treaty. Second, the interceptors in Eastern Europe cannot intercept a Russian ICBM headed for America…go get a globe and look at the trajectory a missile from Iran would take to get to the US, and the trajectory a missile from Russia would take to get to the US…the Russian missiles go over the pole. Poland and the Czech Republic are the perfect spots to get shoot at Iranian missiles in the boost phase…the best time to shoot before the warheads separate.
Russia has thousands of warheads. GMD has less than a 50? interceptors. Even if we had more at all three sites, the defensive system could not deal with thousands of incoming threats. One could also detonate some warheads in space and send some massive EMP’s in the upper atmosphere that would really dismantle our space based assets and would have a real effect on our gound based radars.
This is why when they talk about Missile Defense they refer to it as a “limited” operational capability. It is designed to defend against threats other than a full out Russian exchange.
