Russia, NATO, Missle Defence and the CFE

[marcinmoka]

I think this is a bluff, and the CFE is much more a symbolic rather than a strategic treaty.

From Gazpromistan's point of view, they have nothing to loose, and a great excuse to cut into social expenditure to restrengthen their army.

Odd behaviour though (such is the nature of Russian politics) since the missle defence, with a still paltry kill/interception rate, is a farce in the face of Russian nuclear capabilities. Granted China could be upset, at least a tad, but they've been quiet.

[myata]

Well, if and then it (interception rate that is) becomes non-paltry, who would want to face armed-to-the-teeth with nukes US, protected by its anti-missile umbrella? They've shown that they'll have no qualms using them (nukes) in dire (or maybe not so dire) need. No, Russia just looking after itself here.

The only result of these US war games will be increased level of nuclear standoff in the world, with at least two missile shield systems facing each other. Sounds like a great cause to invest our limited resources into at this critical time.

[bush_cheney2004]

The only result of these US war games will be increased level of nuclear standoff in the world, with at least two missile shield systems facing each other. Sounds like a great cause to invest our limited resources into at this critical time.

That's not how this game is played. The American layered missile defense systems (THAAD, BMD, etc.) are valuable bargaining chips as in the many "games" already played in years past. The "increased level" still pales when compared to the Cold War, but offers far greater capabilities for local and regional conflict defense measures.

[Jerry Galinda]

Are you naive or .......... !

[myata]

That's not how this game is played. The American layered missile defense systems (THAAD, BMD, etc.) are valuable bargaining chips as in the many "games" already played in years past. The "increased level" still pales when compared to the Cold War, but offers far greater capabilities for local and regional conflict defense measures.

Do you mean, the whole system will be dismantled after the "bargaining" is done? Has it ever happened before? Or maybe, there was a case when people allowed themselves to be dominated without resistance? Threatened without seeking protection?

No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race: one starts the ball rolling and everybody will get busy building their own missile shields. It is sad that one can see it and do almost nothing about it, except maybe one thing: keeping the score. We know who's starting this as we know who used the nukes against people. That knowledge cannot be erased, no altered.

[Jerry Galinda]

"No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race"

Are you naive ???????

Force e.g. China, Iran,Korea to stop arms race.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you mean, the whole system will be dismantled after the "bargaining" is done? Has it ever happened before? Or maybe, there was a case when people allowed themselves to be dominated without resistance? Threatened without seeking protection?

No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race: one starts the ball rolling and everybody will get busy building their own missile shields. It is sad that one can see it and do almost nothing about it, except maybe one thing: keeping the score. We know who's starting this as we know who used the nukes against people. That knowledge cannot be erased, no altered.

Happened before? During the 80's, President Reagan deployed GLCMs and Pershing II intermediate range missiles in response to Soviet mobile IRMs. This "escalation" led directly to the INF Treaty and significant reductions in the number of nuclear warheads in Europe. It also led to the removal of deployed nuclear warheads on Tomahawk cruise missiles on US Navy ships. These "bargaining chips" were all removed by 1991.

Huge demonstrations in Europe predicted the end of their world because winning a tactical nuclear war would leave Europe in ruins, and I guess this happened in a sense....the Soviet Union began to crumble and Cold War Europe as we knew it ended forever.

To this day, I still collect items stamped "Made in West Germany".

WRT to using nukes, Canada was part of the team that made it possible. Still exports uranium to this day. There is a Cameco Corporation office in my state.

[marcinmoka]

Well, if and then it (interception rate that is) becomes non-paltry, who would want to face armed-to-the-teeth with nukes US, protected by its anti-missile umbrella? They've shown that they'll have no qualms using them (nukes) in dire (or maybe not so dire) need. No, Russia just looking after itself here.

Even than, it is (in strategic terms) a non-issue for Russia. The interception rate is:

a. Paltry for conventional, rather primitive missiles which would reflect the rather "low-tech" capabilities of rogue states such as Iran or N.Kora, or god forbid, Pakistani missiles falling into the wrong hands.

I don't think intercepting hypersonic, multiple re-entry units such as the Bulava or Topol-M missile(s) was ever amongst the American designers attainable goals.

b. Rendered even more so irrelevant when you think that they plan on deploying 10 Interceptors, whereas Russian warheads currently stand at around the 15 000 mark (both active/in-active, tactical/strategic).

[ScottSA]

No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race: one starts the ball rolling and everybody will get busy building their own missile shields. It is sad that one can see it and do almost nothing about it, except maybe one thing: keeping the score. We know who's starting this as we know who used the nukes against people. That knowledge cannot be erased, no altered.

Things are so simple to the leftist mind. So utterly painfully simple that it hurts to listen to. Yeah, it's just a bunch of big bad warmongers from the evil US starting another big bad war for {insert pet horrible capitalist greed object} and profit. And for the sheer fun of causing mayhem.

[GostHacked]

No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race: one starts the ball rolling and everybody will get busy building their own missile shields. It is sad that one can see it and do almost nothing about it, except maybe one thing: keeping the score. We know who's starting this as we know who used the nukes against people. That knowledge cannot be erased, no altered.

Things are so simple to the leftist mind. So utterly painfully simple that it hurts to listen to. Yeah, it's just a bunch of big bad warmongers from the evil US starting another big bad war for {insert pet horrible capitalist greed object} and profit. And for the sheer fun of causing mayhem.

Myata has a point however. The end of the Cold War gave the US a great chance to bolster their military. And that they did. The US did not use that chance to further peace around the planet by reducing their military, they saw it as a chance to greatly increase it. For we know that Russia is no longer the threat it once was, so there really is no need for a large military. No other power at that time and even to this day, can't really touch the might of the US military. In retrospect, the current build up of China's forces and Russia implementing new missle defences themselves is in response to the US's build up of their forces.

Peaceful talks can now resume and cooperation can make the world a better place for all. Now that the US has built up (and some generals are saying they need to increase it even more) they are now stretched thin with all the current conflicts the US is currently engaged in.

Russia is just taking care of it's own. Think of it similar to a Cuban Missle Crisis. Cuba was a host to a number of Soviet nuclear missles, which was just a skip across the ocean to mainland US. Now that this missle defence system is put in place and in strategic points around Europe, it makes sense that Russia will take precaustions and increase their defences. Simple fact is that Russia does not trust the US 100% or else they would be very close allies. I have not seen that happen yet. Economicly US and Russia have made ties, but overall, they are still worlds apart in ideology and society.

[myata]

Even than, it is (in strategic terms) a non-issue for Russia. The interception rate is:

a. Paltry for conventional, rather primitive missiles which would reflect the rather "low-tech" capabilities of rogue states such as Iran or N.Kora, or god forbid, Pakistani missiles falling into the wrong hands.

I don't think intercepting hypersonic, multiple re-entry units such as the Bulava or Topol-M missile(s) was ever amongst the American designers attainable goals.

That may be the story for the public. Just like peace and democracy for going in Iraq. Not sure what the designers are thinking, but there's no doubt that generals and some politicians would see the ability to hang a threat of nuclear attack without having to bother about retaliation, as a dream come true. Once they set up a foothold they can grow both the numbers and capabilities behind the curtain - and who will ever know?

In any case, negative consequences of starting a missile defence race by far outweigh any theoretical probability of a nuclear attack from a rogue state by a missile (as opposed to far more likely and easier conventional delivery strategy).

As GH pointed out, US would have gained a lot more (probably in the order of magnitudes) if they genuinely invested into disarmament and creation of just international order system, when the historic opportunity came about (and I wouldn't necessarily assume that its their policies that caused it, but it's a topic for another discussion). Too bad they could not see it. They're still bent on the belief that they're divinely entitled to be this planets absolute military power. That belief is so common for the empires, and every single one has been eventually surpassed by somebody else. There's no reason to believe the outcome will be different this time around.

[marcinmoka]

As GH pointed out, US would have gained a lot more (probably in the order of magnitudes) if they genuinely invested into disarmament and creation of just international order system,

We hold a very opposing view of humanity I see. Just because you may want to do the "right thing", doesn't mean that every one else will. If humanities history is any indicator, than if we do the "right thing" we will only be a sucker at which point any other aspiring power will use our moment of weakness to try and better themselves. You choose Pepsi, I choose us.

Not sure what the designers are thinking, but there's no doubt that generals and some politicians would see the ability to hang a threat of nuclear attack without having to bother about retaliation, as a dream come true.

But what does this point have to do with Russia? Nothing. They can overcome it with ease. It's a non issue. Furthermore, if America improves their technology, than the Russians will improve counter measures. But, if America were to abandon this project, and finances permitted, the Russians would still modernize their equipment to counter other threats. Point being, they have the brain power, they can, and they will. They have plentiful resources and numerous, worrisome neighbors.

They're still bent on the belief that they're divinely entitled to be this planets absolute military power.

Well, if they're not, than someone else would be. I personally feel safer with a US in charge than I do a China, or Pakistan, or what have you.

In any case, negative consequences of starting a missile defence race by far outweigh any theoretical probability of a nuclear attack from a rogue state by a missile (as opposed to far more likely and easier conventional delivery strategy

CONVENTIONAL? Please, please explain.

The Iranian or North Korean air force just flying into Europe to deliver a load of conventional bombs? Or some species of magical 5000km range Howitzers? Regardless, I think someone would not fail to notice a division of Iranian T-72's driving for 3 weeks en route to Europe. It might raise a suspicion or two.

[ScottSA]

As GH pointed out, US would have gained a lot more (probably in the order of magnitudes) if they genuinely invested into disarmament and creation of just international order system, when the historic opportunity came about...

A just international order is a great idea. Just like creating a just society. But you can build the justest society in the world, and it will immediately collapse into chaos if there's no police force, and you can build the justest international order in the universe, but if there is no enforcer, it is simply what it has always been: a war of all against all. What you are advocating is the disbanding of the police force on the off chance that all the criminals will become law abiding.

What so many leftists don't seem to get is that peace is not an end unto itself to everybody else. They assume that everyone wants peace, and in fact not everyone does. People who like the status quo want peace, but that doesn't mean everybody else does. That was the fatal flaw in Chamberlain's very reasonable worldview: he assumed that just because he wanted peace, so must Hitler want peace.

[myata]

But what does this point have to do with Russia? Nothing. They can overcome it with ease. ...

Once US has developed a reliable interception technology, one'd have to be naive as Cinderella crossed with Winny the Pooh to believe that they won't use it against anybody they consider even remote threat. Re Manhattan project for an example. It has everything to do with Russia and the rest of the world who do not want to find themselves forever under the benevolent "influence" of the US.

Well, if they're not, than someone else would be. I personally feel safer with a US in charge than I do a China, or Pakistan, or what have you.

CONVENTIONAL? Please, please explain.

Your choice I'm just saying that it want last forever. And the environment in which the next power will come into play is of critical importance to everybody who lives (or will live) in this world. Whether it's disarmament and peaceful cooperation or forced arms race.

...

See 24.

[ScottSA]

But what does this point have to do with Russia? Nothing. They can overcome it with ease. ...

Once US has developed a reliable interception technology, one'd have to be naive as Cinderella crossed with Winny the Pooh to believe that they won't use it against anybody they consider even remote threat.

Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive capabilities? How exactly would one "use" a defence shield "against" someone? If by "use", you mean "stop missiles from hitting", is this something you have a problem with?

[M.Dancer]

I have 3+3 problems with AMD

1) It won't work for generations

2) It has already been made obsolete by russian advances

3) It will fuel an arms race, already US designers are trying to beat the new Russian missles

4) It will cost too much

5) Scottsa is for it

6) If missles are made obsolete, FedEx will substitute....

[myata]

Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive capabilities? How exactly would one "use" a defence shield "against" someone? If by "use", you mean "stop missiles from hitting", is this something you have a problem with?

You really need it laid out plain and simple, Scott. Huge nuke arsenal combined with perception of invincibility (whether real or imaginary) could create a very strong temptation to use that power for the best of humanity. To liberate us from all that stands between this miserable state and eternal bliss. By dropping a few nukes here and there. To me it looks like too much temptation. Definitely the recent actions of US administration have shown that they aren't up to the challenge. I.e couldn't and shouldn't be entrusted with such power.

[ScottSA]

Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive capabilities? How exactly would one "use" a defence shield "against" someone? If by "use", you mean "stop missiles from hitting", is this something you have a problem with?

You really need it laid out plain and simple, Scott. Huge nuke arsenal combined with perception of invincibility (whether real or imaginary) could create a very strong temptation to use that power for the best of humanity. To liberate us from all that stands between this miserable state and eternal bliss. By dropping a few nukes here and there. To me it looks like too much temptation. Definitely the recent actions of US administration have shown that they aren't up to the challenge. I.e couldn't and shouldn't be entrusted with such power.

The US is very aware of the limitations of a missile shield, even if you aren't. It might be too much temptation for you to have one, but I highly doubt the US is going to sprinkle thermonukes hither and yon in some comicbook scenario involving Dr. No and his dwarfish henchmen. What a missile shield DOES present is a good deterent effect, because while it can never be 100% foolproof, it minimizes the potential gain of someone taking a potshot at the US, while maintaining the same risk.

[myata]

Yes at this time the directive is to downplay the deterrent effect to just to pull it through. If and when it works, we'll use different tone. US with an anti-nuke umbrella will be a disaster for this world. Good thing that it won't happen. Bad that it'll probably cost zillions of wasted resources that could be used for better good. The fact of the matter remains that its the US alone that is pushing this agenda, both Russia and China said many times that they're ready to abide by AMD and don't want weapons in space. If it does trigger new arms race we'll know who to blame. No question about it.

[ScottSA]

Yes at this time the directive is to downplay the deterrent effect to just to pull it through. If and when it works, we'll use different tone. US with an anti-nuke umbrella will be a disaster for this world. Good thing that it won't happen. Bad that it'll probably cost zillions of wasted resources that could be used for better good. The fact of the matter remains that its the US alone that is pushing this agenda, both Russia and China said many times that they're ready to abide by AMD and don't want weapons in space. If it does trigger new arms race we'll know who to blame. No question about it.

I don't believe you know what you're talking about. You are even misusing language and using concepts which mean the opposite of what you intended.

[myata]

I don't believe you have anything more to contribute here, Scott. Therefore your last post was redundant.

[ScottSA]

I don't believe you have anything more to contribute here, Scott. Therefore your last post was redundant.

Right. Please explain what you mean by this: "Yes at this time the directive is to downplay the deterrent effect to just to pull it through." It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Army Guy]

We've had missle defense for years now, short and meduim range anti missles have been deployed for more than ten years now, and they do work...and most nations have them already... the problem that the US is having now is with thier long range inceptor. and it's only a matter of time before they build one that is sucessful...

Iraelis have sucessfully developed a missle that can intercept targets as small as arty shells, the russians have a complete anti missle systems ringing moscow for years. As for developing an arms race , it is already there...

[M.Dancer]

We've had missle defense for years now, short and meduim range anti missles have been deployed for more than ten years now, and they do work...and most nations have them already... the problem that the US is having now is with thier long range inceptor. and it's only a matter of time before they build one that is sucessful...

Iraelis have sucessfully developed a missle that can intercept targets as small as arty shells, the russians have a complete anti missle systems ringing moscow for years. As for developing an arms race , it is already there...

Well, Myata not withstanding, the makers of the Patriot would want you to believe it works (it was designed afterall, not for missiles but for anti aircraft)

...during Desrt Storm the patriot for all its bluster and PR accounted for hardly any true interceptions...I say true because the PR side were counting interceptions that made you really stretch the definition. If the patriot even crossed the flight path of a scud, they called it an interception.....if it detonated near a scud .....it was an interception........

....but now the russians have tested ICBMs that can effect mid flight course corrections which rendewrs obsolete any defense that uses a terminal trajectory.

[marcinmoka]

The fact of the matter remains that its the US alone that is pushing this agenda, both Russia and China said many times that they're ready to abide by AMD and don't want weapons in space.

Yes, but this DEFENSIVE shield is not geared, in any way shape or form at either of those countries. That is why their acts of protest are largely symbolic.

See 24.

Well this explains a lot regarding your argumentation. Why a BMD when we have Jack Bauer. Thank you.

Maybe the U.K. should scrap the Trident missile program, seeing as they have James Bond.

And last but not least, I would like to highlight Army Guy's comment. This is essentially a modern version, (albeit more strategic since it is long range), of a simple anti-aircraft defense system.

As for developing an arms race , it is already there...

Sad, but true. We cannot escape this fact. Again, if we (NATO nations) would remain passive, it would just continue around us, independent of our actions, since there are not just 2 entities vying for power in the world. If we were to become passive, we would only grow weaker while everyone else is bulking up.

In a real world example, I will assume you are a good kid, you obey the law and so forth. Just because YOU obey the law, would you dare forgo taking preventative measures in ensuring your own safety just because you hope others have the same outlook?

Would you simply stop locking your doors at night?

Locking your car doors?