Russia and the Missile Shield

I've been trying to puzzle through what to say about the Bush-Putin contretemps over US deployment of missile defense systems in central Europe. On the one hand, yes, the Russians are being weird about this. The US obviously isn't planning a nuclear first strike on Russian targets, and the shield wouldn't help us accomplish that either. That said, the baffled and indignant tone of yesterday's Washington Post editorial was silly, particularly in its insistence on treating Russian objections to the US security posture as simply of a piece with Vladimir Putin's authoritarian tendencies.

I saw Mikhail Gorbachev on CNN this morning, and he wasn't happy about the missile shield either. Putin is being paranoidish about this, but only in a way that reflects the view of the Russian security establishment. Which, after all, is how security establishments tend to behave.

I mean, suppose Putin formed a formal defensive alliance with Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua plus associated membership for Brazil and Argentina, then started backing anti-government civil society groups in Mexico and Colombia, and then? Well, there'd be panic in the American press and in the government, to say nothing of what would happen if this new alliance became a platform for even an embryonic version of a system that could, down the road, disable the US nuclear deterrent. And, of course, if that happened I'd probably be telling people to calm down a bit.

All of which is to say that the Post's dictum that "The missile defense initiative should proceed or not on its own merits (some legitimate questions have been raised by NATO members and Congress)" seems tunnel visionish to me. The diplomatic response is part of the merits of any national security policy initiative. Enjoying friendly relations with the world's other major countries is an important policy goal. To the defense contractors who'll profit from building anti-missile devices, of course, worsening relations with other great powers is a feature, rather than a bug, because down the road it can help drive higher and higher levels of spending on military equipment. But for the rest of us, that's not the case. For the sake of something vitally important, sure, you piss off the Russians, but I see little evidence that this really is vitally important.

Comments

For the sake of something vitally important, sure, you piss off the Russians, but I see little evidence that this really is vitally important.

One of the better sentences you've written, Matt.

Posted by Captian Goto | June 7, 2007 9:29 AM

Camel's nose. Tent flap. Some assembly required.

It is certainly true that the small number of interceptors seems to be unable to threaten Russia's capabilities. However, the same may not be true of the surveillance/guidance radar. Remember, we have a whole lot of assets in orbit, as well as in Europe but further away, etc.

Posted by Mellifluous | June 7, 2007 9:32 AM

Two nights ago we had serious contenders for the office of President of the United States seriously advocate the case for preemptive nuclear strikes. And nobody in the the national discourse objected.

Just because your "paranoidish" doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

Posted by Brautigan | June 7, 2007 9:53 AM

Please remember that ABM systems are offensive weapons and useless as defensive weapons. Referring to ABM systems as defensive weapons systems just means that you do not understand their military use and have bought the public PR.

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | June 7, 2007 9:58 AM

"yesterday's Washington Post editorial was silly, particularly in its insistence on treating Russian objections to the US security posture as simply of a piece with Vladimir Putin's authoritarian tendencies. "

"Post's dictum that "The missile defense initiative should proceed or not on its own merits"

If you assume Putin is just being objectionable because thats the kind of guy he is then WAPO is right and we should just make the decision based on everything else. Its a silly assumption but if its its true then the second suggestion is perfectly logical

Posted by ChrisB | June 7, 2007 9:58 AM

"Putin is being paranoidish about this....."

Yes, and Bush is being a bit blusterific.

Posted by steve duncan | June 7, 2007 10:00 AM

The US obviously isn't planning a nuclear first strike on Russian targets, and the shield wouldn't help us accomplish that either.

As Bryan C Kennedy notes, the latter point is not quite true. And the former is arguably irrelevant. Intentions matter for shit. It's the capability inherent in the weapons that is legitimately worrisome for any country they're aimed at. As a Cold War vet, Putin well knows that the weapons are likely to remain in place long after the current set of US policy-makers and their intentions are gone. Future US leaders may have different intentions, and they'll already have the weapons.

Posted by Ryan | June 7, 2007 10:21 AM

I cannot conceive of any strategic logic for placing either missiles or ABMs in Central Europe. Geopolitically, militarizing any of these countries is an understandable threat. Why not offer the Russians some kind of joint - or jointly supervised - project?

Posted by Dick Mulliken | June 7, 2007 10:34 AM

I'm baffled as to why you're baffled: Russia derives most of such respect as it still recieves in it's reduced circumstances, from the fact that it's capable of raining nuclear destruction on other countries. They're a second world country with nuclear weapons. Anything that threatens that ability will be seen as a threat... A threat to Russia's own ability to make threats. And thus be taken more seriously as a world player than they deserve on the basis of their economic condition.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 7, 2007 10:39 AM

Presumably these countries are well-positioned geographically to observe missile launches from Iran.

As for the overall logic of the whole thing...well, this is the Bush administration, after all. Logic really doesn't enter into it.

Posted by Jim W | June 7, 2007 10:42 AM

It would be good for the world, if technically feasible, to develop and deploy an ABM system that could deal with the threat from One Nut With Six Missiles. Nothing I've seen persuades me that anything effective against a genuine nuclear power is feasible, and if it were, it would be so threatening to the big nuclear powers as to make pre-emptive strikes on the developing system rational.
So why not a joint program in which the big and medium-sized nuclear states work together on developing a One Nut With Six Missiles system?

Posted by CJColucci | June 7, 2007 10:44 AM

The ABM systems in Europe will give US first strike capability against a nuclear armed Iran, not Russia. Given that it has been a mutual US/Russian strategic
priority for 4 decades not to allow the other to gain Mid Eastern dominance, these systems will require a Russian ABM response (not to protect Moscow but to keep Russian military strategically relevant in three or so years) and Russia WILL respond and then so to must China.

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | June 7, 2007 10:48 AM

What is now called ballistic missile defenses(pl) has evolved from the pre-emptive first strike, maritime strategy, and so on of the Reagan era.

I think what the Vice-President is doing with interceptors and radars in Eastern Europe is consistent with trying to promote a war with Iran. The missile-defenses we are co-developing with Israel and the stuff we are re-deploying from Alaska and other Pacific sites would be useful if Iran acquires the sort of capability Israel has and tries to use it as Israel did in 1973.

I am not sympathetic to what the VP is doing at all, but he has a plan.

Hold Harmless Democrats do not have a plan or the will and discipline to implement one, if they did, just hand-wringing complaints and "ain't it awful" hand-wringing. Remember, the Democratic House has not cut off funding for the war or the troops. I can see how that would be hard since a significant fraction of the troops are in the war.

But, they have not cut off funding for the F-22, Star Wars, the Election Assistance Commission, or diddly-squat other than, maybe, Wm JEFFERSON's perks. Still, they sure do have a huge volume of new and old things to whine about and demonstrate their brainless, corrupt, cowardice over.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | June 7, 2007 10:54 AM

The US obviously isn't planning a nuclear first strike on Russian targets, and the shield wouldn't help us accomplish that either.
--Matt

After 35 years of nearly all experts telling me the opposite, some explanation of these opinions would help.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 7, 2007 10:54 AM

Well, there'd be panic in the American press and in the government, to say nothing of what would happen if this new alliance became a platform for even an embryonic version of a system that could, down the road, disable the US nuclear deterrent.

No way, no how. The offense has the advantage in the game of ballistic missile warheads v.s. interceptors. Maybe, just maybe, you could spend hundreds of billions to build a system to deter an actor with a handful of missies, but against an arsenal of hundreds or thousands? Impossible.

Posted by dob | June 7, 2007 11:11 AM

Mellifluous is quite right about this: it is the camel's nose in the tent.

Look, an interceptor missile defense system doesn't work, won't work in the near future, and probably can never work (too difficult to hit incoming targets, too easy for incoming targets to confuse interceptors).

But so what?

Russia's most important club is not its military/nuclear might (although that is its most devastating) but its ability to unilaterally shut off vital gas and oil supplies to its former satellite states and to Western Europe. Russia can do that with ease, it doesn't constitute military action, and it can be devastating to the Western powers.

Putin has actually done this -- temporarily -- in the past. And, in response, Cheney has accused Russia of "using oil as a weapon." So now Russia is going to sit quietly by and watch as we invest in a large military presence on its borders? How useful would a couple of missiles, a targeting and survelliance system, and a series of military bases on Russia's border be if we were to declare any future cessation of oil from Russia to be an act of war? (I'll re-emphasize: we have accused Russia of using oil "as a weapon.")

Putin clearly sees any such military buildup on his border as insurance that -- if push comes to shove -- we can force Russia to continue to send oil and gas our way; this would take away an enormouse amount of Russian leverage.

If I was Putin, I'd be pissed too.

Posted by swellsman | June 7, 2007 11:16 AM

Matthew didn't give the full picture.

1) The US government has been making a big push to grab the huge oil deposits of the Caspian Sea.
See, for example, the pipeline running from Azerbaijan throught Turkey. Russia claims that oil. Chevron -- the company which named an oil tanker after our current Secretary of State -- has invested $1Billion+ over there and our chubby Vice President served on Kazakhstan's Energy Board while CEO of Halliburton.
2) The US government also fed money to the insurrection in Ukraine which broke away from Russia. The Ukraine has been the breadbasket of Russia for centuries.

3) So Matt's analogy is not complete. To his metaphor, add the picture of Russia also inducing Louisiana and Texas secede from the Union in order to divert oil into a fleet of Russian tankers.

Plus, add the picture of Russia also dumping $billions into elections in the Midwest states , laying the basis for those states to secede so that they could send grain barges down the Mississippi onto Russian ships while the East Coast states starve.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 11:16 AM

I agree with dob.

But, the fear, however far-fetched it might sound, is that the U.S. could take out most of Russia's missiles with a nuclear first strike, and then rely on the missile defense shield to take care of whatever remains.

I seem to remember reading a while back that the U.S. either now has, or is on the verge of having, the cabability of wiping out Russia's nuclear arsenal with a first strike.

Posted by Jim W | June 7, 2007 11:19 AM

I'm confused as to why Russia should accept without question the US characterization of the new system as "defensive."

I mean, call it what you like, the Absolutely Non-Threatening and Tooth-Fairy-Friendly Pretty Shield, but surely Russia will see it as a new missile system near its territory.

Posted by El Cid | June 7, 2007 11:24 AM

Is it relevant to anyone missile defense systems DON'T WORK? After 20 years of billions in dollars and tens of thousands in manhours there's very little to show for it all. We've likely been lied to about the few "successful" tests that have been conducted. Tests conducted wherein the defensive missile has had no decoys, no chaff, no confusing anti-missile deployments of any kind to contend with. Sometimes the defensive missile has to be actually led to its target via a homing device in the targeted weapon. I'm baffled anyone feels threatened by a nonexistent threat. Maybe Putin is pissed the Russian military-industrial sector isn't getting some of the money being wasted on all this.

Posted by steve duncan | June 7, 2007 11:36 AM

Maybe Putin remembers US Ambassador April Gillespi telling US ally Saddam Hussein -- "sure, go ahead. Invade Kuwait. We don't care" and then Saddam hanging from a rope.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 11:40 AM

What about the fact that the majority of Czechs don't want US missile defenses stationed in their country? Funny how this seems to be an irrelevant detail to the US policy establishment. It's almost as if we are actively looking for ways to destroy all the good will we've built up in Central Europe.

Posted by vanya | June 7, 2007 11:43 AM

One of the problems is that all the work done in missile defense is classified, so its impossible to have a full discussion about it.

People who favor missile defense would respond to Steve Duncan's comments by saying: if he had access to the classified stuff, then he would know better.

How can we deal with things like this in a democracy?

Posted by Jim W | June 7, 2007 11:44 AM

People who favor missile defense would respond to Steve Duncan's comments by saying: if he had access to the classified stuff, then he would know better.

How can we deal with things like this in a democracy?

Posted by Jim W | June 7, 2007 11:44 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They'd tell you but then they'd have to kill you (or at least have you disappeared).

Posted by steve duncan | June 7, 2007 12:12 PM

Actually you can have a full discussion of the issue without regard to classified information in the context of nuclear weapons (which is the primary context). That they are useless as a defensive systems follows logically if:
1) Country First Strike has more than 1 nuclear weapon
2) Country First Strike welds nuclear weapon into hull of a merchant shipping vessel and sails into middle of the Pacific. Detonate weapon. All known electromagnetic sensors go nuts. This is clear from all atmospheric nuclear tests and follows directly from physical principals.
3) Country First Strike now fires missile (using on-board inertial guidance system)that sails through while all remote sensors are still blind.

No classified information is needed to fully evaluate this argument.

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | June 7, 2007 12:25 PM

Extra-atmospheric highly targetable launch vehicle is an accurate description for a functional ABM. It is also an accurate description of a major step forward in development of a first strike weapon that could reduce the possibility of retaliation if launched from short range by targetting defense systems. In the hands of a nation most of whom's presidential aspirants either endorse or will not condemn premptive assaults. It would worry me.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 7, 2007 12:38 PM

Extra-atmospheric highly targetable launch vehicle is an accurate description for a functional ABM. It is also an accurate description of a major step forward in development of a first strike weapon that could reduce the possibility of retaliation if launched from short range by targetting defense systems. In the hands of a nation most of whom's presidential aspirants either endorse or will not condemn premptive assaults. It would worry me.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 7, 2007 12:39 PM

Re "Country First Strike welds nuclear weapon into hull of a merchant shipping vessel and sails into middle of the Pacific. Detonate weapon. All known electromagnetic sensors go nuts. "
------

1) Actually, I think what you are referring to is the HEMP effect. But that effect requires that you detonate a warhead about 100 miles up.

2) Plus, the EMP effect is roughly line of sight -- so it affects a footprint roughly 2000 miles in diameter directly below the nudet. The lights went out in Hawaii during the Pacific nuclear tests in the 1950s. The lights did not go out in Los Angeles much less New York.

3) The ship, of course, might launch from off the eastern seaboard. But contrary to popular impression, we don't have merchant ships wondering around offshore. If you look at a nautical map, you will see defined sealanes leading into our major ports. The lane into New York City, for example, starts about 80 miles offshore.

Since 911, The news has reported the US Navy, Coast Guard, and Navy Seals checking those merchant ships offshore before allowing them to procede into our ports.

Plus, we have a network of underground hydrophones (Google SOSUS) and other things to track (Google OSIS ) shipping off our shores.
And the means to quickly sink such shipping at will.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 12:57 PM

The Washington Post seems to be exhibiting a sort of road rage at perceived "bullying" misconduct by Putin quite akin to the indignation that we all feel when some trucker cuts directly in front of us on the highway.

For purposes of present discussion, I will accept at face value the Post's characterization of Putin and his Russia as a bully. I will not contest the accuracy of the "facts" which it asserts, consider any rationale for these facts, nor inquire into any possible offsetting good behavior. Nor will I consider that the United States or Western Europe might in any also - or even entirely - be a wrongdoer in this scenario.

My point rather is that, when you are confronted with some sort of a bully on the highway, no matter how righteous your cause, you would nevertheless be an absolute nut go get in a fight with him and insisting on some sense of abstract rights in order to avoid appeasing him is ludicrous nonsense.

Yet the Washington Post nevertheless seems to be asserting that our foreign policy should follow such an insane path.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 7, 2007 1:02 PM

The comments thread here gets more absurd as it goes on. A few clarifications.

1) Yes, ABM systems are defensive -- designed to destroy incoming missiles.

2) Yes, it's provocative (and counterproductive to put one in Europe, for three reasons. First, the most obvious interpretation is that this is a shield against Russia. Second, why would Iran target Europe? Third, it would be in our interest for Europe to remain vulnerable to Iranian missiles; in that case, they would be more motivated to participate in multilateral economic and diplomatic attempts to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

3) No, it's not "about oil" in the Caspian sea.

4) No, ABM systems aren't hopelessly unworkable -- the key is replacing the current "hitting a bullet with a bullet" method with an area explosion in the missile's trajectory. I wouldn't be surprised if studies have been done on using a neutron explosion as part of this on the QT.

5) No, a nuke detonation in the ocean would not fry all electronic systems. Many military systems are hardened against this sort of thing.

Posted by Fred | June 7, 2007 1:03 PM

Re: The US government also fed money to the insurrection in Ukraine which broke away from Russia.

What "insurrection" in Ukraine. I am not familiar with any armed revolt in that country. Its independence back in 1991 was achieved with very little violence, and was not the result of some US plot. Indeed, Bush 41 even made a speech suggesting that Ukraine ought stay with Russia (AKA, "Chicken Kiev").

Re: Actually, I think what you are referring to is the HEMP effect. But that effect requires that you detonate a warhead about 100 miles up.

You also need a pretty hefty nuke to get a powerful EMP. Hiroshima style bombs don't pack much punch there. You pretty much need a hydrogen bomb to do the trick.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2007 1:09 PM

Re "What "insurrection" in Ukraine?"
------
I was referring to the Orange Revolution of the last three years and the US government's funding of it. See ,e.g, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1360080,00.html . Or look at Wikipedia.org's article on the subject.

If you look at past memoirs by CIA officers, you will see that the CIA's basic training for case officers includes the use of student and union organizations to subvert and overthrow foreign governments. (Stikes, street protests, low grade sabotage, propaganda dissemination,etc.)

When dismantling a nuclear armed adversary, you have to use the light touch.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 1:30 PM

In addition to the very relevant points that others have made from an international relations point of view, there's a very strong domestic political reason for Putin's attitude. The people who rule Russia right now belong to that country's own military-industrial complex. They derive a great deal of legitimacy and money from their perceived ability to confront external threats militarily. (In fact, almost all of the money that they don't get from hydrocarbons comes from the arms industry; the remainder of Russian industry has been woefully unprofitable for decades.)

Even if US aims in central Europe were not a threat to Russia's external strategic interests, Russia's governing elites would have a strong domestic incentive to behave as though they were.

Posted by Anonymous | June 7, 2007 2:20 PM

I seem to remember reading a while back that the U.S. either now has, or is on the verge of having, the cabability of wiping out Russia's nuclear arsenal with a first strike.

Even if you could take out all of the ICBM sites at once, you'd still have to take out all of the nuclear missile submarines at the same time. That's why we built those suckers.

Posted by dob | June 7, 2007 2:22 PM

Re: Actually, I think what you are referring to is the HEMP effect. But that effect requires that you detonate a warhead about 100 miles up.

Actually, no I wasn't referring to the HEMP effect.
This would actually knock out the radars' hardware and does require considerable power. What I am referring to is sufficiently ionizing the atmosphere so as to scramble a radar beam. This is not line of sight as the blast effect's move upward and drift and is extremely broad. And it is not a pulse but something that slowly diminishes as it spreads.

The main point is not that we can do the analysis on a blog but that physicists can and have done this analysis without resort to classified material.

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | June 7, 2007 2:26 PM

Re dob's comment about the USA taking out Russia's nuclear forces in a first strike, I'm rather sceptical.

The SS-24s are rail-mobile. I.e., can scoot around on railroads, hide in various tunnels,etc.

The SS-25s are road-mobile.

Plus, I assume that the Russians arrange their fixed silos in dense packs the way we do-- i.e, silos are spaced about 3 miles apart. Such missile fields allow you to aim a warhead at silo 1 , but not to attack--at the same time -- adjacent silos 2,3,4. The reason is that the nuclear explosion/debris that kills silo 1 would
also destroy incoming warheads aimed at neighboring silos 2,3,and 4. But by the time you can deliver warheads on silos 2,3,4; the missiles in silos 2,3,4 are already headed toward you.

Plus Russian SSBNs can be shifted around within defended Russian coastal waters where our attack subs can't easily get to them. I suspect the Russians have hydrophone networks on the sea floor near their coasts similar to our SOSUS and can detect/bomb an attack sub in those waters.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 2:52 PM

Re Brian's comment "What I am referring to is sufficiently ionizing the atmosphere so as to scramble a radar beam. "
-------
Yes, but what about the systems that track the missiles and warhead buses using their infra-red heat signature? Like SBIRS? See,e.g,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBIRS

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 3:03 PM

Re Brian's comment "physicists can and have done this analysis without resort to classified material."
--------
But uncleared physicists don't have access to DEVELOPED military systems --versus the physical world -- and hence don't know the detailed capabilities and limitations of developed systems. May not even know of some of the developed systems.

I respect the capabilities of uncleared physicists --but you don't really understand a subject until you've spent a Trillion dollars on it.

Posted by Don Williams | June 7, 2007 3:12 PM

Well, I'm no expert, but I certainly am pretty skeptical of whether anything the U.S. is doing now or in the foreseeable future would actually give us effective first-strike capability against Russia.

But that cuts both ways. If the U.S. nuclear arsenal had grown much weaker and more decrepid AND Russia then announced plans to surround America with a series of anti-missile-defense sites (so as just to protect us from Argentina of course), I'm pretty sure we'd still be safe, but I'd be getting a little nervous anyway, and would hope our leaders would be as well.

Posted by RKU | June 7, 2007 3:20 PM

I'm simply amazed that so many people seem to take Putin at his word. His audience is domestic and the "near abroad". His goal is his own and his clique's enrichment. Things really do make a lot more sense if you just accept these simple facts, which are plainly understood by every sober Russian and ex-Soviet, but to elaborate: no, he is not really afraid of the American missile threat, but further loss of influence in the near abroad will reduce his and his friends revenues. What would be good for their revenues would be high oil and gas prices, best achieved by making Europe nervous.

Posted by vadim | June 7, 2007 6:02 PM

Re: I was referring to the Orange Revolution of the last three years and the US government's funding of it.

Oh good grief. Yes, the US supported the refusal by the Ukrainian citizenry to accept the results of a blatantly rigged election, one that featured an attempted murder of the opposition candidate. But note too that many other countries supported this "revolution", including some that do not exactly sing from the Bush songbook on foreign policy. Now, if only the US voters would have shown some spunk back in 2000 when a certain dim bulb candidate and his machiavellian handlers stole the election here...

Re: When dismantling a nuclear armed adversary, you have to use the light touch.

The Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons back in 1991 when it made good its secession from the USSR. I can't believe I am finding someone evincing even a shred of nostalgia for the collapse of that old ugly mess in Moscow.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2007 10:07 PM

The basic problem is that Putin and most of the Russian electorate still regard Ukraine, the Baltics, and the Caucasus - and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - as their property. That these states are nominally independent is bad enough. That they dare to go against the will of Moscow is terrible. That they are allying with Nato is not to be borne. They are doing this - all of this - because they want their toys back.

Posted by ajay | June 8, 2007 5:17 AM

1) Re "The Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons back in 1991 "
------
When I referred to using a light touch when dismantling a nuclear armed adversary , I wasn't referring to Ukraine. I was referring to the US government's ongoing attempts to undermine and weaken Russia.

2) Re " I can't believe I am finding someone evincing even a shred of nostalgia for the collapse of that old ugly mess in Moscow."

In the far distant past, I --in a small way --worked on a sonar system with the purpose of allowing our SSBN submarines to stay hidden, so that they could turn the USSR into a pile of radioactive ashes if America was attacked. I never regretted that work.

3) But the threat of a global government lies today not with the Soviet Communists, but with rich , greedy investors here in America. History shows that any government with that unrivaled power will inevitably become a dictatorship.

American citizens should realize that a global dictatorship run by the likes of Dick Cheney would be a horror for American citizens as well as for the Russians, Chinese,and Europeans.
Even the benign Augustus Caesar is succeeded by Caligula and Nero.

4) Anyone who has read the Federalist knows America was designed along the lines of the ancient Roman Republic. America has followed --and is following --a course similar to that ancient Republic.

Like Rome, we built up enormous military power during a decades long war with a rival superpower (Carthage -Soviet Union.) With the collapse of that rival, we are using our surplus military power to create a global empire that impoverishes our middle class while giving enormous riches to a small elite and their corrupt politicans.

When Rome followed that course, she went from being a republic to being a militaristic dictatorship within a generation --because that's what's required to hold an empire together.

5) Read Cornelius Tacitus to see our future. Or consider Edward Gibbon's insight:

"The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.

A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of allies, and the apprehension of his enemies.

The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge.

But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies.

The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. (58)

To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly."
***********
--Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter III

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 9:48 AM

Re: But the threat of a global government lies today not with the Soviet Communists, but with rich , greedy investors here in America. History shows that any government with that unrivaled power will inevitably become a dictatorship.

Various egomaniacs have been dreaming about global empire since before Alexander crossed the Hellespont hand in hand with Hephaistion. Hasn't ever happened, isn't ever likley to happen. America's investors will fall short too, in fact they already have if one takes a look behind the curtain and notices all that Made in China crap and all those dollars piling up at the Bank of Beijing.

Re: American citizens should realize that a global dictatorship run by the likes of Dick Cheney would be a horror for American citizens

In two years Mr Cheney will be writing his memoirs in order to justify his innumerable flubs and sins to history. I suspect he'll have about as much success in that endeavor as Paris Hilton would writing a tome on quantum mechanics.

Re: America has followed --and is following --a course similar to that ancient Republic.

When American generals start marching across the Rapahannock in order to seize power in Washington I may believe this. Until then it's a very strained analogy. And for that matter where's our downtrodden provinciae whose peoples we tax outrageously in order to fatten our own coffers? Last I checked wealth was leaking out of this country at a rather fearsome rate (see: trade deficit).

Re: "The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.

Right now there are 193 (or 194 with Montenegro?) sovereign states in the world-- more than in Gibbon's day in fact. Many of them hate each others' guts and would not agree on 2+2=4 with their foes. Quite a few also deserve to have their map next to the word "mess" in the dictionary. We are in no danger whatsoever of a global empire any time soon. But if some American ruler decress universal healthcare and free rock concerts for the masses funded by gold looted from the Vatican, the Kremlin and the tomb of Shih Huang Ti, then I'll start to worry.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2007 10:12 PM