« Change to Win Endorsement | Main | Gin Blossoms Throwdown »

McCain and the Missiles

21 Feb 2008 03:22 pm

According to John McCain's website:

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

For starters, north Korea doesn't possess ICBM capabilities. Second, it's hard to see how national missile defense will protect our forces from Iranian missile attacks when our forces are right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, it's unclear why we'd be particularly worried about any sort of ballistic missile attack given the close quarters situation at hand. But while this is a bit dishonest and ignorant, the business about hedging against "potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China." Simply put, a scenario in which the United States possesses an effective ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese ICBM threat would be completely intolerable in Moscow or Beijing. It would, in effect, give the United States a viable a threat of a nuclear first strike.

Neither Russia nor China is going to let that happen. Instead, they'll spend money on building up their nuclear arsenals in order to maintain their deterrent capacity. Thus, at great cost to the Unites States, to Russia, and to China we'll be back at the status quo. But beyond the monetary cost, the large buildup in Chinese nuclear capabilities that would result from this situation would force India to engage in a nuclear build-up of its own. And that, in turn, would force Pakistan to follow suit. This large increase in the global stock of nuclear weapons would, of course, imply an increase in the odds of a nuclear accident or the loss or theft of nuclear material. At the same time, a nuclear buildup of this sort might create incentives for Iran to reinitiate its nuclear weapons research program. And even if it didn't, revitalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty desperately requires the status quo nuclear powers to be working together on nuclear issues, and fulfilling our treat obligations to move toward reduced arsenals.

In short, what McCain has on tap here is a recipe for disaster -- a breakdown in great power relations, new arms races, massive nuclear proliferation, etc. And why? I suspect the last bit is the real reason. He wants "to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred." Basically, we need to spend huge sums of money and encourage an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation because that would facilitate the launching of new aggressive wars. Probably the proliferation McCain's policies helped induce would become the rationale for a new round of warfighting.

Share This

Comments (43)

Yglesias,

Why are you embargoing comments that disagree with you or that are more pessimistic about Senator Obama? How far in the tank are you?

Matt: "Second, it's hard to see how national missile defense will protect our forces from Iranian missile attacks when our forces are right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, it's unclear why we'd be particularly worried about any sort of ballistic missile attack given the close quarters situation at hand."

Well, to be fair to McCain's statement, he talked about "theater" defense systems as well as "national" defense systems. This applies to the ME and Iran.

As to being worried about Iranian missile attacks, yes, the Iranians have a number of missile systems that could easily threaten US forces in Iraq and in the Gulf region. And they're developing longer range missiles that will threaten Israel. Not that there's anything wrong with that, given Israel's ability to threaten the entire region with nukes and submarine-launched cruise missiles - which are ignored by McCain, of course.

Of course, developing an expensive theater anti-missile system is not particularly responsive to this alleged "threat". Foreign policy adjustments would go a lot further and be a lot cheaper and more effective than entering another "arms race" with every Third World country with a missile program.

I agree with Matt that the reason for this approach is essentially the neocon attitude, expressed in the PNAC documents, that no other country in the world be allowed to even be a regional power, let alone a superpower, except the US.

McCain also ignores the existence of ship-based missile defense systems which already exist and are intended to deal precisely with this issue of regional missile attacks against US forces in a region. The satellite shootdown yesterday was little more than a demo and a test of that capability.

the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses

Someone clearly should have applied the example of the academic journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences to this particular instance of ambiguous coordination, because I totally went a few words thinking that a) this post was going to be about a deployment of thespians or some such, and b) there was some hope for the world.

Matt,

Look at you with your "Reason," making "Arguments" about why McCain's policy doesn't make "Sense."

Don't you understand we're at WAR!? Don't you want to take the fight to the TERRORISTS? Wherever and whoever they might be?

I agree with the general strategic situation - presented in this way, this is a bad idea that will make China and Russia mad at us. But I really don't see the specific problem of increased arsenals. If a missile defense system becomes operational, why would other countries want to build up more of a nuclear arsenal?

Let's say the new missile defense system can be defeated only by an overwhelming strike against the US - let's say 200 missiles or so. There are only six countries in the world who can field that many (and four of them are the US, UK, France, and Israel). Everybody else would be priced out.

Countries with less than the threshhold numbers would be unable to attack anybody within the defense shield. Countries on the bubble like India or Pakistan would have to go for broke (double or triple their stockpiles) or have some very dangerous and costly paperweights sitting in their silos. India could probably manage it; Pakistan probably couldn't. Nobody else comes close.

This is why a Cold Warrior should not be President.

Matt,

The case against Missile Defense probably ought to be framed in simple cost benefit terms--this project costs tens of billions a year and is close to technically infeasible; in return we get protection against largely non-existent threats.

On the first strike issue, there is considerable evidence from Lieber and Press--published in part in your magazine--that we already possess a first strike capacity against Russia, and certainly against the chinese. Furthermore, the publication of their works caused a stir in both countries, but little action or force modernization. In short, both the Russians and the Chinese know we could knock them out if it came to it, and they don't seem to care. It strikes me as highly unlikely that the proliferation doom scenario you spin would actually come to pass. If McCain were to achieve his goals--and a National System that could defend against a major power strike is thoroughly out of reach at this point--its hard to see how the situation would change much.

No North Korean ICBMs? What do you call this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2

Also, lets not forget that the Taepodong-1 can already hit U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. That's why Japan is cooperating with the U.S. on missile defense. Moreover, North Korea has a history of technology transfers with countries like Iran and Pakistan.

And maybe the Taepodong-2 is not operational yet, but you build defenses against the threats of the future. The F-22 is untouchable today, but it will be the frontline U.S. fighter for the next 30-40 years. Can you say there will be no need for it then? If the need arises, you can't order them the same way you'd order a 737. How long have B-52s and aircraft carriers been in service? You might point at that and say "hey, we can continue using antiquated equipment," but that's only because the world is still in a "unipolar moment" when it comes to conventional military capabilities.

As for the Iranians, building a robust missile defense makes their nuclear weapons less useful, because, after having them, they would have no means of delivering them. The value of the North Korean nuclear missile is much less because the Taepodong-2 test failed. And if you're worried that the "neocons" want to attack Iraq, worry less if America has a missile shield. The Iranians can still give the bomb to terrorists, but take a look at "Fat Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

How easy is that to smuggle? Even bombs that go on missiles are still unwieldy.

On the subject of Russia and China. To have first strike capability against Russia would take thousands of missiles. The U.S. has a handful. If we were to build thousands of SM-3s like the one used yesterday, I would be more inclined to agree. And while China might, North Korea and Iran do not have the economic resources necessary to build enough missiles to overcome a robust U.S. shield.

I'm not saying a missile shield is a great idea, just that it's not so clear cut.

No North Korean ICBMs? What do you call this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2

Also, lets not forget that the Taepodong-1 can already hit U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. That's why Japan is cooperating with the U.S. on missile defense. Moreover, North Korea has a history of technology transfers with countries like Iran and Pakistan.

And maybe the Taepodong-2 is not operational yet, but you build defenses against the threats of the future. The F-22 is untouchable today, but it will be the frontline U.S. fighter for the next 30-40 years. Can you say there will be no need for it then? If the need arises, you can't order them the same way you'd order a 737. How long have B-52s and aircraft carriers been in service? You might point at that and say "hey, we can continue using antiquated equipment," but that's only because the world is still in a "unipolar moment" when it comes to conventional military capabilities.

As for the Iranians, building a robust missile defense makes their nuclear weapons less useful, because, after having them, they would have no means of delivering them. The value of the North Korean nuclear missile is much less because the Taepodong-2 test failed. And if you're worried that the "neocons" want to attack Iraq, worry less if America has a missile shield. The Iranians can still give the bomb to terrorists, but take a look at "Fat Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

How easy is that to smuggle? Even bombs that go on missiles are still unwieldy.

On the subject of Russia and China. To have first strike capability against Russia would take thousands of missiles. The U.S. has a handful. If we were to build thousands of SM-3s like the one used yesterday, I would be more inclined to agree. And while China might, North Korea and Iran do not have the economic resources necessary to build enough missiles to overcome a robust U.S. shield.

I'm not saying a missile shield is a great idea, just that it's not so clear cut.

No North Korean ICBMs? What do you call this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2

Also, lets not forget that the Taepodong-1 can already hit U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. That's why Japan is cooperating with the U.S. on missile defense. Moreover, North Korea has a history of technology transfers with countries like Iran and Pakistan.

And maybe the Taepodong-2 is not operational yet, but you build defenses against the threats of the future. The F-22 is untouchable today, but it will be the frontline U.S. fighter for the next 30-40 years. Can you say there will be no need for it then? If the need arises, you can't order them the same way you'd order a 737. How long have B-52s and aircraft carriers been in service? You might point at that and say "hey, we can continue using antiquated equipment," but that's only because the world is still in a "unipolar moment" when it comes to conventional military capabilities.

As for the Iranians, building a robust missile defense makes their nuclear weapons less useful, because, after having them, they would have no means of delivering them. The value of the North Korean nuclear missile is much less because the Taepodong-2 test failed. And if you're worried that the "neocons" want to attack Iraq, worry less if America has a missile shield. The Iranians can still give the bomb to terrorists, but take a look at "Fat Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

How easy is that to smuggle? Even bombs that go on missiles are still unwieldy.

On the subject of Russia and China. To have first strike capability against Russia would take thousands of missiles. The U.S. has a handful. If we were to build thousands of SM-3s like the one used yesterday, I would be more inclined to agree. And while China might, North Korea and Iran do not have the economic resources necessary to build enough missiles to overcome a robust U.S. shield.

I'm not saying a missile shield is a great idea, just that it's not so clear cut.

Tel,

So the nuclear proliferation treaty essentially turns from nuclear states and non nuclear ones into majory nuclear powers (200+) and minor ones, without "shield-proof arsenals"?

Tangentially, I fear the US may end up with too much reliance on its defensive capabilities. Even one or 2 missles going through could be catastrophic. So poor policy choices can more than offset whatever benefits a defense sheild might provide in terms of risk.

The only Taepodong-2 test to date was a failure. Thus, Matt is right and McCain is wrong: North Korea does not, in fact, "possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles."

Tel: "Let's say the new missile defense system can be defeated only by an overwhelming strike against the US - let's say 200 missiles or so."

Well, there's no evidence to believe that it will take anything more than one missile, adhering to a precise schedule, on a sunny day, with no countermeasures such as a shiny tin foil exterior.

But if we start marketing it as though it can, then Russia and China will satisfy their own planners and one percent doctrines and military industrial complexes by building up-- which will produce the reaction in India. That's destabilizing for the whole world, and not in a good way. I don't think we should be rooting for a cold war between us and China, or between India and China.

Well, almost, MS. I did just pull that 200 missile figure out of the air. Who knows how many you'd actually need?

The minor nuclear powers would only be able to attack countries outside the shield. They'd be able to boss around their region - but only if their region had states that weren't part of the shield. That could give the US some dividends, as far as "encouraging" states to join the missile-shielded group of countries. But it would only intensify the dissatisfaction of the countries outside of the shield. Basically, a costly diplomatic wash, but not one that results in increased arsenals.

brendan green,

In short, both the Russians and the Chinese know we could knock them out if it came to it, and they don't seem to care.

Can't speak for China but Putin has made it one of the pillars of his foreign policy to obstruct American plans to build anti-balistic missles in various places. And that hasn't made him any less popular. Nuclear parity with the US is one of the few cards Russians have left since the Cold War, and they will loathe to give it up.

Why would our competitors necessarily respond asymmetrically?

It's just as plausible that they'd develop missile defense systems of their own, right?

Jim, you're really nuts. We have thousands of warheads, hundreds of missiles, and we've been constantly updating them since the Cold War.

Plus, our most powerful nuclear forces, unlike China or Russia, are not kept in silos or on bases. They're kept for months at a time under water. The Russians don't even have an active SSBN anymore.

What an SLBM allows is not only the range of a conventional ballistic missile - it allows the missile to hit its targets within something like 5 to 10 minutes, because the subs are much, much closer.

Meanwhile, the Strategic Rocket Forces, once fearsome, has fallen on hard times. It's not that the Russians' technology is bad, it's that they had ten years where they simply had no money to spend on it. Putin has driven forward new tests, but the existing fleet is almost entirely SS-19s.

China hasn't even bothered updating it's missiles at all. They've found a far more potent weapon for deterrence than a thermonuclear warhead - Economics.

southpaw,

It's much cheaper/less technology intensive to simply increase arsenals than developing defensive systems. Biggest proof is that despite billions of dollars invested into the program, the US still doesn't have anything that's been shown to be effective.

It is relatively simple to make offensive missles designed to confuse and evade a possible defensive system.

Thus, at great cost to the Unites States, to Russia, and to China we'll be back at the status quo.

That's actually not true. The technology and cost for circumventing a missile defense system is much cheaper than the cost of the system itself. So, once again we'd be on the short end of an assymetric technology stick. Not really the place we want to be.

I must be dumb, but I don't understand why Russia, China, and then all the others would engage in a new arms race. A shield only works when the sword is outside. It would be so much easier to smuggle a few bombs into the US - and keep them there - than to build thousands of ICBMs. This whole missile defense thing reminds me of the Maginot line: an unbeatable defense system for last century's wars. It proceeds from the assumption that, as in the 1950s, the Soviets were in the Soviet Union, the Chinese were in China, the Americans were in America, and no one could fire off nuclear weapons from submarines. So you could theoretically build walls, or shields, or whatever. But today everyone is all over the place, ICBMs are outmoded, and it just won't work.

fluxisrad, to me this (theater and national missile defenses) is simply another sign of how out-of-touch McCain is -- no one uses theater missiles anymore, it's all about Netflix and YouTube missiles.

Spending money on pie-in-the-sky weapons systems might be tolerated when there aren't urgent social and economic reasons to conserve our resources. That was probably the situation in the 1950s, but certainly not today.

Maybe I'm misreading, but isn't "capability to target" the most meaningless phrase yet? Anybody can "target" anything, the worrisome thing would be the capability to hit something with a significant payload.

I don't have a problem with developing theatre missile defense, because more than likely a war against a technologically savvy enemy is going to involve shooting a lot of unmanned missiles at each other. It's more of a good defense from the artillery of the other side.

Missile defense for the purpose of shooting down nuclear ICBMs is far more costly and likely to go nowhere. The rate of speed they travel at make them difficult to target, and the cost of missing just a few missiles is incredibly high. Do we really want another nuclear arms race? And can we really afford a nuclear arms race when we're already far in debt?

"It would be so much easier to smuggle a few bombs into the US - and keep them there"

Which they have almost certainly already done.

Who's they? Well, probably all of them. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if China or even DPRK has a nuke in some warehouse in California or Chicago or something. And if the Soviets never did it, I cannot imagine why the GRU, usually so smart, never thought about.

Posted by Alejandro Gonzalez
Posted by Jim Jones [x2]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a sock puppet.

Matt (and others), you would be right in your analysis if we built a missile defense large enough to withstand an attack from Russia's and China's current missile arsenal. That would indeed cause these powers to build up their arsenals. But to deter smaller powers, like North Korea, only a relatively small number of defensive missiles would be required. If this much smaller level could be negotiated and accepted, there would be no need for an arms race that would return us to the status quo.

An American missile shield: isn't that like living in a neighborhood, being armed, aggressive, and starting taking to wear a bullet-proof vest?

An American missile shield: isn't that like living in a neighborhood, being armed, aggressive, and starting taking to wear a bullet-proof vest?
Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 21, 2008 7:42 PM

So...does that mean the US is Luca Brasi?

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.

Ever since North Korea's deployment of it's IRBMs and ICBMs, and the rise of Putin's Russia, going out to see "The Crucible" or "Streetcar" left me deeply uncertain about my safety under such tense global conditions.

I'm glad that McCain will strongly press to provide the security that our American Theater has sorely needed for many years.

MY - For starters, north Korea doesn't possess ICBM capabilities.

They are working on ICBMs. More importantly, MRBMs that deliver the same identical warhead on a city or US military base an ICBM could are well-stocked in the NORK arsenal and can reach all of Japan, Naval Fleet assets responding to a crisis and many US bases in region. That is why the Japanese are now full partners with us on launch phase and terminal phase aspects of anti-missile defense.

MY - "Second, it's hard to see how national missile defense will protect our forces from Iranian missile attacks when our forces are right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A pretty dumb position since a theater defense against Iranian missiles is already in place, and longer range, higher altitude WMD-tipped missiles will use the same theater defense USA anti-missiles as the CONUS defense - for our troops, our allies, for deterrance in the 1st place.

MY - "Indeed, it's unclear why we'd be particularly worried about any sort of ballistic missile attack given the close quarters situation at hand."

Ever hear of SCUDs?

MY - "But while this is a bit dishonest and ignorant, the business about hedging against "potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.""

Like many of MYs posts on national defense and dealing with enemies of the American people, I agree he is being dishonest and ignorant.

MY - "Simply put, a scenario in which the United States possesses an effective ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese ICBM threat would be completely intolerable in Moscow or Beijing. It would, in effect, give the United States a viable a threat of a nuclear first strike."

Hardly, and it is not "intolerable" to the Russkies since we withdrew from the ABM Treaty - it just massively vexes them that we have a anti-missile defense that works. And Putin and the old Chicommies still running China know full well that the system is geared to operate against the future menace of two rogue nations - not them.

You pro-missile shield folks need to learn some basic rocket science, not to mention game theory. Short version: there's no way to build an effective shield against missile attacks that's not easily circumvented by a wide variety of different counter-measures - MIRVs, chaff, decoys, mirrors, to name just a few.

It's all a colossal boondoggle, and you're being foolish to fall for it.

I might also point out that the deterrent value against smaller powers is a waste of money.

What "deterrent" doesn't the US ALREADY HAVE against Iran, North Korea or any other likely Third World country with missiles?

We have a hundred times their military budget, thousands of nukes, and air, sea and land capabilities they can't match (except for North Korea, who can match us to some degree on the ground, and give us a bit of a fight in the air and in the immediate waters around North Korea.)

Therefore, who cares what missiles they build? They aren't going to fire them at the US or US forces unilaterally because they'd be toast if they did. And if by some chance a war was started - by them, or more likely, us - anyway, the odds are most of their larger threat missiles would be destroyed by our air power in the first 48 hours. We might miss some mobile launchers, of course. Is that worth spending hundreds of billions on a system not proven to be able to hit ten out of ten missiles in flight?

None of their missiles are ever likely to be nuclear anyway. North Korea is phasing out its nuclear program, and Iran never had one, despite what the NIE claimed. A non-nuclear ballistic missile is basically a dud - good for destroying a city block or something - IF it's accurate, which the SCUDs aren't.

The deterrent value against Russia and China is basically nil as well, because they won't attack us either as long as the nuclear arsenals and delivery systems are so disparate.

So it's really irrelevant whether the smaller nuclear powers would try to build more weapons (except for the possibility of theft, which Matt is right about) since they probably would know not to bother. North Korea built a few nukes to have a credible deterrent to the sort of adventurism represented by Iraq. But they neither have the funds, the technology or the need to build more.

Russia could build more since it started out with enough to be a credible threat. China couldn't catch up in five decades.

So it's irrelevant there too. The important point isn't that other countries would try to overwhelm the US missile system with numbers - it's that they wouldn't try, therefore the whole system is a waste of money.

To the degree that an anti-missile system would work - which is by no means certain, since shooting down one missile is not the same as shooting down ten out of ten - it's merely an effort to try to prevent ANY damage to the US continental mainland or overseas theater during a serious war by a missile attack. This is not a feasible objective, cost/benefit wise. There are smarter ways to avoid getting hit by a missile, and a lot of ways to evade an anti-missile system no matter how good it is, at least with foreseeable tech.

And this is one place where even nanotech won't do you any good until you can put an AI in a warhead - which isn't a real good idea if you've seen "Terminator".

Brendan Greene - The case against Missile Defense probably ought to be framed in simple cost benefit terms--this project costs tens of billions a year and is close to technically infeasible; in return we get protection against largely non-existent threats.

SM3 record so far? 9 for 11.
N. Korea and Iran are not "two largely non-existent threats" - both have WMD and MRBMs already capable of hitting US forces and allies in their region.

The SM3 and the 5-6 other "Star Wars" military systems coming on line or in end phases of R&D are not just for ICBMs. They - one, or the other, or all of them - are also useful on MRBMs, SRBM theater missiles carrying the same bad warhead(s) as an ICBM does, just over shorter distances. And against bombers and ships from long distances, satellites, and against anti-ship missiles. And cost less than the target they take out.

Elkal - The technology and cost for circumventing a missile defense system is much cheaper than the cost of the system itself.
MS - It is relatively simple to make offensive missles designed to confuse and evade a possible defensive system.


Not true. The SM3 is cheaper than any of it's targets at 10 million a bird. The Americans and Japanese are mastering decoy detection, too. Right now the Russians could easily overwhelm our defense system and still destroy us, and Chicoms likely get a few in that would constitute a level of unacceptable damage in most people's minds though it would be CHina's end, not ours.

The "Star Wars" additions to the US military amount to a revolution in warfare, and signal another reason why it is time to move past certain old, outmoded post-WWII treaties like Geneva and the failed UN Peace role.

***************************
Greg - I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if China or even DPRK has a nuke in some warehouse in California or Chicago or something. And if the Soviets never did it, I cannot imagine why the GRU, usually so smart, never thought about.

The answer is the 4th Protocol, since both the US and Russia thought of this and had borders US Navy SEALs or Soviet Spetznaz forces could penetrate and deliver nukes. The 4th Protocol both agreed on was an acknowledgement that detection of a smuggling attempt, uncovery of a nuke, or traceback after detonation of nukes not delivered by missile or bomber would constitute a 1st Strike and decapitation w/ no warning attempt, the party could not know how many more secreted bombs were ready to go - and the only solution was to go all-out thermonuclear war and destroy the other side.

In consideration of the 4th Protocol, Geneva is a silly afterthought, the Americans and Russians agreed. Smuggling would trigger all out war.

*****************************
dob - You pro-missile shield folks need to learn some basic rocket science, not to mention game theory. Short version: there's no way to build an effective shield against missile attacks that's not easily circumvented by a wide variety of different counter-measures - MIRVs, chaff, decoys, mirrors, to name just a few.
It's all a colossal boondoggle, and you're being foolish to fall for it.

As well reasoned as pre-WWII arguments that planes lacked the speed, bomb cargo capacity to ever be considered a threat to cities, battleships, carriers. War oscillates over the ages between defenders and attackers having the advantage - we appear to be at another hinge point as the unstoppable missile becomes stoppable or significantly mitigated against, and eyes in the sky can be taken out.

***********************
The Iranians can still give the bomb to terrorists, but take a look at "Fat Man."

The plutonium "pit" sections for Fatman were delivered to Los Almos by one guy on a train coming from Hanford. He hand-carried them in two suitcases, guarded by one MP.

War oscillates over the ages between defenders and attackers having the advantage - we appear to be at another hinge point as the unstoppable missile becomes stoppable or significantly mitigated against, and eyes in the sky can be taken out.

You seem to think we're at this tipping point in technology. The evidence strongly seems to disagree.

I'd rather spend the vast resources being thrown at missile defense working on solving critical problems like global warming. Attack the highly likely problems first, let's make sure we don't kill ourselves unintentionally, then we can go back to worrying about how to kill each other.

None of the ranting done by Ford chances the discussion in the slightest, of course.

It's still a complete waste of money.

Neither North Korea, Iran, or China are serious military threats to the US - and the US appears to be trying to make Russia into one with its moronic foreign policy about putting anti-missile systems on Russia's borders...

The bottom line: the only reason to have a "missile defense system" aimed at Third World countries is if you intend to invade those Third World countries - either to get their oil or, in the case of North Korea, to put your military on the borders of your more serious "enemy", China.

Fortunately, North Korea is too tough a nut to crack for the foreseeable future. The Pentagon estimates fifty thousand US casualties in the first 90 days of a conflict with NK.

Iran, of course, is much easier - and also, of course, has the oil Dick Cheney wants - and the dislike of Israel that the Zionist Lobby wants.

Unfortunately Iran won't need much in the way of missiles to screw the US blind in such a conflict. It may take ten years, but Iran can bleed the US dry militarily, economically, and geopolitically, just like the insurgents in Iraq are doing.

Which, again, makes the anti-missile systems so much expensive crap.

Bottom line: Like I said, they're meant to be paid for, not used. Paid for with taxpayer money to the military-industrial complex. Nothing more.

So Bush stops talking to the DPRK* and they get pissed and develop a nuke (that really even doesn't work yet) and they are working on missiles that can take out big chunks of Alaska (but they don't work yet either) and Iran doesn't have nukes or a program to develop the them (see US intelligence estimate and IAEA reports) and their long range missiles are untargetable and can barely reach Israel, but still the USA needs to spend BILLIONS of dollars borrowed from the Chinese and the oil sheiks to start a new strategic nuclear arms race that will include highly unstable countries like Pakistan and India**. Holy moly are these Republicans stupid or what? College educated idiots! If these pants pissing gutless paranoids win this next election by demonizing a black man or woman candidate we are in some very deep doodoo. Please can we let the adults run the country again instead of these lame brains who seem to get their understanding of international relations from 24 and James Bond?

*One of his very first acts as president. Now they're talking to the DPRK and giving up more than Clinton ever did to get less concessions from them! Getting out negotiated by Kim Il-sung takes some doing.
** The Bush administration gave India a free pass on the non-proliferation treaty thereby gutting one of the longest standing and most effective international diplomatic instruments keeping a lid on expansion of nuclear arsenals. We're making you safer by making more bombs!

Well the original ABM treaty didn't just poof into existence. Cooler heads prevailed. People realized it would just intensify an already out of control arms race.

But, like alcoholics who reason it must've been OK for them to drive because they made it home safe, some of these old Cold Warriors seem to think the whole thing was a good idea.

Knocking down an object we've been able to track for years with a prep time for re-targeting in weeks or months isn't an overwhelming thumbs up on the system. It's just a fancier more-expensive Maginot Line.


I suppose missile defense might work against the very small countries with delusions of grandeur, but I just don't see it being as cost effective or reliable as turning a few of their key scientists and engineers.

"...disaster--a breakdown in great power relations, new arms races, massive nuclear proliferation, etc." Really, Matt?

One might think that your reaction to a boiler-plate description of current policy is a result of election-year adrenaline. Personally I don't see much likelihood of dramatic policy change here any time soon no matter who gets elected.

If a Democrat is elected they won't be shooting down satellites to sabre rattle with the Chinese or setting up anti-ballistic missile systems in eastern Europe to piss off the Russians. If you don't believe that those are evidence of "dramatic policy change" you'll be able to cast your vote for McCain with a clear conscience. Personally any movement away from these destabilizing policies of the Republican party will be a big change for the good.

Shooting down the satellite was not a White House decision, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that Presidents Obama or Clinton would have objected. Likewise, I haven't seen any sign that either candidate would reverse course missile defense policy.

But then, as candidates, their job is to make everyone think that they agree with them.


Comments closed March 06, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.