Missile Defense from Russian point of view

[perfecto25]

heres an article from russiajournal.com, arguing why Bush's decision was wrong. personally, im for the development of such system, but heres an interesting perspective from overseas

------------------------

Winston Churchill once described Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I recalled this formula while trying to find an apt description for Russian-American debates on national missile defense. Absurdity wrapped in nonsense inside rubbish seems most suitable.

For a start, the United States doesn’t have any real need for the system. If a rogue state or terrorist organization really did manage to master both nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic-missile technology, it wouldn’t be able to do so in secrecy (unlike, for example, the secretly prepared terrorist attacks of Sept. 11).

The United States would definitely have the right to destroy these technological facilities with a preventive strike, just as Israel destroyed in its time an Iraqi nuclear reactor. This would be a more radical and effective way of protecting United States territory from terrorist ballistic missiles than would a hypothetical missile-defense system.

This won’t stop the United States, however, from developing this system, or at least carrying out the necessary tests. For the Republican administration, missile defense is not so much a technical question as an ideological or even quasi-religious issue.

But even more absurd is the long and heroic struggle by Russian diplomacy to oppose these U.S. plans. It’s not our business how the Americans define the spectrum of security threats they face, or how they plan to spend their defense budget. The United States is a wealthy sovereign state and has the right to spend its money on whatever programs it wants, even if they are not particularly rational. Our business is to assess whether their plans threaten our national security. For all serious analysts, the answer to this question is a clear "no."

None of the various missile-defense projects currently being examined by the United States pose any threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent in the coming decades. President Vladimir Putin said as much recently, showing that he has been quicker than his diplomats and advisers in understanding this simple truth. But more important again is the fact that in any case, the strategic-stability paradigm based on deterrence through the threat of mutually assured destruction is hopelessly outdated.

Even the two Ivanovs, who have spent years reciting the line that "the 1972 ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability," have now begun calling it "a relic of the Cold War."

Nothing, it seems, should now stand in the way of Russia and the United States developing the "new strategic framework" that President George W. Bush has called for. This would be a strategic framework that would let the United States test and theoretically deploy its much-desired missile-defense system, while at the same time ensuring it does not threaten Russia’s deterrent potential and enables both sides to make major, mutually approved offensive-arms reductions. Russian and U.S. specialists could begin work on such an agreement right away.

But now a new obstacle has arisen, this time on the American side. And again, it is not so much about substance as about the dogma with which the Republicans came to power. The essence of this dogma is to use various pretexts (negotiations take too much time, the Cold War is over, we’re all friends now and friends don’t need treaties) to free the United States from any international legal restrictions in the arms-control sphere, and give Washington the broadest possible choice of unilateral strategic decisions.

But recent events have served to highlight just how inadequate this unilateralist vision is – above all from the point of view of American national interests.

Non-proliferation of arms of mass destruction is becoming a crucial issue for the American national-security system. It is more in the United States’ advantage now than ever before to have legally binding international agreements that can be verified in this area. It would be highly illogical to insist on concluding such agreements in one area of arms control and go all out to avoid them with ideological stubbornness in another area.

The atmosphere and results of Putin’s and Bush’s meeting from Nov. 13-15 give hope that, having become aware of the increasing significance of their de-facto allied relations in the 21st century’s geopolitical structure, Russia and the United States will find the will to break out of this labyrinth of the absurd and overcome their dogmatic differences on missile defense. All the more so as both presidents now realize that this problem, inherited from the already distant 20th century with its now obsolete geopolitical situation, is very low on the new agenda for their two countries’ relations.

In conclusion, I’d like to make a prediction about how the "great debate" on missile defense will finish.

In the next two to three years, the Americans will carry out planned missile-defense tests that formally violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia will either simply close its eyes to this, or both sides will agree on an amendment to the treaty allowing such tests.

The Americans will then lose enthusiasm for their treasured project, and Russia and the United States will simply let the issue drop. The two countries will have far more interesting and constructive agendas to tackle.

As for strategic offensive weapons, the two sides will agree on major reductions (down to 1,500-2,000 warheads) and will commit these undertakings to paper along with verification procedures.

Moscow will want to call this piece of paper a treaty. But if for some psychological reason Washington still sees the word "treaty" as being nothing short of foul and indecent, Moscow will show flexibility and look for a word less likely to wound the sensitive souls of the Republican ideologues. The English language is rich in synonyms, after all – agreement, pact, consent, accord, principles and provisions could all have a role to play.

(The writer is director of the Center for Strategic Research.)

[msoprano]

interesting article..i would have to say that i agree with a lot that is said and they seem to be turning the blind eye to avoid stirring things up....

where did u find that article??

[sassa]

Just a point. If this government was up to anything, as well as other governments, surely they wouldn't tell the public about it, right?

Just wondering...

[momadance]

Originally posted by perfecto25

For a start, the United States doesn't have any real need for the system.

Tell that to the victim's families......

just like how we didnt have any real nead for domestic sucuity a year ago.

How about sadam hussain having chemical wepons, and tring desrpitly to obtain nuclear wepons. add that to the fact that all of these whack ass terrorists's main goal is to destroy the US (and russia soon after that surly) and there is deffinatly a need for this.

and by the way, the us isnt breaking the treaty, we are exercising a right given to any country in the treaty by saying that in 6 months we will begin related testing.

[msoprano]

heres just one of many articles that the system is bogus and indeed does not work and is a waste of money,, this money could be used to beef up domestic security and intelligence....if a missile is launched it wont make any difference casue it will be the end for the planet as we know it....one launch starts a chain reaction and bam, were done...

http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/08/03/conason/index.html