Information
The Collective
ARCHIVES
Thursday, September 17, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

The problem with much of the response to the announcement that the Obama administration has decided to halt the construction of a missile shield based out of Poland and the Czech Republic is that it assume some rather key facts that simply are not in evidence. To wit (in terms of escalating significance to the program):

1) The Iranians do not yet have a nuclear weapon.

2) Even once they get such a weapon, they still have not developed a delivery capability that the missile defense system is targeted at stopping.

3) We have no evidence that the missile defense system under consideration would actually work.

So, the notion that the US government, with some serious fiscal issues on its plate, might decide not to spend a ton of cash on a system that probably won’t work for a threat that is wholly theoretical in nature strikes me as a reasonable move.

Nevertheless, many see this as a major capitulation to Russia, Iran, China (and even to Venezuela). Of course the capitulation thesis folks think that the above facts not in evidence are, indeed, in evidence. They see the theoretical threat as an already existent one and they assume that the missile shield is a proven, reliable technology.

Look, if what the Obama administration was doing was giving up a reliable (if not foolproof) defense against an actual existing threat, then I, too, would find the move problematic. However, again, this is not the case. We are talking here about an unproven, theoretical defense against theoretical, not-yet-existent threats. But as Robert Gard once wrote, for many “missile defense is a theology, not a technology.”

An interesting question will be what we do vis-à-vis Poland and the Czech Republic, as both states will see this move as a loss (mainly, by the way, in terms of the economic impact of US bases). In terms of reassuring those states about US intentions in terms of protecting them from Russian aggression, Robert Farley notes that their membership in NATO is likely sufficient in that regard.

h/t : Robert Farley at LGM (whose post on missile defense is worth reading as well) for the Gard link.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Europe, US Politics, World Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

5 Responses to “Missile Shield Hysteria”

  • el
  • pt
    1. MSS Says:

      I would be curious to know the domestic political angle on this in CzR and Poland.

      Governments in those countries were prepared to ram these missile bases down the throats of their publics–numerous polls showed strong opposition–to ingratiate themselves with the Bush government.

      It was a major strain on the Czech Christian Democratic-Green coalition (which has since collapsed, but not only over this).

      There should be lots of sighs of relief in Prague and Warsaw.

    2. walt moffett Says:

      Then there’s this from Rianovosti which states the change is mainly in what the defense will be.

      A guided missile destroyer or two in the Eastern Med would also provide coverage for some interesting places.

    3. ts Says:

      What I find more problematic is the apparent absence of any consultation with the Poles or Czechs about the decision. It was reported that Pres. Obama called the Czech PM after midnight to give him the news after the US delegation was already enroute. Not exactly a show of respect for a key friend in the region.

      There is another aspect to this and it is how Russia perceives America’s commitment to the security of Eastern Europe with decisions like this. Will this encourage Putin to flex his muscles? I really wonder how the Ukranians and Georgians are feeling now, with this decision creating the appearance that we are retreating in our defense of the region.

    4. A Change in the Defense Plan | Xenia Institute Says:

      [...] PoliBlog |  Look, if what the Obama administration was doing was giving up a reliable (if not foolproof) defense against an actual existing threat, then I, too, would find the more problematic. However, again, this is not the case. We are talking here about unproven, theoretical defense against theoretical, not-yet-existent threats. But as Robert Gard once wrote, for many “missile defense is a theology, not a technology.” An interesting question will be what we do vis-à-vis Poland and the Czech Republic, as both states will see this move as a loss (mainly, by the way, in terms of the economic impact of US bases). In terms of reassuring those states about US intentions in terms of protecting them from Russian aggression, Robert Farley notes that their membership in NATO is likely sufficient in that regard. [...]

    5. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » That About Covers it (Missile Shield Edition) Says:

      [...] Exactly. [...]

    Leave a Reply


    blog advertising is good for you

    Blogroll

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
    ---


    Advertisement

    Advertisement



    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Powered by WordPress