Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Russia is a rising power? In what way? Petro/gas dollars?

This reminds me of the 1970ish idea that the Saudis would buy the west... the thought that natural resources are a trump card, when in reality their worth is derivative of productive free markets.

I mean, come on! Does anyone expect Tehran to pop a couple off toward Poland?

Oh, c'mon....

I'm not naive enough to think that one long-range goal, some decades down the line, would be complete coverage against missiles in sufficient density to deter even the Russians or the Chinese, or at least to force them into spending sufficient reserves of cash to keep them busy. That's why Putin is unhappy. He's not a ool, and he worries about things that will happen after his tenure. (And that's why the Poles, and, increasingly, Europe, is coming on board with the idea.)

But, that doesn't mean that's all it is, nor does it mean that a central European station in Poland or the Czech Republic, or thereabouts, wouldn't be useful: Draw a great circle route from Iran to the United States, and it passes over that region quite nicely. Now, do I think that Iran is going to pop a nuke off at the United States?

Ah, no.

But the virtue of nuclear weapons is in the threat, moreso than the execution. Witness North Korea, then Witness Iran since they're following something very similar to that strategy. A system which changes the strategic psychology of the situation would seem to be a potential plank in... exporting security in the nuclear age. Or in other words, the nuclear genie is completely out of the bottle, if second and third tier states can realistically aspire to them. Missile defense is one rational response to it. Not the only one, but definitely one.

Hmm...seems to me that putting the anti-missile missile launch sites in Poland deploys them in the path any ICBMs would take on their way from Iran towards the CONUS. I know, that doesn't necessarily relate to the 'why a missile defense' question, nor does it take into account the arguably remote likelihood of Iran somehow building an ICBM that would work.

The simple fact of building the system could be enough to dissuade potential Islamic missileers from moving forward with a development program.

I refuse to buy into the notion that Bush and Cheney are idiots. I think they're both quite principled, but their principles are increasingly dated and more unworkable as globalization proceeds apace.

Human civilization has a resilient self-centering routine. Whatever the current US regime has done, is doing, or will do that is in error will be inevitably corrected, one way or another, and globalization will continue.

Stationing ABMs in Poland make sense if you are defending the US against ICBMs coming from Iran. In order for an Iranian ICBM to get to the US, the most likely course is to go over Central Europe, towards the North Pole, back over Greenland to the US. Its a shorter distance than say traveling a equatorial route.

Of course, Iran has no ICBMs or nuclear warheads, so this is all theoretical. In that light, Russia rightly feels threatened by even a small deployment of ABMs. Because they know, the Central Europeans, who rightfully feel threatened by Russia, will clamor for a more expansive system to guard against Russian nukes.

You should reconsider this. Take a look at ballistic flight paths from Iran to either the US or UK. Both go directly over central Europe.

It's no surprise that the system could also be used to protect against Russia years from now or that Russia is upset. This may be part of the logic (or lack thereof), but the flight path is legit.

Seems like a 21st century Maginot Line. How many guided munitions can just one B-52 hold? Surely some would make it through even a system that worked well.

5th paragraph, 3rd sentence should be "To the extent".

I think the right and left hands know what they are doing. It's allowing multiple brains to control them that seems to be the problem ... brains that seem to have agreed to disagree ...

yep. thanks, Christopher :-)

In order to protect Europe from conventionally armed Iranian missiles, which they do possess right now, it would probably be more efficient to position a missile defense system in Greece or Italy. However, is there anybody who thinks that either of those countries domestic politics would permit such basing?

An antimissile system based in Poland can protect Europe from Iranian blackmail. It is also a way of rewarding the Poles for their cooperation over the last few years. The Poles, unlike the Russians have a whole lot of realistic reason to feel paranoid about their neighbors. The more US military bases in Poland, the happier the Poles will be. If the Iranians cannot intimidate the Europeans, that is a good thing.

I am sorry that the Russians are paranoid about this, but they would be better off investing their paranoia in protecting Siberia from China over the next century.