US missile defence plans in Eastern Europe

[Lars]

Lars,

Capacity is not the same as threat.

I know.

But we can measure capacity.

Intent changes.

[Scott B]

Hardly surprising that the Russians don't like anything that hurts their ability to intimidate their former Soviet imperial possessions. I see no sign that they're going to stop thinking this way anytime soon.

The chief argument in strategic/missile balance terms is that while a small ballistic missile defense network in places like Eastern Europe and Alaska is inadequate to the task of defending against a full-on massive strike, it has been argued that much less would be necessary if the U.S./NATO launched a successful surprise attack to destroy Russia's active nuclear weapons.

It's worth noting that a limited defensive system also frustrates limited attack options, for good or for ill, depending on the other side's intentions. With ten interceptors to defend an area, it's suddenly very problematic to try to achieve an aim with a small number of attacking warheads. That means either they're dissuaded from a limited attack or they're provoked to deliver a larger attack (which would presumably inspire a greater response).

I like it for other reasons. I like integrating the newer Eastern European members of NATO more closely into the system and boosting their confidence that we're committed to their defense. I like instilling some doubt in the Russians' abilities to intimidate others with nuclear missiles, and causing them to spend more money on counter-countermeasures. And I like the idea of a back-up plan in the event of an accidental launch.

Russia may no longer be a superpower but I think she clearly qualifies for great power status for several reasons; some of these are things like control of natural resources and access to them, a sophisticated, capable, and aggressive set of intelligence services, and historical/cultural/demographic linkages to a number of states on the Russian periphery. Further, like China, Russia has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and has demonstrated a willingness to set itself up as an alternative to the existing liberal order. But the big thing is the nukes. Small wonder they kick up a fuss when we do something that could, in the long run, undermine one of their most potent bargaining tools. Especially given how sensitive they already are given the decline in their conventional forces' reputation compared with the glory days.

[Abbott]

Hardly surprising that the Russians don't like anything that hurts their ability to intimidate their former Soviet imperial possessions.

Small wonder they kick up a fuss when we do something that could, in the long run, undermine one of their most potent bargaining tools.

There it is.

[John Kettler]

Scott B,

Russia is most assuredly a superpower; it's just not as obviously one. It has weapons at its disposal, though, that are so advanced most of our our scientists can't even begin to fathom them. For details on some of them, please see

http://www.cheniere.org/images/weapons/index.html

for an overview, but the nitty gritty's here.

FER-DE-LANCE (1st Edition)

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html

FER-DE-LANCE (2nd Edition) Not cheap, but in-depth, rigorously documented, and will absolutely shatter your model of what's possible. We are, most assuredly, NOT in Kansas anymore!

http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-fl.htm

I don't have this one yet, but I will ere long. I believe this is the author's last work on the subject. He says he received a visit from government agents and was pointedly disinvited to continue discussing and writing about this weapon topic, along with a related hot topic, applied agrav. All that work went black circa 1956!

http://www.cheniere.org/books/oblivion/toc.htm

AFTER you've looked at some of the above, please take a look at what the man himself has to say about how he and his work are viewed in the U.S. Intel community. He also confirms what I'd deduced/intuited (bit of both, actually) was the country whose advanced tech had saved us repeatedly. It certainly explains our otherwise self-destructive Middle East policy!

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/061708.htm

Regards,

John Kettler