http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11990200
Great article on the Europeans and their rush to embrace BMD.
I think that it's pretty clear that Russia is also being targeted by a missile defence system in Poland. The scariest thing is that if, god forbid, the shit hits the fan and Russia tries to mount a limited missile attack on, say, Western Europe, they'll be forced to escalate right away. No single warhead strike, because the risk of interception would be too high. They'll have to launch at least a dozen to ensure that one gets through. That was one of the major arguments against Star Wars back in the day. MAD kept us safe for five decades. Is it really worth it to throw it away? Especially for such a leaky, limited, and dubiously effective system. To me, it just seems like poking the Russians (and Chinese) in the eye for no reason. The Chinese situation is more alarming. They've maintained a very limited deterrent for the last four decades. With these interceptors, they'll have to dramatically increase their number of ICBMs from their current ~25 in order to ensure an effective deterrent.
Come now, the likelihood of nuclear war on the continent is pretty slim, particularly given how close Poland and the Czech republic are to Russia itself.
I agree that MAD kept us safe for decades. However, Europe and the US aren't really worried about responsible major powers like Russia or China setting off a nuclear dispute. Iran on the other hand, sends out maps with Italy its missile range ring and makes public pronouncements on wiping Israel off the map.
I am skeptical about ABM at its current stage. But as an aerospace engineer, I will tell you that it is within the realm of possibility that the technology can be developed and improved to provide an effective defence. Air to Air missiles already do the bullet-on-bullet thing at closure rates, sometimes exceed Mach 6. Given enough time and resources, I have no doubt an effective system can be developed. And I am pretty sure, that's what scares the Russians. Everybody knows, with tech, its always version 2 that matters.
There is a compromise solution. Both sides can agree to a limited deployment of ABMs in a defined area. The template for this could be the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty or even the SALT series of treaties. This would address European and US concerns and assure Russia that their deterrent is not being eroded.
China is an altogether different story. North East Asia is definitely one of the world's flashpoints. We have the Koreans, the Japanese and the Chinese, who all think they are the superior race and feel no compulsion on hiding that attitude from their neighbours. Incidentally, it is US involvement that keeps the region from exploding. Japan and South Korea have not developed nuclear weapons and in turn have come under the American nuclear umbrella. As such China sees no need to increase the size of its deterrent. That balance might upset a little if the US deploys BMD in NE Asia. However, when Chinese ICBMs can incinerate major cities in the CONUS, its highly unlikely that China will win the argument that its deterrent is being significantly eroded.
As for the Iranians, this multibillion dollar system makes no sense. If we were able to deter the Soviet Union and the Chinese for decades, why couldn't we do the same with far-more-overwhelming superiority over whatever system Iran fields? And if they really do go insane and try to attack a Western city, it's not going to be with missiles. They'll just smuggle one in, getting around any interceptors and giving them plausible deniability.
Asked and answered. It's Iranian bluster driving this one. As long as they keep claiming that they can put satellites in space, and hint at their desire to "fix" the middle east, and get the "Shia bomb" they will remain the target of European and American military planners.
I still find it amusing that the Europeans who have never seen eye-to-eye with the US efforts on BMD, are suddenly tripping over themselves to get their own program in place now that Iran is progressing towards better capabilites. But I guess, when the guns pointed at you, things look quite different.
Remember that Gorbachev repeatedly offered to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons (or most weapons--whatever the Americans preferred), a suggestion that the Americans repeatedly turned down. It's in Reagan's diaries, actually, that he found the idea very appealing. Unfortunately, his advisors, including Dick Cheney, shot the idea down quite quickly.
It's highly unlikely that would have worked. Remember, NATO had a first use policy, to use nukes to destroy the Soviet armoured thrust that would try and split the continent. France had the force de frappe doctrine that provided for nuking Soviet forces if they were ever in a position to threaten France. Given US committments to NATo (and by extension the defence of Europe), it would have been impossible for the US to simply give up its weapons. Indeed a number of European countries, did not develop nuclear weapons on the express guarantee that the US nuclear umbrella would keep Europe safe. Indeed NATO was founded on this principle. If the US gave up its nukes, it would have been all but guaranteed that a number of European countries would have pursued their own nuclear weapons programs.
