Who else can understand or appreciate the Russian opposition to Europe based missile defense?

I only understand it from the perspective that it is an endless font of political win for Russia. The pacifists of the West gain a little power every time Russia criticizes missile defense. Over a long period of time that erodes overall Western military investment and perhaps more specifically allows Russian ballistic missile defenses to increase at a faster rate the NATO/The West. Before we know it Russia has credible ABM systems and with them an asymmetric advantage. Not to mention with the Obaminator's pandering to every potential enemy the credibility of the USA dives with every Russian advance and press release. A strong US president could turn the argument against the Russians.

 

With that advantage Russia has benefited itself and can look at China and say, "hey, look what we did, harmed your other major opponent, the USA, making them more vulnerable to your ballistic missiles." Followed soon after by, "Since we did this nice thing for you, would you be interested in jumpstarting your ABM capabilities with a sizeable investment in our systems?"

 

Russia wins everywhere and if Iran happens to lob a few ballistic missiles into Europe and does some major damage Russia either wins big or loses big. That is the only area where I see a down side for Russia, potential backlash when the general public is educated about how Russia marginalized ABM investment that could well have prevented Iran's missiles from getting through.

I only understand it from the perspective that it is an endless font of political win for Russia. The pacifists of the West gain a little power every time Russia criticizes missile defense. Over a long period of time that erodes overall Western military investment and perhaps more specifically allows Russian ballistic missile defenses to increase at a faster rate the NATO/The West. Before we know it Russia has credible ABM systems and with them an asymmetric advantage. Not to mention with the Obaminator's pandering to every potential enemy the credibility of the USA dives with every Russian advance and press release. A strong US president could turn the argument against the Russians. With that advantage Russia has benefited itself and can look at China and say, "hey, look what we did, harmed your other major opponent, the USA, making them more vulnerable to your ballistic missiles." Followed soon after by, "Since we did this nice thing for you, would you be interested in jumpstarting your ABM capabilities with a sizeable investment in our systems?" Russia wins everywhere and if Iran happens to lob a few ballistic missiles into Europe and does some major damage Russia either wins big or loses big. That is the only area where I see a down side for Russia, potential backlash when the general public is educated about how Russia marginalized ABM investment that could well have prevented Iran's missiles from getting through.

 

Great post!

 

From the nuclear arms control and deterrence perspective, here's some devil's advocate:

 

Country A and Country B have a long history of facing each other across the strategic nuclear divide.

 

After decades of this 'Cold War', Country B collapses politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily.

 

Country B starts on the long road of rebuilding its political, economic and military might, but in large part the military component must heavily on its remaining strategic nuclear capability for self-defense and deterrence.

 

Country A continues an expansion of its military alliances in the old battleground theaters.

 

Country A and Country B meanwhile, continue to make strides on nuclear disarmament.

 

Then Country A declares an intent to deploy new ballistic missile defense capability in close proximity to Country B, in fact right in the midst of that old battleground, but also says: 'don't worry about that, Country B, this is all about Country C and Country D, not you'.

 

Country B seeks guarantees from Country A that the new BMD system won't be used against Country B.

 

Country A is reluctant to provide such guarantees but continues to make broad assurances.

 

Should Country B be worried at all?

I don't know why Russia would want said assurances, because that implies they'd want to attack NATO with ballistic missiles...

I don't know why Russia would want said assurances, because that implies they'd want to attack NATO with ballistic missiles...

 

Well that's the whole nuclear deterrence dynamic, isn't it?

 

Why would you want to make a new weapon system or even a new defense system (e.g. SDI/Star Wars) unless you had some intent of using it to further your objectives? It goes both ways.

 

So, from the Russian perspective, European missile defense is just as easily about building a defensive system where the threat of retaliation is negated, therefore opening the way to impecunious first strike capability.

Of course, I think the whole "legal guarantees" idea is worth as much paper.

 

Who thinks the European missile defense system would not be used to defend against Russian ballistic missiles if European sites were targeted, regardless of any paper assurances?

 

And if that's the case, why not provide the guarantee? Wouldn't it serve US/NATO purposes to openly and publicly satisfy Russian concerns and thereby defuse its argument against European missile defense?

I think the system would be used to defend Europe against missiles flying in from Russia. That's why there can be no guarantee.

 

I don't think for a second the defense poses any ability to prevent Russia from making a successful ballistic missile attack against Europe. The number of interceptors and their capabilities preclude the defense from being capable against anything but a small attack. This is why there is no technical need for a guarantee.

 

Such a guarantee would not lead to Russia stopping this silly game of words. Next they'll focus on their desire to be integrated into the system and the PR message will change to, "NATO is hiding something since they won't share the operation of the site with us."

I don't think for a second the defense poses any ability to prevent Russia from making a successful ballistic missile attack against Europe. The number of interceptors and their capabilities preclude the defense from being capable against anything but a small attack. This is why there is no technical need for a guarantee.

 

I wouldn't assume that any such ballistic missile attack must necessarily be large. It may not even be nuclear.

the rhetoric continues ...

 

From RIA Novosti

 

[excerpt]

 

8/6/2011 22:09

© RIA Novosti. Ilya Pitalev

 

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov on Wednesday said that Russia would develop its own offensive nuclear force if NATO fails to come to agreement over the European defense shield.

 

"We have no other way, otherwise we'll just have to develop an arms race," Serdyukov said after a Russia-NATO meeting in Brussels.

LOL, yep, Russia will be developing an arms race because it doesn't have enough nuclear ballistic missiles already, nor operable decoys nor maneuvering warheads in development nor SSBNs that can fire SLBMs the system can't intercept. Have fun with that Russia.

 

Gotta give them credit for trying and winning the PR game though.

Gotta give them credit for trying and winning the PR game though.

 

Its 90 percent of the "war".

 

And think of whom the PR campaign is aimed at: a populace already largely critical/suspicious of US/NATO.

From DefenseNews

 

[excerpt]

 

Russia Says NATO Not Listening on Missile Shield

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 8 Jun 2011 17:39

 

BRUSSELS - NATO and Russia failed to reach a breakthrough on a missile shield project in Europe on June 8 with the Russian defense minister complaining that Moscow's demands were falling on deaf ears.

 

After talks between NATO defense ministers and their Russian counterpart in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen dismissed Russian demands for a legal guarantee that the project was not directed at Russia.

Er, seems like Cold War flashbacks to me...

 

Step One: Make large outrageous / silly demands loudly

Step Two-A: Play the wounded peaceful party when demands are rejected

Step Two-B: Claim credit for making the warmongers listen to the peaceful demands of the world

Step Three: Milk PR for every last drop

Step Four: Do what you were going to do originally anyway

 

They already had plans for an upgraded nuclear triad underway, after all.