Russia Threatens Nuclear Attack on Poland: Definitely Not A Good Thing

Great Debates
21

Sort of.

The problem with missiel shields is that it deconstructs MAD - and therefore places the part outside the shield in the position of being vulnerable to a nuclear attack.

The point of nuclear weapons, as I am sure you are aware, was originally to blow your enemy up real good - but over the course of the development of spacecraft and truly intercontinental missiles, the purpose of nuclear weapons became a deterrent against the OTHER guy who had them. The maintenance of a nuclear arsenal is a guarantee the other side will not use theirs, since the inevitable result of first use is a retaliatory strike. This is one of the reasons that arms reduction talks started in the 70s and grew from there; as the purpose of nukes went from being fyour biggest offensive weapon to your way of making sure the other guy didn’t use his, the need for enormous arsenals was lost. Countries started basing their strategies not around having 40,000 nukes so you could use them everywhere, but having the right number of nukes that **your enemy would be assured of his own doom if he forced you to use them. **

One of the unspoken rules of the international balance of power is therefore a recognition that this state exists. But that means that by threatening to stop the other enemy from using HIS nukes, you make it possible for you to use your own.

That’s what Russia sees as being threatening about this - well, no, more precisely, it’s one of two things, the other being the smaller of two warring camps, but that’s another issue. the problem with ABM defense is that it’s a defensive weapon that makes you the potential aggressor. If you have a missle shield, you can use your missiles with impunity.

Imagine if the USA or USSR had suddenly invented and started to deploy, over a six month period, a full blown, 100% reliable missile defense in, oh, 1982. What would the result have been? If it’s the USSR, the USA is now facing the possibility of a Soviet enemy who has no reason NOT to launch a war - you can’t nuke them. And the reserve would also be true; if the USA can raise a shield, they can win World War III in a month.

So what do you do? Why, you just might be inclined to start the war BEFORE the shield is up. You can’t trust your enemy to hold that sword over your head; they may SAY it’s for rogue states but if it works, it gives them the jump on you.

That’s why there was an ABM treaty. If you have a perfect shield, you’ve just more reason to use your spear.

22

Ain’t nothin but a thing.

The chance of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia is far less than the chance of another Georgia.

On the flipside, it would be humorous if Poland made an announcement that because of the Russian announcement they were going to develop a nuclear program exactly like Iran’s.

I don’t know if the Russians expected the backlash from all of this. Ukraine is now talking about a missile system in their country. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering promoting Georgia as a NATO partner.

23

And insane as MAD sounded as a doctrine, it worked. The nuclear holocaust clock may have been at 11:55 for many years, but the fact is, it never went to midnight.

On the other hand, when you’re working with rogue states or terrorist organizations, and Bushco notwithstanding, they really do exist, MAD becomes far less effective. But on the third hand, how likely are they to attack with ballistic missiles? <Grump> I’m running out of hands here. These are the kinds of people who are far likelier to get a single nuke than they are to get a long-range missile, and to use the nuke in a truck, a plane, a train, or a boat. They have no set location to retaliate to. We don’t know where Al Qaeda is, just a vague area that happens to contain a lot more civilians than terrorists! We could nuke Tehran, but frankly, I think we can probably leave Iran’s nuke development to Israel - if we provide a bit of material support, they’re really not a threat to us personally. Iran is certainly not going to have any big numbers or really long ranges any time soon, and Israel will squish their tech if they get too far out of line.

This so called missile shield (such an innocuous term) is very easy to be viewed as a change of the status quo by Russia et al. It’s just the kind of cowboy excuse for diplomacy that I came to expect from Reagan and Bush 43. I don’t think either them seem to understand that Russia over many centuries developed pessimism, fear and paranoia to a fine art. No boom today. Boom tomorrow (a virtual pat on the back to anyone who recognizes that reference). Whether legitimately or not, these guys are at least nervous and at most scared, because with our so-called missile shield, if it works as promised (and I’m not all that sure it would), it upsets the balance as a deterrent. It sounds good on the surface - who doesn’t want to be more protected? But as RickJay said, it actually is not as good as it looks at first glance.

24

I should have worded that better: I’m glad that MAD didn’t work. If it had, most of us would probably be dead now. We made it through the Cold War not because of MAD, but despite it. So far as I can tell, the reason we made it through is that most people are fundamentally decent.

I’m having a difficult time imagining that-- The “sudden” part, at least. Development of something like a missile shield is going to be an incremental process, and neither side is ever going to have all that large a lead on it. You’d probably start deploying the system when it got to the point where it’d stop about 10% of incoming missiles, and you’d never get to the point where it’d stop 100%. Even with a really good missile defense, it’s still going to be very much in your best interest for it to never need to be used.

25

I disagree, I think we survived because the countries with nuclear weapons were run by people who didn’t want to die.

That changes when you have a country where people WANT to kill themselves for whatever goofy reason.

26

Well, if it didn’t work, wouldn’t the world be destroyed by now?

27

Ah the Ivanova doctrine, its been a while.

Declan

28

The Cuban Missile Crisis? The US would not tolerate missiles in Cuba, even if they were ‘protecting’ Russia from the might of the Brazilian nukes.

I don’t know why you keep parroting the ‘it’s only aimed at Iran’ line. That’s the line put out for the rubes. Your very presence here should suggest the ability to look a little deeper.

Anti-missile defences are against missiles, not nationalities. All Russia are saying is that in the event of nuclear conflict anti-missile systems are important targets and will get whacked.

29

It was. And then it was instantly replaced by something even more improbable.
Kidding aside, you’re right.

30

The word of this and previous Russian governments is pretty much worthless.

“On the list” or “off of the list” if its in Russias interest they’ll attack anyone,this is just an attempt to bully Polands government with “what ifs”.

Of course the real crime that Poland has committed is to move from the Russian club to the Western club after all of these decades.

The Russians cant seem to understand that being ocupied by them for decades,having the most basic Human Rights denied to the Poles.
(Self Determination,Free Speech,the right to travel to other countries unhindered,censorship or out right banning of foreign media reports,trial by jury amongst other things)

Add to that the Polish economy being bled to help fund the Russian war machine and forced to follow pretty much useless industrial/commercial doctrines the result that their standard of living was significantly below that of Western Europe

The “benefits” of being in the Russian club doesn’t make them very much loved by their ex vassals or the option of rejoining the Russia club(Albeit of the extreme right persuasion now rather then communist)very attractive.

31

Guys, guys, guys… Please, stop that talking about deconstructing MAD and what-not. Anti-missile shield is capable of taking down couple of nukes at most. And even that only if it had a good day. It does nothing to negate Russia nuclear threat - it’s not going to stop full-scale nuclear attack from Siberian missile silos. It can’t do nothing to prevent launch from, say, Russian sub stationed somewhere on the Pacific. It won’t stop Russians from obliterating Poland using tactical nukes dropped by aircrafts from Kaliningrad Oblast airbases, if they decide so.

Get real. It’s just used by Russians as a pretext for their politics. It’s just stretching muscles and winning some popularity points in own country, as well as trying to scare population of NATO countries (and anybody who might be opposing Russian policy).

32

{{{pat, pat}}}

Well done, sir!

It doesn’t matter whether or not the so-called missile shield is effective or what direction the ‘missile shield’ is intend to protect us from. The point is, whether or not Russia perceives it to be a threat. I believe, given the many centuries during which Russians have had so much practice in raising paranoia to a highly polished art, there is at least some small degree of actual fear in their reaction.

That being said, there is also no question in my mind that the Russians are also using the piddling excuse for an attack in S. Ossetia (which is not to say that Georgia bears no blame at all - they absolutely do.) and the missile shield possibility in Poland as opportunities to threaten their former satellites and discourage them from developing relationships with NATO and the west in general.

33

Can you expand on this? The way I see it, without MAD, we would’ve been left with conventional weapons, which no one would’ve been afraid to use, which would’ve led to a very bloody Cold War, instead of the “no shots fired” one that we had. Maybe you see it differently?

I don’t like the idea of MAD, but my instincts tell me that, given the circumstances, it saved us from a WWIII that last until one side was so depopulated it fell apart, and made WWII look like a scuffle between children.

34

The problem is, there were actually occasions in the Cold War where one side saw the other launch nuclear missiles. Had MAD worked, the response would have been to launch nuclear missiles back, and presto, World War 3. Now, of course, the way history actually turned out, those “known launches” were all in error, but nobody knew that at the time. And also, of course, neither side ever responded to those “launches” with equivalent force. As to why the triggermen didn’t do their jobs, I don’t know, but I suspect it’s just what I said before: Most people are fundamentally decent.

Of course, we were left with conventional weapons, which did get fired many times, just never directly at the US or Russia. The Vietnam and Korean Wars, and all of the Latin American communist revolutions, were all part of the Cold War, and they saw plenty of fighting. Would it have been worse without the specter of nuclear war looming over it all? I don’t know.

35

Chernobyl helped them build up a resistance.

36

I said nothing of the sort, by the way.

37

And you are very correct. Rzeczpospolita reports that in a poll a day after the threat, 60% of Poles supported the ABM agreement, compared to 30% in March 2007.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdNtXPW9-1UZEmhgLC5VZ3dDa25wD92KQFJ80

“It was the first time a majority of Poles surveyed have backed the U.S. missile defense plan, according to lead researcher Maciej Siejewicz from the Gfk Polonia polling agency.”

It’s unclear how much of that opinion shift is due to the Georgia invasion and how much is due to the threat.

38

Well, the plot just thickened a bit, didn’t it?

This is making me nervous. If Poland is a NATO ally and Russia attacks her, we are obliged to defend her. That certainly wouldn’t be a good scenario.

I feel a staredown with Russia coming on.

39

Thing is the Russians know full well that an ABM defense is mediocre at best. At most an ABM system can defend a city and is easily overwhelmed and spoofed (and spoofed on the cheap compared to the very expensive ABM trying to keep up). The Russians even have a new ICBM that purportedly can take evasive (and other) measures in its terminal descent to evade countermeasures.

ABM systems are best as a protection versus countries that have very little in the way of ICBMs such as North Korea or (perhaps someday) Iran. They could have a chance at knocking down the few missiles they could fling around.

In short, the Russians know full well that an ABM defense in Poland in no way actually protects Poland. It is more a political statement than an actual threat.

Further, Russia nuking Poland would be colossally stupid on the Russian’s part. Those nifty nuclear fallout clouds would be coasting over Russia in short order, possibly even blanketing Moscow depending on prevailing winds. As mentioned before this would truly be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. No way they are stupid enough to do that regardless of the provocation. Far more likely they’d go for Poland the good old fashioned way with a zillion tanks.