The leaders of Russia foam at the mouth whenever the subject of ABM systems comes up. Can anyone explain why the Russians persistantly regard defensive systems as an existential threat to them?
They are and have been worried that a missile defense in the West would open them up to a first strike that they would have no adequate response to, or perhaps more realistically, that they could be pressured into actions by the subtle use of the threat that The West™ could attack them and Russia couldn’t effectively respond. IMHO, they think that because if the shoe was on the other foot THEY would be using that sort of pressure or thinking in those terms.
-XT
Because a missile defensive system can be used to prevent retaliatory strikes just as well as first strikes. Now, if you don’t trust NATO, or consider NATO an intrusion into your geopolitical sphere of influence (see Georgia) and they have the ability to swat away your nuclear response at will why on earth would you be happy with it?
Missile defense systems are weapons systems themselves.
It’s not hard to understand why a country would not like the idea of a ring of weapons, which could easily be used for offensive purposes, being placed just outside the borders.
I don’t see how this is a factor, though. Russia can easily get by the meager defenses planned either because 1) Their missiles are too advanced for it or 2) they can easily overwhelm it with numbers.
I seriously doubt they would nuke Georgia. That’d be beyond stupid and if they were going with conventional warheads, then again, they can easily overwhelm the defense.
If they were getting into a nuclear exchange with the US, then I doubt they’d be firing just a few missiles. If it comes to that, each country will be trying for total or near total annihilation.
Except the Russian’s know something you seemingly don’t (though it’s pretty common knowledge)…namely, that their missile systems have been poorly maintained and supported since the fall of the old USSR (hell, even before that), and they don’t have a very high confidence that they will all work…or, that most of them will work. And we are just talking about the missiles here, not even getting into whether the nukes will work. Even the US, with our huge military budget, there is some question as to how many of our own nukes will actually detonate if we ever need them too. The Russians have been cash strapped wrt their military for decades now.
This isn’t the cold war, so I doubt that the first stage would be an all out exchange of nuclear tipped missiles. This missile defense, however, takes out that as an option for the Russians…and they must have some level of anxiety over how their system would fair against that defense even in a full on exchange. If they weren’t then they wouldn’t have a problem with it, if as you say it won’t be very effective. Right?
-XT
Russia has politics too. Existential threats don’t have to be real, just the existential fear.
No you’re missing my point. A defense system that effectively reduces your capability to deter an initial strike reduces your options.
Now if this was a US shield with Canada next door there would be no issues. The two countries trust each other. Russia does not trust NATO and NATO has both expanded into what Russia considers it’s geopolitical sphere. The 2008 South Ossetia war would’ve been interesting had Georgia not only had the ear of the Bush administration but was also a provisional member of NATO. Russia, I would imagine, has no desire to allow any reduction in it’s potential options and so protests accordingly.
We tend not to think of the thread of nuclear war and total destruction to be a possibility anymore - as if it were a bygone era that simply doesn’t exist. And while we’re certainly at the lowest risk point we’ve ever been at, the weapons exist and are still in play. Who knows what the geopolitical situation will be in 20 years?
The more one side has the potential to strike the other with greater punishment inflicted than loss, the more incentive they have to resolve that situation with a first strike. Imagine in 1985 if the US had the perfect ICBM that had a 30 second travel time, worked 100% reliably, and we had a firm grasp on the locaton of all the russian nuclear assets. We’d be pretty much forced strategically to initiate a first strike to eliminate the possibility that they’d ever launch on us.
ABM systems work the same way - the more effective your ABM systems are, the more incentive you have to make a first strike. Russia doesn’t want us testing, deploying, and developing these systems - while their missile fleet ages - because depending on the changing geopolitical situation, there may come a time in the future again when a first strike becomes a viable option for us.
It’s unlikely, but who knows what the future brings? Certainly when you’re gambling with your very existance, you’re going to fight anything at all that takes you in that sort of direction. ABM systems are inherently destabilizing, hence why we agreed by treaty (well, sort of) to stop developing them - both sides knew it would make nuclear war more likely.
What is the objection to letting Russia help man the missile shield? I’ve heard that Nato, the US, or both, said, “No,” but I don’t know why.
I really think this is a big part of it. They can’t appear to be weak on an issue they have always taken a hard line on in the past. I think by now they’re pretty sure we have no intention of a first strike, but a defense system does in fact compromise thier military position and that simply can’t be tolerated from a political perspective. Their decline has bruised egos and this is just one more slap.
Just my 2¢
Are you serious? Russia is not an ally or member of NATO.
We don’t trust the Russians. If they start manning it, the information on how the system runs could easily find its way into the hands of nations that we are even more concerned about (Iran, China).
Pretty simple really…they aren’t members of NATO. Why would we or NATO let them be involved in military systems that they aren’t a part of??
They could always apply to join, however, though it would mean some significant political changes they’d need to undergo. But there are several previous Warsaw Pact nations who are now in NATO, so I don’t think there is anything barring the Russians from joining and getting their own missile defense system…except the fact that they don’t want to and aren’t willing to do the things they would have to in order to be a member, of course. 
-XT
The point that a anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense system is itself a weapon (or more properly, part of the overall system that provides a strategic advantage) has already been made, but one also has to understand the Russian mindset, which comes from centuries of being repeatedly invaded from all directions. Although the formation of the Soviet Union and (after WWII) the Warsaw Pact was ostensibly due to the expansionary ideology of Marxist-Leninism, a more deeper examination of the sociopolitics of the Soviet Union reveals that it was primarily driven by a desire to create a buffer zone between Mother Russia and the rest of the world; ditto for the Mongolian Peoples’ Republic, which despite the supposed brotherhood of international Communism actually served as a buffer zone against the hated Chinese, especially after the Sino-Soviet split. Surrounding the much reduced areas of Russian influence with nations that aligned with NATO and the United States has the perception of being a threat, even if Ruissian ballistic weapon systems can easily penetrate the supposed “shield” provided by ABM and the supposed intent is to protect against an attack by a “rogue state”.
As a practical matter, even if the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense were capable of intercepting modern Russian ballistic missiles, they would be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity that could be launched, so in terms of the impact upon deterrence it is marginal at best. However, it does give Russian leaders a reason for saber-rattling and devoting substantial budget to developing new systems. Note this isn’t a uniquely Russian perspective; the “missile gap” and subsequent build-up that Kennedy that campaigned to the White House upon in 1960 was fundamentally the same argument and with the same lack of practical basis.
Stranger
This. Imagine if Russia or Iran proposed installing an ABM or other weapon system in Cuba. Even if it represented a minimal or merely hypothetical threat to us, we wouldn’t be blase about it. We have all sorts of ridiculous fears.
Is there any reason why Russia does not or cannot develop its own missile shield?
I think the more important consideration is that installing a missile shield in Eastern Europe is seen as an unnecessary provocation by the West that upsets an often tense status quo. It’s not that the missile shield would necessarily be effective, but that it riles people up in Russia.
It would be cheaper to build a “Doomsday” device-and let it be. All this Cold War stuff-what is the point?
What would be the problem with both sides installing missile defenses at the same time? That way, the balance (and MAD, such as it is) would still be maintained, while decreasing the overall risk to both sides.