Nuh-uh, you’re off base here, too. I’ll set aside the debatable links between the Soviet Union and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, or links between the Soviets and the PLO, and just comment that the Soviets were much more successful in supporting revolutions than terrorist leaders have been. Cuba, Central America, Angola, Vietnam, North Korea – the list goes on and on. And let’s not forget Grenada!! (gasp!)
Seriously, if you want to talk about destabilizing friendly countries, the Soviets were more successful than Iran by orders of magnitude. Iran is the root of violence, yes, but so far the only country they’ve managed to mess up is their own.
A point that Rambo might argue, perhaps. I think most others would say that the US simply should have stayed out of a war that had more to do with anticolonialism than it did with an actual red tide sweeping the East.
Which is exactly why they’d choose a delivery system other than a missile. If you want to build bomb detectors for ship ports, or mounted on Coast Guard vessels, that’s a more worthwhile defense, since that’s the way we’re most likely to get nuked.
Except that it still didn’t work. Even when they put a beacon on the test warhead, they still couldn’t hit it. That is a valid test; it’s just a valid test which returned the result “failure”.
Nobody ever said that a missile shield is impossible. It’s just impractical. To build a missile defense which actually worked would be insanely expensive, and would only be effective against a highly unlikely attack. As I alluded before, bombs on ships are at least slightly plausible, and a defense against them would cost less, so that makes sense. And energy needs, we know those exist, so that’s also a problem in search of a solution. A missile shield, though, is at best a solution in search of a problem, except that it’s not actually a solution, either.
This is a very valid point, although it does sort of beg the question of why exactly the North Koreans, Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, etc. etc. etc. are all spending huge amounts of time, money and knowhow building ballistic missiles and playing around with fissionable materials.
Sooner or later (i.e. within a decade or so) the Iranians and North Koreans will have missiles that could reach US or allied targets, carrying nuclear warheads or similar, and which are reliable. At that point in time, it would be kinda useful if there was a defence system ready that might reduce their confidence in those weapons. At this moment in time, a decent port security system would certainly be much more useful. And I’m not entirely sure why the Pentagon can’t just dust off the Sentinel blueprints and gussy them up to reflect improvements in technology.
You certainly don’t want to make it more unstable, but in some respects a limited missile shield (one which is known to be easily overwhelmed or limited in scope) could enhance stability - if someone lofts a single missile by mistake, you can might be able to get away with an upper-atmosphere firework and a lot of shouting rather than going “Hey, they nuked Baltimore, possibly by mistake, but now we’re gonna have to nuke one of theirs anyway”. The Moscow ABM system certainly didn’t seem to make much of a difference to US thinking despite being active throughout the “Star Wars” era.
I think, once again the current US administration completely ignores the History and culture of other nations in its foriegn dealings. This is a prime case in point.
The History of Russia and Poland has always been a very testy one. Poland,whether as a recognized nation or not (depending at what point in history you look at), has been used as the corridor of invasion into Russia from Europe on several occasions.
Russia has for 2 centuries tried to keep and exert control over that region to prevent such invasions. Twice they annexed parts of the territory after Poland ceased to be a nation proper in the late 18th century. After world war II, even though they “allowed” Poland to exist as a nation instead of outright annexation the USSR did take some Polish Territory as its own.
The idea of the US… a former enemy placing military arms in Poland will automatically get Russia to react in such a way.
Considering that since Poland became a NATO member Russia has been uneasy with its position in Europe. Remember, NATO was designed as the bulwork against the Former Soviet Union. Its raison d’etre was to be (whether defensive or offensive) in conflict with what is now Russia. This is a fact that has not been forgotten despite all nice talk of Democracy and Capitalism and friendly relations.
Russians are likely to still be wary of Western invasion through Poland. This missle defense is, to Russia, a symbolic reinforcement of their old fears.
That cuts both ways. Poles will always be wary of having the Imperial Russian armies stomping them into submission. Heaven forbit Moscow should ever have to display anything other than contempt for the peoples on their western frontier.
The value of ballistic missiles is that you can use them for blackmail without carrying out an act of war. Iran doesn’t have to issue an ultimatum or declare war or even overtly threaten to wipe you out. All they have to do is put their nukes on alert or move them out onto launchers to make their point.
And even overt blackmail can be done without necessarily escalating a situation. “If you don’t do X, we will be forced to reconsider our ‘no first use’ policy of our nuclear arsenal.”
But blackmail that comes in the form of, “We have vioated your sovereign territory and planted a nuke in a major city or harbor” is an act of war. It’s also horribly destabilizing, because unless you can offer proof you run the risk that your enemy won’t believe you. Then you have to either carry out the threat, in which case your country gets obliterated, or you have to back down and either admit it was a bluff or surrender your nuke.
Yes, if you just want to attack another country out of the blue, smuggling a nuke in might be the preferred way to do it. But that’s not why countries build nuclear arsenals (well, in the case of Iran against Israel, it may be). They build nukes to give them muscle. They’re the great equalizer.
The danger is that if you allow fanatics to have that muscle, their demands may become so extreme that you simply can’t meet them. Now you’re playing nuclear brinksmanship. With a missile shield, even one of limited effectiveness, you have a credible counter to their threats. Without one, it becomes a giant game of chicken. If the Iranians are convinced that the Americans would NEVER sacrifice a major city, regardless of how extreme the demands are that they must meet, then get ready for a wild ride. And hope they don’t miscalculate.
I do think that Poland is very open to the idea of a defensive system for that very reason. I’m just putting Russia’s reaction into a historic context. I would not say they are right or justified in their feelings just that this is how they see the world.
I also say we have to be wary. Russia has been a Great power which collapsed many times before only to reorganize and reassert its place on the world stage.