Missile Defense
For a few decades now, the US has been noodling with missile defense systems to protect itself against a nuclear attack. And the rest of the world is pissed. Why? Well, imagine being in a room full of people with guns, and you're the only one with a bullet proof vest. Everybody would hate you, because you can shoot them in the chest, but they can't shoot you in the chest.
A missile defense system is a smart idea. If it works, there are no drawbacks for the United States. We'd be able to protect ourselves from nuclear attacks. But there would be drawbacks for the rest of the world. The scales of power would be dramatically tilted in our favor. Of course, nuclear war is not imminent, but you never know. The fact that Russia is getting really pissed at our efforts to establish missile defense is both understandable, and worrisome.
If we have missile defense, Russia's nuclear arsenal would theoretically be obsolete. In other words, they could be attacked by us, but would not be able to attack us. The Cold War is over, but many people conveniently ignore the fact that it wasn't that long ago that Russia was the USSR. People here don't really pay attention to the problems Russia is having in becoming a capitalist democracy. People also don't realize that Russia has an estimated 16,000 nuclear warheads (about half are operational).
The point is, a missile defense system is a tactically defensive weapon. It prevents us (in theory) from being attacked, or minimizes the damage of an attack. But this makes it a strategically offensive weapon.
There's a difference between tactics and strategy. Tactics are small scale methods that apply for an instant. Strategies are larger scale methods that apply for a duration of time. For example, a tactical bomber in World War II would go out and attack individual tanks in the battlefield. And a strategic bomber in WW II would bomb an entire tank factory. Tactics have an immediate impact, strategies take longer but can have much larger impacts. Tactics win battles, strategies win wars.
So the missile defense system is tactically defensive. It can only be used as a defensive weapon. But it gives the holder of the system theoretical immunity to launch nuclear attacks. If the system works, there is no threat of a successful counterattack.
As I said above, a missile defense system is good for the US, but it's horrible for the world. And it isn't just because the US would have an upper hand. Mutual Assured Destruction (Wikipedia Listing) is a fundamental element of nuclear deterrence. In short M.A.D. means that nuclear powers like Russia or the US won't attack each other because both are so loaded with nukes, that neither could possibly survive full-scale nuclear war. But with a working missile defense system, M.A.D. goes out the window. There'd be no deterrent for the US to start a nuclear war. Now, we're not close to that, but you never know what might happen 10, 20, 30, or 200 years down the road.
But there's a solution. Instead of the US constructing its own nuclear defense system, we should be spearheading an effort to construct a global missile defense system. Each country could control their own defensive area. Russia would be able to operate their own system, the US their own, the UK, France, China, and so on. This system would function as a deterrent to any nuclear attack, even an attack by rogue nuclear nations (which are unaffected by the M.A.D. doctrine).
The world will probably never be free of nuclear weapons, but it could be free of the threat of attack if there were an effective global missile defense system. In the history of the world, no weapon has ever been totally banned, benevolently abandoned, or agreed to be dismantled. H0wever, countless different weapons have been forgotten and never used because they are obsolete. A GLOBAL missile defense system can make nuclear arsenals obsolete, but a missile defense system owned and operated by the US, probably shared with NATO but still run by us, does not make nukes obsolete.
A missile defense system is a smart idea. If it works, there are no drawbacks for the United States. We'd be able to protect ourselves from nuclear attacks. But there would be drawbacks for the rest of the world. The scales of power would be dramatically tilted in our favor. Of course, nuclear war is not imminent, but you never know. The fact that Russia is getting really pissed at our efforts to establish missile defense is both understandable, and worrisome.
If we have missile defense, Russia's nuclear arsenal would theoretically be obsolete. In other words, they could be attacked by us, but would not be able to attack us. The Cold War is over, but many people conveniently ignore the fact that it wasn't that long ago that Russia was the USSR. People here don't really pay attention to the problems Russia is having in becoming a capitalist democracy. People also don't realize that Russia has an estimated 16,000 nuclear warheads (about half are operational).
The point is, a missile defense system is a tactically defensive weapon. It prevents us (in theory) from being attacked, or minimizes the damage of an attack. But this makes it a strategically offensive weapon.
There's a difference between tactics and strategy. Tactics are small scale methods that apply for an instant. Strategies are larger scale methods that apply for a duration of time. For example, a tactical bomber in World War II would go out and attack individual tanks in the battlefield. And a strategic bomber in WW II would bomb an entire tank factory. Tactics have an immediate impact, strategies take longer but can have much larger impacts. Tactics win battles, strategies win wars.
So the missile defense system is tactically defensive. It can only be used as a defensive weapon. But it gives the holder of the system theoretical immunity to launch nuclear attacks. If the system works, there is no threat of a successful counterattack.
As I said above, a missile defense system is good for the US, but it's horrible for the world. And it isn't just because the US would have an upper hand. Mutual Assured Destruction (Wikipedia Listing) is a fundamental element of nuclear deterrence. In short M.A.D. means that nuclear powers like Russia or the US won't attack each other because both are so loaded with nukes, that neither could possibly survive full-scale nuclear war. But with a working missile defense system, M.A.D. goes out the window. There'd be no deterrent for the US to start a nuclear war. Now, we're not close to that, but you never know what might happen 10, 20, 30, or 200 years down the road.
But there's a solution. Instead of the US constructing its own nuclear defense system, we should be spearheading an effort to construct a global missile defense system. Each country could control their own defensive area. Russia would be able to operate their own system, the US their own, the UK, France, China, and so on. This system would function as a deterrent to any nuclear attack, even an attack by rogue nuclear nations (which are unaffected by the M.A.D. doctrine).
The world will probably never be free of nuclear weapons, but it could be free of the threat of attack if there were an effective global missile defense system. In the history of the world, no weapon has ever been totally banned, benevolently abandoned, or agreed to be dismantled. H0wever, countless different weapons have been forgotten and never used because they are obsolete. A GLOBAL missile defense system can make nuclear arsenals obsolete, but a missile defense system owned and operated by the US, probably shared with NATO but still run by us, does not make nukes obsolete.
posted by rob | 1:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home