Posts Tagged ‘missile defense’

Speaking more of the Missile stuff it also a question of the deterrent value I have another question. What is the actual goal? If the goal is deterrence that you might not get what you are paying for. Consider the following:

Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.

Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.

Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.

If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.

However if the goal is to appease Russia and Putin then it’s a great plan, but hey not to worry they said it’s ok and it’s not like the Pols think we are selling them out or something. Oh wait:

Strategic ally? Mainstay of our security? End of illusions. United States of America, for which we have for each call, turned his back to us. U.S. President lightly tossed into the trash heap construction of the Poland and the Czech anti-missile shield. The massive military installation was to give special meaning to us in NATO and to strengthen our position towards Russia. But America, instead of Warsaw, he prefers dialogue with Moscow. Yesterday the whole world went round decision Barack Obama Kremlin triumphs, and the Poles have been exposed to the wind.

Hey maybe it’s the Buchanan “Don’t defend Poland and WWII is a fight between Hitler and Russia” plan all over again! Change we can believe in!

Well I’m sure we can straighten it out with the Polish Prime minister, if we was willing to take our calls that is.

One of the more reasonable arguments concerning the White Houses’ missile defense move is the cost savings it entails. It sounds pretty good but it is deceptive.

First of all political capital and possibility monetary capital was spent to get the permission to put the stuff there in the first place. Now that it will not be deployed that is all now a loss.

Second of all it means if either the technology or threat changes then we would have to spend it all again, only this time we would have less credibility and it would have a higher cost in political and financial capital, in fact it might not even be in time. Sort of like the four stage strategy of diplomacy via Sir Humphrey starting around 6 min in this clip or if you just want the meat at 7:40

If your goal is to actually do nothing then it’s a great plan. If your goal is you know actual deterrence it’s not a good idea. It’s like losing money in a machine and then just putting more in again instead of getting your quarters back first.

But Datechguy you say: Aren’t these missiles actually better than the ground stuff and more flexable? It’s the arugment in the LGF thread on the subject that was offered and here is my answer verbatim:

Those things are true in the physical sense but it is a worse deterrent in a political sense. If a country is under actual threat there is little question in the mind of the potential aggressor that it will use a deterrent under it’s own control on it’s own soil.

If the deterrent is not on their own soil then the political will of the guarantor is taken into effect. Europe’s graveyards are full of casualties of the lack of political will.

That’s why US troops South Korea are a more effective deterrent then a promise to deploy troops would be. It’s also why we actually had troops in Europe instead of relying on a nuclear deterrent. Your more likely to stay in the pot if you already have money in it.

That is the reality.