Sunday, August 03, 2008


Missile Defense

What those who oppose it have in common

The Left hates missile defense. Democrats and those on the Left oppose anything that makes it easier for the US to project power and protect Americans from our enemies.

Russia, not quite an enemy of the US, also hates missile defense, and has reportedly threatened to effectively station bombers in Cuba. Richard Fernandez notes why Russia hates missile defense in Europe:
What a working missile defense shield will do is make any Russian limited WMD attack on the West a very uncertain proposition. While Russia’s arsenal is easily big enough to overwhelm, through sheer numbers, the defensive system based in Poland and the Czech Republic any such attack would also be big enough to guarantee Russia’s destruction in the resulting retaliation. It may be an exaggeration to claim that a missile defense will have the effect of disarming the Kremlin of any viable military response between issuing a diplomatic protest and starting Armaggedon but it is quite clear it threatens to invalidate a large range of the “full spectrum” responses now available to the Russians.
In other words, it places limits on Russia's ability to intimidate American allies.

Fernandez, on why the mullahs hate it:
What a missile defense system in Europe would do is restore the ambiguity inherent in the American deterrent posture even in the event Iran has nuclear weapons. If the Ayatollahs cannot rely on their missiles penetrating the defense, they are faced with possibility that America could actually destroy it utterly, leaving no time for Teheran to even deploy shipping container bombs, in response to any attack Washington considered sufficiently offensive. The Ayatollahs could persuade themselves that Washington mightn’t but it would have to admit that it could. And that doubt might make all the difference. And by diminishing the Iranian certainty, the missiles also reduce the incentive for any terrorist organization, be it Sunni or Shi’a, to shelter under its leaky umbrella. Deterrence is above all a psychological game.
It sure is. And its the Democrats who want us to be deterred from acting to protect ourselves.

Alexis, from the comments section:
In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, “victory” is often assumed to be survival. But what if “victory” means ensuring that the other prisoner hangs? This is the problem we face with any society that engages in suicide bombing. Any society that idolizes suicide bombing necessarily cannot be reasoned with on the basis of a “win-win” scenario. As harsh as this may sound, given the behavior of groups that support suicide bombing (such as Palestinians), it would be logical to regard one’s own life as less important than killing a Palestinian because there is no basis for thinking he would reciprocate any decency.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?