missile defense is a technology that will be developed and used - only question is when. Well, there's another question: will it be used as a weapon? Obviously Russia and China think yes and oppose it for obvious reasons: if they 'join in' on the tech it leaves America as sole super power; if they don't and the tech is developed, it leaves America as sole super power, only more 'super'. Their only option is to stop the technology and their only way of doing that short of war is to convince the rest of the world that America's intentions regarding it are 'not sincere'.

So only real question is: are China and Russia clinging to a dynamic that is quickly vanishing or are their fears justified? - and no matter how you answer that can either work itself out peaceably? What are the odds Taiwan uses China Olympics in 2008 as wedge to further political goals thus bringing all these tensions boiling to surface? Yea world spirit! We are all one! Morons.

Posted by: culltech at June 5, 2007 01:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

When did he stop calling him "Puty-Put" or whatever? Is the new formality a recognition that Putin is off (GWB's) message?

Posted by: puty-put at June 5, 2007 07:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm always eager to believe that Bush is wrong on any issue, but I'm not sure I see why we're wrong with respect to the missile defense system. It sounds to me like Putin is the one being unreasonable.

Posted by: Tillman Fan at June 5, 2007 09:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

Kennan might be upset, but he would, by no means, be surprised. He saw the hand writing on the wall, even at the very end of his life. See the Lukacs book on Kennan.

Posted by: jonst at June 5, 2007 09:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

It sounds to me like Putin is the one being unreasonable.

I disagree. In order to ensure their own national security interests, Russia must, I think, assume that a) NMD will work and b) that if it does work, the US will inexorably expand it to more & more theaters.

If the current, limited version of NMD is eventually expanded globally and increased in size, then Russia will either be forced to counter (igniting a new more massive arms race) or surrender a good bit of their deterent capacity.

In my view, NMD is a terrible idea for:
1) Russia: It threatens their national security interests, forces them into a new arms race they can't afford and generally destabilizes the world.
2) US: It almost certainly won't work (the technical requirements are staggering), will be massively expensive, will be destabilizing to the world as a whole.

In addition, it creates a false sense of security which encourages reckless leaders to behave recklessly. Personally, I've had enough of that over the past 6 years. NMD is a childish fantasy of absolute security. It's time it went away.

Posted by: Rob at June 5, 2007 09:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Rob: all weapon systems and tactics have been countered by newer weapons and systems and tactics. To say that missile defense will never work is to ignore history of warfare and to assume nukes are the end of the line as far as weapons systems go, an assumption which is impossible to demonstrate and goes against reason. The status quo which made MAD a credible missile defense no longer exists therefore a new defense will be developed - I assume it will be a shield of some sort, but whatever it is it will represent a technological step forward or - well, the alternatives are not pretty. Whether or not this new technology will be destabilizing is beside the point.

Posted by: slow gall at June 5, 2007 11:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

To say that missile defense will never work is to ignore history of warfare...

Yes, theoretically you could design a system that would work given enormous amounts of time, money & technological innovations that don't exist today. I think building something that doesn't work today is worse than not building anything at all.

The NMD that is being proposed is a farce - look, a few years ago NASA (I think) had a satellite crash on the surface of Mars because of a math error - not that it was a defense project but it highlights the technical challenges with space-based rocket guidance against fixed targets, let alone mobile/unpredictable targets.

From what I've heard, this is the current system we're deploying;
1) it would struggle with intercepting low-tech ICBMs (such as those deployed by N. Korea) as they are so primitive that they lack predictable flight paths - they tend to wobble & tumble.
2) it can be defeated by MIRVing warheads equipped with mylar balloon decoys (system can't tell the difference between a warhead and a balloon).

Then there's the Maginot line argument - NMD gives even more reason for a would be terrorist to rely on cheaper/more reliable delivery vehicles (shipping containers etc). I would suspect that small thrusters on the side of the warhead/missile would also be a problem.

The fact that it is destabilizating does matter - there are only two certain outcomes of NMD deployment with the current half-assed technology: an increase in the Russian/Chinese nuclear arsenal and a massive expenditure of dollars. How can this possibly be a good thing?

Posted by: Rob at June 6, 2007 12:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

You guys obviously know more about this than I do, but I'm still not sure that I understand. If the system is not going to work, why do Russia and China care? And why would it be destabilizing?

Posted by: Tillman fan at June 6, 2007 12:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

If the system is not going to work, why do Russia and China care? And why would it be destabilizing?

I don't know much more about it than what I've posted here - I'm not an expert on it but from what I've seen there are tons of reasons to be very skeptical.

In terms of why Russia & China should care - I think they have to assume (like North Korea & Iran) that NMD actually will work - it's a worst case scenario for them.

To take the worst-case scenario argument further, they also have to assume that the stated reasons (defending on a limited basis against NoKo, Iran & terrorists) are also red-herrings - that the ultimate objective of the US is to build a robust missile defense system to counter Russian & Chinese ICBMs.

Bear in mind that right now Iran lacks both a nuclear weapon as well as anything more than primitive missile technology. Putting Missile interceptors in Europe to counter a threat which clearly does not exist today would have to be extremely provocotive to Russia. Is Putin being reaonable drawing the line here? I don't know, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to dismiss Russian fears.

Posted by: Rob at June 6, 2007 01:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

"In terms of why Russia & China should care - I think they have to assume (like North Korea & Iran) that NMD actually will work - it's a worst case scenario for them."

of course it's a worse case scenario for them - that's the point. The US is not going to give up dominance; missile shield [or related whatever] equals continued dominance. Countries do what they feel is in their best interests, whether or not it actually is - and it definitely doesn't matter whether what they do is 'good' in any general sense. Nuclear weapons are a perfect example of this: in a perfect world they wouldn't exist: the world ain't perfect - and that is why there WILL be a missile shield, or if technology doesn't allow for it, something analogous. And that is why Putin is threatening Europe.

Posted by: culltech at June 6, 2007 01:36 AM | Permalink to this comment

The above discussion misses, I think, the root cause of Putin's outrage on the missile defense issue.

Any Russian president would be expected to take a similar position, if he assumed missile defense could be made to work (I don't make that assumption -- in fact I think the whole program is a giant fiscal rathole -- and wish Bush were thinking in terms of trading it away for something we want). But the real reason Putin and the other Soviet nostalgists in the Kremlin are furious about missile defense is where the NMD sites are to be located: Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites that Russians who lament the Soviet collapse still see as rightfully theirs. There is no separating Russia's self-image as a great power with its fond memories of being able to crush and dominate its neighbors; a former KGB officer like Putin could accept the reality that Warsaw and Prague are no longer part of the Soviet empire but is bound to resent deeply having public attention drawn so flagrantly to the fact.

Under the circumstances, the right American response to Putin's outrage would be a bland silence. No public exchange of charges, absolutely no invitation to the Bush family compound: simply reiterate why NMD facilities are going up where they are and build them. Call the bluff. This is about diplomatic tactics, in this case regrettably a subject divorced from substance. If we were making policy just on substance we wouldn't be wasting billions every year on the missile defense boondoggle in the first place

Posted by: Zathras at June 6, 2007 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras: it makes no sense to claim that Putin is acting out over sour grapes - especially since the rhetoric can offer nothing substantial to salve hurt feelings of nationalists and therefore he'd have much to lose by emphasizing weakness - it's not like US is going to back down after all. No, this is part of a more coherent [though not necessarily rational] long term strategy. Talk rises about kicking Russia out of G8 - but it would not surprise me if Putin would welcome such a thing - in fact that may be his aim at raising hackles this way before conference. Therefore, appeasing hurt feelings of may be part of Putin's equation here but only tangentially.

Posted by: culltech at June 6, 2007 12:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

They're not sour grapes. They may seem to be, to us, because we regard the era of Russian dominance over Eastern Europe as over. Putin doesn't think that way, and I'm afraid the other Russians who count don't either.

Posted by: Zathras at June 6, 2007 03:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

But the real reason Putin and the other Soviet nostalgists in the Kremlin are furious about missile defense is where the NMD sites are to be located: Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites that Russians who lament the Soviet collapse still see as rightfully theirs.

I completely agree. This begs the question to me of why we'd do this.

Given that a) NMD is a farce as it's currently constituted and b) it's stated purpose (defending against rogue states & terrorists) is a complete red-herring, it looks like the administration is either just doing this to poke a stick in Putin's eye or doing this to assert control over Eastern Europe.

Either way, it's reckless. Putin has the capacity to station additional intermediate/theater nuclear ballistic missiles in the region at what I'd assume is a trivial cost - presumably we'd counter with something as well. The net of this is increased tension in Central/Eastern Europe combined with more nuclear weapons pointed at each other.

Explain to me again why this is a good idea?

Posted by: Rob at June 6, 2007 04:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

Countries do what they feel is in their best interests, whether or not it actually is

I think that's my point though - I don't see how a rational person could conclude that NMD is in our best interests. Look, there's been an evolution in military technology throughout the history of mankind, right up until the deployment of thermonuclear weapons & the ability to annihilate one's opponent in a matter of minutes/hours.

From a strategic military position, once that point had been reached by multiple powers there was really little need to do much more than tinker at the margins.

If you argue that NMD is rational, then you're arguing that in the event of a successful deployment, Russia and/or China will simply give up & go away. Clearly, they won't - they'll either increase their supply of nukes with current delivery capacity to overwhelm our defenses or they will identify & implement new delivery vehicles. Either way, all that we've achieved is re-igniting an arms race that had been dormany. As a side benefit, we get increased tensions along with an increased supply of nukes.

Again, the only way this makes sense to me is that you believe there is an end game where our adversaries will give up. This seems insane to me.

Posted by: Rob at June 6, 2007 04:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

The Russian really have some gall, don't you think. First they invaded Chechnya, for reasons I don't recall what for. They
annilihilated Grozni, their great relic from the earliest campaign
by Yermolov in 1780. They created the great quagmire in the Caucasus, that brought Wahhabism, to the alcove in the Russian federation. Among the bit players there; were Al Hamdi, Al midhar, Zawahiri, Moussaoi, etc. Then they provided weapons and technical
support to Iraq; Now they supply technicians and economic
technicians to both their rocket program, and their nuclear
effort, knowing full well that at least some of that material
will end up in Chechens hands (then it by by Sevastopol; if their lucky

Posted by: narciso at June 7, 2007 01:55 AM | Permalink to this comment