Saturday, June 09, 2007

Missile Defense: Then and Now

Vladimir Putin's surprise offer to cooperate with the United States on a missile defense capable of detecting and intercepting missiles from Iran or elsewhere has been greeted as a positive sign for US/Russian relations, and it may well be. But it also raises questions about the potential unintended consequences of missile defense.

When President Reagan first committed billions to what was then known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or, pejoratively, "Star Wars"), it seemed, in principle, like a good idea. Reagan believed---correctly---that there was something immoral about relying for our defense against the threat of nuclear attack on a reciprocal threat to attack and kill millions of innocent civilians who had the bad luck to live under Soviet rule. Much better to defend ourselves with a shield that deflects or destroys the enemy's missiles without threatening civilian lives.

But the Cold War version of SDI had two basic flaws. First, the technology didn't work, even in tests in which the defenders had advance knowledge of the flight path of a single incoming missile. Second, and relatedly, it was destabilizing. Strategic planners understood that even with advances in technology, a missile shield would never be impermeable, partly because attackers could be expected to modify their missile design or simply send many more missiles (plus decoys) to overwhelm the system. But that created a payoff for a first strike. Prior to missile defense, a first strike by the US against Soviet land-based missiles was understood to be futile because it wouldn't destroy all hardened targets, but with missile defense, in a crisis in which the US feared a Soviet strike, the US might gamble that a US first strike would be sufficiently effective that the resulting decimated Soviet missiles could be handled by the missile defense. (The U.S. was not nearly as vulnerable to this logic because even with fewer total missiles, we had many more on nuclear subs and bombers, which could not readily be hit by a first strike.) Thus, the Soviets feared that the point of SDI was to give the US a first-strike capacity, which in turn made a confrontation between the superpowers more likely.

Fortunately, the Soviet empire fell before that nightmare scenario came to pass, and now champions of missile defense argue that whatever its limits against an adversary armed to the gills (like the old Soviet Union), it makes a great deal of sense against a potentially hostile power with a small arsenal, such as North Korea today and perhaps Iran in the not-too-distant future. A defense that is porous with respect to thousands of missiles could be impermeable with respect to a dozen or so.

This strikes me as correct but it overlooks other dimensions of the strategic equation. We know that neither Iran nor North Korea would launch an unprovoked missile attack against us or our allies because such an attack would have a clear return address, resulting in the devastation of the attacking country. Conventional wisdom (which seems clearly right on this point) says that Iran and North Korea want nukes so as to deter a conventional attack and, in the case of Iran at least, perhaps to give cover to its own conventional attacks (directly or through proxies such as Hezbollah) against its neighbors. So, one must ask (as game theorists tell us Cold Warriors far too infrequently asked about their adversaries): What will Iran and North Korea infer about our intentions if we build a missile defense against their missiles? The answer, I think, is that they will assume this means we're considering a conventional attack against them, and building a missile shield so that we can withstand a retaliatory nuclear strike. If so, the logical next move for them is to beef up their own nuclear and missile capacity.

That in itself would be terrible but it could have even worse consequences, since missiles are not the only way to deliver nukes, and some methods of delivery would not necessarily be traceable to the government of a country subject to deterrence. In other words, although the mechanism is somewhat different, development of a missile defense would be destabilizing today, just as it would have been during the Cold War. Reagan's noble dream remains a nightmare.

10 comments:

egarber said...

On a related item, recall how we were told invading Iraq would cause Iran, North Korea and others to fall in line. The idea was that once these enemies saw that the U.S. was serious about exercising its muscle, they would become submissive and hand over all WMDs.

Libya was even held up as proof that such a dynamic was already underway. [Of course, that was a total distortion of history, since Libya for years had made its desires to join the international community clear as can be; the Clinton administration had been busily negotiating on this front.]

In reality, the Iraq invasion created the opposite effect -- provoking Iran and NK to race toward nuclear capability as a deterrent.

And sadly, the Iraq invasion also propelled Iran into super power status within the region, creating a sister Islamic Republic run by Shias.

Kenji said...

egarber says:

"In reality, the Iraq invasion created the opposite effect -- provoking Iran and NK to race toward nuclear capability as a deterrent."

This is incorrect as to North Korea, whose nuclear ambition has more to do with the complicated dynamics in East Asia, among China, Japan, and South Korea. Not everything bad in the world that is happening right now is because of Bush's foreign policy.

egarber said...

Kenji,

I agree that the NK situation is complicated, as is all geo-politics.

But it IS true that we were told by the WH and others that the Iraq war would force Kim and his like into submission. So at the very least, we must conclude that the prediction was simply wrong, maybe partly because of the very complexity you cite.

But further, you have to recall that after the Iraq invasion, Kim pledged to not cooperate -- indeed, he threatened to further develop his program -- unless the U.S. promised not to invade. And by all measures, NK nuclear capability was greatly accelerated from 2003 to 2005. So while I appreciate the effort to draw in regional complications, I DO think the Iraq invasion provoked NK, as well as Iran.

Ben said...

Back to the original post, I disagree with the argument that "We know that neither Iran nor North Korea would launch an unprovoked missile attack against us or our allies." These are both unpredictable regimes, and proposing to know clearly how the minds of these leaders functions is a naive. Indeed, the threshold for use of nuclear weapons has never been lower, including delivery via short- or long-range ballistic missile.

Would a single nuclear strike by North Korea against Japan or South Korea be met with overwhelming nuclear retaliation by the U.S., especially if the limited North Korean strike failed to strike a population center or failed to achieve full detonation? Would the U.S. commit to sending tens of multi-warhead nuclear vehicles to destroy a famine-struck population currently under the force of dictatorship? Factor in the consequences of doing so in China and Russia's back yard and the equation becomes complex very quickly. Even a limited missile defense system provides alternatives to mandatory nuclear counter-strike.

Can we be sure that "such an attack would have a clear return address," if these states were using "proxies such as Hezbollah?"

The U.S. has moved on from the SDI days into an era where the technology of missile defense is real and proving itself repeatedly. While still a limited and developing system, current missile defense plans for cooperation with NATO allies, Japan, Australia, Russia, and a host of other nations can prove a stabilizing factor for world security against missile-bourne weapons of destruction.

Limited missile defenses (such as the integrated, layered system the U.S. is developing) provide an alternative to guaranteed nuclear retaliation. Missile defenses remove us from nuclear brinksmanship and lower the threshold for a first-strike, by allowing diplomacy or the use of conventional forces to operate more freely without the threat of nuclear blackmail by a rogue state or terrorist entity.

Traditional nuclear powers should understand that the paradigm has shifted and the threat of massive first-strike against any large nuclear power is no longer a reality. While states, including the U.S., still hold to embedded policies of nuclear strength for deterrence, there is no viable impetus for such an action. We are far too economically tied to China and Russia, as are our allies, for this to be a rational fear.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some gw gold,he usually can win a lot of GuildWars Gold,then he let his friends all have some Guild Wars Gold,his friends thank him very much for introducing them the GuildWars money,they usually cheap gw gold together.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,