FEULNER: High-stakes missile defense

The article very cozily omits a number of pertinent facts: 1. Russia offered to co-operate on the missile defence system, basing either in its own territory or in (U.S. allied) Azerbaijan, in a spot geographically much more favorable for intercepting Iran-launched missiles. The U.S. refused. 2. Failing the above, Russia offered to allow the installation of the system, simply requesting that it be allowed access to the sites in order to ensure that they are not targeted against Russia. The U.S. refused. 3. Nuclear first strike has become a stated policy of the U.S. Defence Depertment during the Bush administration. 4. A small number of interceptors are enough to greatly reduce the severity of a Russian second strike in the event of a U.S. first strike. 5. Russia has no way to verify that the 10 planned interceptors will not increase to, say, 100. 6. If the U.S. feels that it is safe from a Russian second strike, it might think that there is little to stop it from launching a nuclear first strike. Thus, it is entirely reasonable for Russia to object to the deployment of the counter-missile system.

I quite agree with McCosham with a few amendments: On his point 2 - access to the sites without strong guarantees that the number of anti-missiles will not be increased is not going to be sufficient since once the infrastructure is built a substantial increase in anti-missiles affecting the Russia's ability to counter-strike can be achieved much faster than Russia can react to it. On his point 5 - Russia can probably verify the increase (although not with 100% accuracy and in such matters even 1% counts) but as mentioned above is most likely to have insufficient time to react. Most importantly, I find that this is very negative for the US to keep brainwashing with its powerful and influential mass-media its own citizens and the world by putting the question of anti-missiles in Poland out of the context of the global anti-missile system being built by the US including plans for the weapons in the space (and by the way the US is the ONLY country not supporting the full ban of space weapons), airborne lasers, etc. Frankly, I do not understand why do the US media (supposedly free of any “recommendations” unlike governmental mass media in Russia) play all, with a few minor exceptions, the same dirty game? Looks like mass media in Russia – but given that many Russians can read in English and not vice-versa the Russians are still much better informed. Some may say that Russians should forget the MAD in the 21st century. Well, we could - if we could forget our own history showing that our military forces are vital for our survival since the West has been trying to destroy us for centuries. If we could forget how the US did not pay good for good during the last 20 years (and especially after 9.11 when the US response to all our help with fighting the terrorism was termination of the anti-missile treaty). And if we could forget about the track-record of the US being the ONLY country which used the nuclear weapons (let alone the way it used it) and which unfortunately has been the most aggressive country in the world for the last 60 years. Should we? The last point that I could not omit: “Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. [Actually, thousands warheads but only hundreds missiles - which counts since the anti-missiles in Poland are designed to destroy the nuclear missiles before the warheads are separated - and the author is certainly aware of that but prefers to "forget". - Egor] If Moscow used them against Poland, Western Europe or even the United States, this defensive system would be swiftly overwhelmed. [Nicely structured, most people will not realize that a "defensive system" may well be designed to defend the aggressor against the retaliatory strike. - Egor] (That, incidentally, is why we need a comprehensive missile-defense system, but that's another argument for another time.)” Thanks, Mr. Feulner, your hypocrisy is noted.