In response to the United States’ recent plans to implement a missile defense system in eastern Europe, Russia has test-fired three intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Russia expressed outrage following the U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in Poland, calling the decision an act of aggression that would result in their own expansion of military defense.
The missile tests were conducted in three separate areas; one from the Barents Sea just east of Norway, a second from just north of Japan, and a third from northwest Russia.
Only in Russia could a missile defense shield be seen as aggressive... What say you, dear readers?
By: Brant
Posts
3 comments:
I've done a little reading and independent study about nuclear strategy over the years. From that perspective, the West's ballistic missile defense system does have the potential to be destabilizing. What the Russians are reacting to is the potential of the system, not it's reality.
The reality of the BMD system as currently planned is that it might be able to stop a small attack (one or a few missiles) from a "rogue state" like North Korea or Iran or an accidental launch (again, of one or a few missiles) from a major nuclear power like Russia or China. Even a "limited" strategic nuclear attack by Russia on the United States and our allies would be a completely different story, involving hundreds of missiles and thousands of warheads. Such an attack would immediately overwhelm the planned BMD system.
The long-term potential of the BMD system is what has the Russians spooked. The Russian nightmare scenario looks something like this: Over the next several years, the BMD system is gradually scaled up. A direct confrontation between the West and Russia develops, perhaps over Ukraine or one of the other former Soviet republics or satellite nations. In the context of such a crisis, the US launches a "preemptive" counter-force strike on Russia's strategic nuclear forces. With a spotty Russian early warning system and very accurate US warheads launched from both the land and sea, a substantial part of Russia's land-based strategic forces are wiped out. The Russians retaliate in kind with a counter-force strike from the remaining land-based missiles, but the BMD system is good enough to stop a substantial portion of this second-strike. Both the US and Russia have suffered heavy losses of strategic forces (either used or destroyed) and collateral damage, but Russia is worse off at the end of the first exchange. It's not a question of a 100% effective first strike or a 100% effective BMD system, but a 10% or 20% advantage from a first strike compounding with a 10% or 20% advantage from a BMD system favoring the US at this stage of the hypothetical scenario.
After this first exchange, the US might hold some advantage in the balance of power of strategic forces. It could try to use this advantage to force resolution of the crisis on its terms.
The big problem in this scenario is the "boomers": highly-survivable submarines armed with ballistic missiles. Because both sides' boomers will still be out there under the waves, the whole nuclear exchange that I postulated hasn't substantially changed the strategic balance. Russia could still threaten the West's cities with SLBM's and the West could still retaliate against Russian cities under the decades-old doctrine of mutually-assured destruction.
To meaningful impact the balance of power in nuclear forces, a BMD system would have to not only be capable enough to destroy a substantial number of missiles and warheads in the counter-force exchange, but also capable enough to stop a substantial portion of Russia's submarine-launched warheads, which number 672 according to globalsecurity.org. Today's BMD systems are a very long way from reaching that goal, but the West has an advantage in this technology and Russia has been fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the West from taking even small steps down a road that, in Russia's long view of history, could eventually put Russia in a vulnerable position.
I guess the real question is whether or not the missile shield is intended to defend against the Russians with their subs (which seems to be counterproductive) or if it's aimed at someone without the nuclear submarine-launched option.
The current BMD system is designed to defend against an attack by a "rogue state" like North Korea or Iran with only a few missiles, not a major nuclear power like Russia or China. The Russians are reacting to the potential (however far-fetched) for such a system to scale up and become significant against a major power like Russia.
Post a Comment