Something that has bugged me for a while is why Russia has been so adamantly opposed to the US putting ballistic missile defense sites in the EU. The proposed sites would have a radar in the Czech Republic and a set of silos in Poland that would contain a paltry ten missiles. If you take the point of view that the deterrent effects are not swayed much by a mere ten missiles - since theoretically there should be thousands of effective nuclear weapons in the in the Russia arsenal - then you have to wonder why. The balance of power wrt to wiping each other out hasn't really changed with this. So, what's the reason that Russia is so annoyed with the ballistic missile defense in the US and especially in Europe?
There have been a few theories. The first one is that this is all political smoke and mirrors. Putin is making the noises to play up the nationalistic card and that this is sound and thunder signifying de nada. There has always been a strong Russia-first-last-and-foremost attitude in Russia. They're a proud people. The state they found themselves in after the Cold War hasn't been terribly pleasant for them. The fact that there one time enemy has gone on to prosper while their world has collapsed, well, some of it is understandable. When someone comes out and says that to be Russian is something to be proud of the people will listen, after all, to some extent, its all they have left. Their pride, that is. So when that same someone stands up to the most powerful country in the world, waves his fist, and scream defiance, those that seek something to be proud of will be. After who all doesn't enjoy the little guy flipping the bird to the big bully? However, this fails to cover all of the reasoning wrt to the Russian objections to missile defense - even though they have it (or had, depending on its state of repair) for Moscow.
The fact of the matter is that the Russian military - since at least the First Gulf War - has had the policy of using nuclear weapons first when fighting the West. The idea that you can use nukes and be immune from them being used on you is something that is often war gamed by the Russian military. Nominally, its wrt to NATO and the US. They find themselves losing and pop off a couple nukes and get the 'bewildered' West to backdown in some imaginary confrontation rather than risk all out nuclear warfare. This is a huge contributor. While in the West, using nukes like that is uber verboten. It's not with the Russians. At all. The tactical use of nuclear weapons is definitely embraced. Now the question is how they would delivery those weapons.
With the relatively superior radars and dense packing of European countries, it makes it a little questionable to lob nukes via the cruise missile route. The US and Europeans have done work on specifically countering this tactic and with any whiff of a conflict AWACS would be placed into the air making the outcome quite possibly much lower than what would be desired. However, the Russians could always lob some nukes via the ballistic missile route. Right now, this is a low probably of being intercepted - but increasingly likely for tactical weapons - but has been still safe for the more strategic missiles. Even if the THAAD and PAC3 missiles could take down the tactical missiles, the Russians felt they had a safe fallback. Then here comes the proposed ballistic missile defense.
These few ABMs would render the last bastion of the minimal nuclear strike option extinct. Or at least under vast question. It completely obsoletes Russian stratagem if faced with their Western "enemy". Through their nuclear weapons, the Russians felt secure wrt to the West. Short of annihilating their enemy - and in turn being annihilated - those nukes would become - from the Russian point of view - tactically worthless. In short, their comfort blanket would be taken away since despite their bluster their conventional forces could not stand up to Western military firepower. This is the reason why they are angry about the ABM sights in Europe. It takes away a tactical card and they really like that one.
The sad part is that Russia shouldn't be going down this route at all. Russia ought to be working towards joining the European Union and - *GASP*SHOCK*HORROR* - NATO to have a full say and sway in the politics of the West. Yet, they've embarked down the foolish and depressing path they have and the objections to a measly ten missiles is only a symptom of that sad choice.
There have been a few theories. The first one is that this is all political smoke and mirrors. Putin is making the noises to play up the nationalistic card and that this is sound and thunder signifying de nada. There has always been a strong Russia-first-last-and-foremost attitude in Russia. They're a proud people. The state they found themselves in after the Cold War hasn't been terribly pleasant for them. The fact that there one time enemy has gone on to prosper while their world has collapsed, well, some of it is understandable. When someone comes out and says that to be Russian is something to be proud of the people will listen, after all, to some extent, its all they have left. Their pride, that is. So when that same someone stands up to the most powerful country in the world, waves his fist, and scream defiance, those that seek something to be proud of will be. After who all doesn't enjoy the little guy flipping the bird to the big bully? However, this fails to cover all of the reasoning wrt to the Russian objections to missile defense - even though they have it (or had, depending on its state of repair) for Moscow.
The fact of the matter is that the Russian military - since at least the First Gulf War - has had the policy of using nuclear weapons first when fighting the West. The idea that you can use nukes and be immune from them being used on you is something that is often war gamed by the Russian military. Nominally, its wrt to NATO and the US. They find themselves losing and pop off a couple nukes and get the 'bewildered' West to backdown in some imaginary confrontation rather than risk all out nuclear warfare. This is a huge contributor. While in the West, using nukes like that is uber verboten. It's not with the Russians. At all. The tactical use of nuclear weapons is definitely embraced. Now the question is how they would delivery those weapons.
With the relatively superior radars and dense packing of European countries, it makes it a little questionable to lob nukes via the cruise missile route. The US and Europeans have done work on specifically countering this tactic and with any whiff of a conflict AWACS would be placed into the air making the outcome quite possibly much lower than what would be desired. However, the Russians could always lob some nukes via the ballistic missile route. Right now, this is a low probably of being intercepted - but increasingly likely for tactical weapons - but has been still safe for the more strategic missiles. Even if the THAAD and PAC3 missiles could take down the tactical missiles, the Russians felt they had a safe fallback. Then here comes the proposed ballistic missile defense.
These few ABMs would render the last bastion of the minimal nuclear strike option extinct. Or at least under vast question. It completely obsoletes Russian stratagem if faced with their Western "enemy". Through their nuclear weapons, the Russians felt secure wrt to the West. Short of annihilating their enemy - and in turn being annihilated - those nukes would become - from the Russian point of view - tactically worthless. In short, their comfort blanket would be taken away since despite their bluster their conventional forces could not stand up to Western military firepower. This is the reason why they are angry about the ABM sights in Europe. It takes away a tactical card and they really like that one.
The sad part is that Russia shouldn't be going down this route at all. Russia ought to be working towards joining the European Union and - *GASP*SHOCK*HORROR* - NATO to have a full say and sway in the politics of the West. Yet, they've embarked down the foolish and depressing path they have and the objections to a measly ten missiles is only a symptom of that sad choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment