Proliferating Thoughts

Just in case anyone had leapt to the not entirely unjustified conclusion that I was only interested in questions of chemical weapons arms control and proliferation, I offer a short rant on the topic of missile defense opposition.

I have been working through the latest issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists this week, amongst other activities, and have finally been able to devote some time to the article by George Lewis and Theodore Postol. In essence the article takes the opportunity to restate a number of longstanding objections to efforts to develop and deploy long-range missile defense in the context of current U.S. proposals for deployment of such a system in Europe.

This blog entry is not interested in disputing the technical details of missile defense countermeasures which I am nowhere near as qualified to discuss as the authors of the BAS article. However, there is one aspect of their discussion that I want to highlight. The authors warn us of the pointlessness of undertaking the deployment of these systems, given that they are hideously expensive, won’t provide an effective defense and are easily circumvented using the most elementary countermeasures. Yet at the same time they are concerned that planning, let alone actually carrying out the proposed deployments will seriously disrupt relations with Russia. Although the possibility is not broached in this article it has certainly been suggested in other forums that missile defense deployment will at a minimum revive the U.S. - Russia arms race that ended with the Cold War. On more than one occasion missile defense opponents have also suggested that deployment of current and proposed systems have the perverse effect of actually increasing the danger to the U.S., and by extension the world at large, by provoking an arms race with China.

This is an proposition that has been nagging at me for some years now. If the missile defense opponents are correct that current and proposed systems are completely incapable of defending against an attack using the most elementary countermeasures, which they argue are extremely simple to develop and effectively deploy, then how is it possible that Russia or China can find this system the least bit threatening. Both of these powers have the capability to overwhelm existing missile defense by sheer weight of numbers even if they refrain from the use of countermeasures. Furthermore, why is it reasonable to presume that Iran is capable of deploying effective countermeasures such as balloons, chaff or jammers that will render a defense ineffective and not make the same presumptions for Russia and China, the more so given that Russia deployed MIRVS and decoys in the 1960s. Indeed Russia has successfully demonstrated a maneuvering reentry vehicle that was specifically designed to get around active defenses. In this context the question becomes one of why would Russia even object to a U.S. missile defense effort. If it is so very ineffective it would make more sense for the Russians and Chinese to welcome the U.S. determination to pour a significant proportion of its limited R&D funding down a hole in the ground. Every dollar spent on missile defense is a dollar that is not being spent on something that might actually be more of a problem for them.

So where does this leave us? If the systems simply don’t, and indeed won’t work, how can they possibly represent a sufficient threat to the Russians that they could lead to a revived arms race or a breakdown in relations. If they are likely to provoke a breakdown in relations should we conclude that the systems might actually be effective? Do the Russian’s know something about the effectiveness of U.S. missile defenses that domestic opponents of these systems do not? Are Dr. Postol and the rest of the missile defense opponents wrong about the ease and effectiveness of countermeasures? Have the Russians lost the ability to produce countermeasures? Do the Russians simply have much more faith in the ability of the U.S. technical community to make this system work given enough time and money?

As I said, it is an issue that has been nagging at me for some time. It could be that there is an extremely simple answer that I have subconsciously cast-aside or that I have not even thought of. But as things stand at least one of the arguments of the missile defense opponents is unconvincing. Like I said, a bit of a rant on the topic of missile defense. Dr. Lewis is actually here in Ithaca so maybe I will take the opportunity to ask him these questions directly at some point.