US Drops Missile Defense Deployment in Poland, Czech Republic

The Obama administration has just announced that it is not going forward with the planned missile defense system the Bush administration had promised the Poles and the Czechs. The responses from Warsaw and Prague are, not to put too fine a point on it, bordering on the hysterical. Rather than deploy a small and largely ineffective system in those two countries, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have unanimously decided to opt for a bigger, better, and functional system to be deployed years from now. The decision stems from a US intelligence assessment that Iran won't have missiles with the range to hit targets in Eastern Europe for some time. This journal still believes that the best missile defense against a nation like Iran is deterrence.

General James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an expert on missile and space-based weapons, said publicly, "We believed that the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missile would come much faster than it did. The reality is, it has not come as fast as we thought it would come." As things stand, the Iranians have short- and medium-range missiles that can't even hit Istanbul, let alone targets deeper into the European interior. Thus, the deployment of any system in Poland (which would have about 10 interceptors) and the Czech Republic (where the radar and guidance systems would have been) would be useless. General Cartwright observed that the system being shelf was  "basically left over from the Cold War."

Naturally, the Poles and the Czechs see it a bit differently. An unnamed source in the Polish Defense Ministry said, "This is catastrophic for Poland." The Czechs sound less shrill but equally concerned. Prime Minister Jan Fischer said, "At the NATO summit in April, we adopted a resolution focusing on building a defense system against real, existing threats, i.e. short-range and medium-range missiles. We expect that the United States will continue cooperating with the Czech Republic on concluding the relevant agreements on our mutual [research and development] and military collaboration, including the financing of specific projects." In other words, they still expect something from Washington. The unspoken demand from both is the presence of US troops on their soil to act like a trip-wire should the Russians get territorially ambitious. In short, the guarantees they have under NATO aren't enough; they want the same deal the South Koreans have.

For the hawks in the Republican Party in Washington, this was a chance to wave their flags and beat their chests (despite the recommendations at the top of the military to scrap the system). Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA, and life-long civilian) issued a statement saying, "Scrapping our missile defense effort in Europe has severe consequences for our diplomatic relations and weakens our national security. Our allies, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, deserve better and our people deserve smarter and safer." Apparently, he believes that the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (a Bush administration hold-over) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are soft on defense.

General Cartwright promised a missile defense system that will have "hundreds" of interceptors rather than just 10. He also proposed mobile radar assets (some even space-based) "that can move to wherever the threat actually emanates and wherever we feel we need to defend ourselves." As Field Marshal Montgomery told Churchill in 1940, mobile defenses are preferable to fixed sites (Maginot Line, ring a bell?). CNN reported that there would be three types of interceptors used, "Patriot missiles, which defend a single location; SM-3 interceptors, which he [General Cartwright] said could protect 'a general area like the area from Philadelphia to Washington, DC'; and large ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California." The trouble is that the latter don't really work very well, if at all, and even if the US knocks down a nuclear-tipped missile, all of the radioactive material will spread over countless square miles.

From the 1940s to the present day, deterrence has kept the world from seeing nuclear weapons used. It is morally dubious; it is nerve-racking for political and military leaders; and it has worked. Those who propose that Iran with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles represents a threat must answer a simple question, "just whom would it threaten?" Israel (possessor of over 200 nukes)? Russia (with more than 10,000)? China (with the capacity to build thousands in a matter of days in addition to those it already possesses)? Europe (where NATO powers France and Britain as well as the US have nukes)? Pakistan or India (either of which could incinerate Tehran in the next couple of hours)? Iran is on a fool's errand, developing a weapon it can never use without losing most of its cities and population. The money currently wasted on the nuclear research would be better spent on oil refineries so Iran wouldn't have to import gasoline. At least in Washington, the brass have decided to abandon a system that can't do the job.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home