Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Dancing With The Czars | Main | Second Day: A Missile Decision Based On Facts And Values »

Sep 17 2009, 10:20 am by Matthew Cooper

The Politics of Missile Shields

President Obama's apparent decision to scrap plans for a missile shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic is significant in and of itself. The plan's been controversial both here and in Eastern Europe and especially in Russia even though the defensive plan was aimed at rogue missiles from Iran. But it feels more like the end of a generation long missile-shield era. Anyone who was around in the 80s remembers the Reagan administration's intense ambitions for a missile shield the protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from the old Soviet Union. Such a plan, based on satellite lasers, seemed fantastic at the time and still does. But it had enough power as an idea to help propel the startling arms reductions of the late 80s. And, indeed, technology caught up with Reagan's vision enough that the program continued not only in the first Bush administration but under Bill Clinton, too. Don Rumsfeld, who had killed the anti-ballistic missile program as Secretary of Defense under President Ford, was a huge advocate of its expansion when he was Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush.

This latest move will be hotly debated but a couple of things seem certain. For conservatives, who have made missile shields a centerpiece of their defense vision for a generation, this can only make them hate Obama more. More details will emerge later today, but can anyone doubt the apoplexy building at The Weekly Standard?

:: Comments (4) :: Share This

Comments (4)

jennis psycho

It's very odd that just about every major power now is investing heavily in missile defense, but we're cutting back.

It's very odd that just about every major power now is investing heavily in energy exploration, but we're cutting back.

If the left's problem was that we were too powerful in relation to the world, it seems Obama's main determination is to resolve the issue.

dreiner (Replying to: jennis psycho)


Obviously, our 2,000 warhead arsenal will be unable to penetrate any fledgling shield program via saturation attack, or change of target, or other counter-SAM measures.

The threats we face aren't from massive superpowers with nuclear weapons launching dozens at a time towards our country. They're from covert operations launched by religious and nationalist psychos, some of whom are not associated with a particular country, and others that ARE other countries. Either way, the nuclear threats we face from missiles sit in the single digits (North Korea and Iran, when it gets a program up and running). Our current missile defense systems have shown they can handle this.

I don't know much about alternative energy, so I won't comment on that, but I'm tired of people like you suggesting that the country is being driven into the ground on purpose by reducing the amount of money spent on stupid programs like drilling in Alaska or STAR WARS.=

jerro

Eastern Europe and the missle shield, is there a vision?

Does anybody understand President Obama's vision of the U.S. role in today's world. It is very difficult to grasp the President's viewpoint. What as citizens does he believe that we must do?

1. Afghanistan - What is our strategy? What are our goals? How do we achieve our goals. What sacrifices do we need to make in human lives?

2. Israel/Palestine - If Israel ignores our pressure on the question of settlements, what will be our reaction?

3. Iran - What are our options? How far is the President willing to push to end Iran's nuclear enrichment?

4. Western Europe and Russia - How does the President see the future in Western Europe and Russia vis-a-vis eastern states such as Poland and Czech Republic, gas and energy policy with Russia and Germany.

5. NATO - What will be NATO's Role over the next three years.

Does the President have a real vision, or his he just playing it by ear based on the latest international problem or national opinion poll?
It is difficult to see where we are going.

Dan

@jennis

The thought isn't that "America is too strong", but too spread out. The problem with spreading yourself that thin (by aggravating Eastern Europe) is that you create another front and another potential battle. In conceding the elimination of that front, you are still sound militarily, because you have one less place to fight.

As for energy exploration, blame President Bush. He ordered the US out the Kyoto accord negotiations when the fuel cell techonology was being sold to the highest bidder.

@jerro

1. Good question, no one knows. The generals want more boots (they always do) but we really don't have a clear objective.

2. Sad to say, but Isreal is losing their support from this administration with every new settlement, and they should. Isreal's soveriegnty is protected by the US, but like a petulant child burning up it's parents credit card, their behavior is acceptable for only so long. Eventually (sooner than later) their communications with DC will be through intermediaries until the settlements cease (at least one would hope).

3. Using the Palestine issue to draw the distinction between Iran and Syria is important. Syria will break from Iran as long as Palestine is protected from further encroachment (see my response to #2). That leaves an Iran surrounded by coutries that have no formal alliances or treatys and more apathy than concern. Basically on an island unto themselves, and thus their nuclear ambitions will be publicly criticized by their neighbors.

4. Western Eurpoe and Russia are easy. Develop alternative source of energy and flood the market with it and Russia has lost its dominance in that region once the price of oil plummets.

5. NATO is a peace keeping force. Not an active fighting army, their role should be as it's always been - peace keeping.