Wednesday, January 12, 2005
As I said, I find the traditional rationales for MD unconvincing.
The notion that any nation, “rogue” or otherwise would attack the US with ICBM is MAD.
To repeat, a more likely justification, that fits in nicely with the newly minted doctrine of preemption, is that the purpose of the shield is to prevent "rogue" nations, such as Iran with limited nuclear and missile technology from setting up a nuclear umbrella, which would deter the US from attacking. In this sense the purpose of missile defense is not defensive per say, but offensive. The purpose of the system would be to prevent some “rogue” nation from firing off a missile when it has nothing to loose, or to remove the ability of such nations to threaten such actions should the US threaten it.
In order to serve such a purpose, it certainly could not be limited to protecting just the US. A “rogue state” could still target other countries in order to indirectly hurt the US. A natural point of attack would be the Saudi Oil fields. Another natural point of attack would Canada. Canada is not only the US’s largest trading partner and its biggest suppiler of oil, we are also its neighbor. A rogue state could potentially cause a great deal of environmental harm to the US by targeting Canada. Targeting the Alberata tar sands would also have immense stratgic considerations for the US as well.
Laid out as such, whether one supports such a program may ironically come down to just how provocative one thinks the US will be with “rogue states” with nuclear capability in the future. Factored into this equation is Al Qaeda. The willingness of the States to become aggressive with nuclear “rogue states” will depend on part on whether the US feels not doing so constrains their ability to deal with the group.
The notion that any nation, “rogue” or otherwise would attack the US with ICBM is MAD.
To repeat, a more likely justification, that fits in nicely with the newly minted doctrine of preemption, is that the purpose of the shield is to prevent "rogue" nations, such as Iran with limited nuclear and missile technology from setting up a nuclear umbrella, which would deter the US from attacking. In this sense the purpose of missile defense is not defensive per say, but offensive. The purpose of the system would be to prevent some “rogue” nation from firing off a missile when it has nothing to loose, or to remove the ability of such nations to threaten such actions should the US threaten it.
In order to serve such a purpose, it certainly could not be limited to protecting just the US. A “rogue state” could still target other countries in order to indirectly hurt the US. A natural point of attack would be the Saudi Oil fields. Another natural point of attack would Canada. Canada is not only the US’s largest trading partner and its biggest suppiler of oil, we are also its neighbor. A rogue state could potentially cause a great deal of environmental harm to the US by targeting Canada. Targeting the Alberata tar sands would also have immense stratgic considerations for the US as well.
Laid out as such, whether one supports such a program may ironically come down to just how provocative one thinks the US will be with “rogue states” with nuclear capability in the future. Factored into this equation is Al Qaeda. The willingness of the States to become aggressive with nuclear “rogue states” will depend on part on whether the US feels not doing so constrains their ability to deal with the group.
Comments:
Post a Comment
