US missile defense systems, though supposed to be discussed in arms control deals, almost never are. That’s by design, as the US insists that the systems have nothing to do with Russia or other major powers.
Following recent tests, Russia is expressing annoyance, saying that the US has plainly been lying about that, and that the downing of an ICBM showed the US system is aimed plainly at Russia, and threatens to undermine Russia’s missile capabilities.
In the grand scheme of things, the US systems’ cost and dubious effectiveness means that the Russian systems are only somewhat impacted. Still, any impact means they need to be discussed as part of the bigger nuclear deals
That certainly means any START extensions are going to need to cover the missile defense systems. That’s likely a problem, because the US insists they don’t matter, and Russia’s evidence that they plainly matter probably is just going to be another bump in the road.
This could change things a bit on other fronts too. The US missile defense systems were deliberately targeting Iran and North Korea, while also hitting Russia and China’s frontiers. Future US deployments will be more controversial, and will dictate a lot of reactions.
Scott Ritter explains why these defense systems do play an important role .
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507015-icbm-intercept-aegis-russia/
Because they can play a powerful role in first strike scenarios Russia needs to move more to hairtrigger responses which increases the risk of nuclear war.
Ritter wrote ‘The Scorpion King’ on the history of nuclear policies. I am only halfway through it but it is an important work.
I am not sure that it is the entire story. Yes, it is true, the defense against ICBMs creates indeed the higher risk of nuclear exchange.
But I believe that the REAL
problem is short time it takes to convert missile defense mechanism like AEGIS into offensive weapon. And with proximity to Russian borders — the first strike can be very effective.
For US it is then irrelevant what happens to Europe, but damaged Russian capabilities can be then further destroyed by ICBMs, and US in far less danger of retaliation.
It is the OFFENSIVE capabilities that are being put in place in the name of defense. This is why abandoning weapons agreements makes sense. The “defense” — as Russia always claimed, is within minutes converted to offensive weapon. It has proven to be true.
What adds a great deal of uncertainty is Russian nuclear powered cruise missiles, as well as hypersonic MIRVs, in addition to drone nuclear subs.
While a much has been said about hypersonic — a complete silence on others. US defense capabilities are limited to ballistic missile, and as far as is known not effective against cruise missiles, fighter planes or drones.
Clearly, all eggs are in ONE basket — offense. Overwhelming offense. First from up close — submarines, “defense” systems from Europe, ships and Korea. Then ICBM’s.
But the array of new Russian weaponry seems to aim at the weakness of US MAINLAND defense, as well as the naval assets — both submarine and surface fleet. Is the fear of mainland vulnerability sufficient to deter US plans for overwhelming offense?
Hard to tell, as there is so much noise. Iran is potentially a test case, but if it works — it opens doors wide to defeating Russia and China.
But — the idea that Saudi Arabia or Israel wish to be combatants is LUDICROUS.
This noise is to create impression that our allies are eager to strike , and we have to HOLD THEM back. And they are just SO worried that with Trump on his way out — the window of opportunity will close. Seriously!
The noise here is to conceal the fact that Israel will NEVER be a combatant, and that Saudi Arabia will NEVER be involved — even if US starts anything. The country is geographically extremely vulnerable. No defense will save it.
When Saudis decided to open Embassy in Iraq — it was assumed that the purpose was to have a discrete communication with Iran. And probably to make elaborate promises in order to be spared.
Back to reality. US interest in Iran is simple — wounding Russia and China, getting into the heart of Eurasia, Caspian Sea. Then using overwhelming force to deal with either or both.
But it is also clear to Russia and China — that a nice little war that all the chattering media and empty-headed analysts think is a cakewalk, has a potential for a major global upheaval.
Democrats would love Trump to start just a “limited” war, as to have option to continue or back out if needed.
This all assumes that we remain FIRMLY in control of the situation. But temptation is strong. What can go wrong?
Really upsetting if one were to think that ANY major thermonuclear power thought any exchange could be managed ……..or a cake walk!!!!!!! Any exchange I believe will end with every available (operational) offensive weapon being fired before they are destroyed. A death sentence for most if not all on the planet.
Agree. I can think of only ONE reason one power would stop escalating if the next move is guaranteed failure and its complete destruction.
The reason for this thinking is the observation of military postures of opposing sides.
US posture is nearly 100% offensive. Defense is topical centered on primarily military and civilian assets including command and communications.
Now as the saying goes offense is the best defense — but is it in modern warfare?
From Russia, one hears one word frequently — asymmetrical. And it is. Since the entire strategy is defensive, the weaponry does not mimic the opposing side, not in its use or even technological direction.
Russia’s announcement back in March 2018 was an abject lesson in that line of thinking. Russia always put a premium on defensive weaponry, multi-layered and multitasked. And then announced a complimentary array of offensive weapons, four classes, to work in tandem with defense,
From it I gather that the anticipated warfare from defensive postured Russia will in stage one focus on anyone’s forward assets threatening from short range — naval and land based on Eurasian landmass and surrounding seas and oceans. But to decisively establish dominance offensive weaponry threatening US mainland is key. Interestingly enough, intercontinental ballistic missiles do not feature prominently. Instead, nuclear cruise missiles, MIRV type-supersonic, submarine drones that can be both offensive and defensive — are apparently favored.
Which looks to me that the first phase — defense from and destruction of forward placed assets, plus threat to undefended mainland, would result in POINT of decision. One side at this point may have to concede, as taking next step may be suicidal.
Somehow,I do not see the use of intercontinental missiles first. Their trajectory is absolutely predictable, that even Patriot can get them at a decent distance. They are if use to US only if Russian defenses are incapacitated AND Russian offensive weapons threatening mainland are taken out and ineffective.
The notion that missiles placed in Romania and Poland are defensive — Russia is taking as a joke. Russia has no reason to bother with Europe UNLESS Europe represents a threat!
Where is this threat from Europe? There are no supersonic missiles in Europe to threaten Russia’s defenses. Fighter planes or slow bombers are easy targets even for S-300, never mind S-400.
So, the “defensive” missiles in Poland and Romania are short-distance OFFENSIVE threats. This is why they are in Poland and Romania, not Germany or France. Those less valuable populations would pay the price of Russia destroying those installations. And that would happen in the first minutes of war. Simultaneously — fleets surrounding Eurasia, including submarines are targets.
Russia and China have identical defense challenges, making it easier for them to avoid duplication of efforts and assets, leveraging each other’s strengths.
I hope that this asymmetry in objectives would halt the conflict before planetary destruction.
I do not know if AEGIS is easy to convert to launch assault weapons. For one you need the assault weapons to be present at the same spot. I do know that the distinction between offensive and defensive is deceptive. If you can attack and the defensive weapon prohibits the opponent from striking back then it is part of your offensive strategy. If you have little capability to project power then every weapon can be considered mostly defensive.
Also Russia has always rightly been concerned about US first strike capability. The capability to intercept the response is very much part of that.