Bolton had a practical effect in the UN and the State Department.

Freevillage’s comments about MAD are redolent of the Cold War. I thought we and the Russians had agreed to stop targeting each other’s cities and missile bases.

Yes and I personally don’t think that the US would ever attack Russia. However, there’s this thing, it’s called the real world. In the real world any country including Russia is paranoid about its security. Particularly when we talk about nukes, where the costs are infinite and hence virtually any level of paranoia is justified.

As for reading John Bolton, I like the guy the same way I like Cheney. They come across as extremely intellectual people able to speak well. Unfortunately their resumes are kind of unconvincing to say the least. I’m sure my relatives would rather be alive than “free” and evaporated. Nobody wants a repetition of Iraq anywhere else in the world.

Er, no, Freevillage. I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote. Putin may not like it, but he’s not really the big missile threat, which everyone except you and Putin understand.

Ed Morrissey on March 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Sorry Cap’n Ed, but FV is correct – and it is the Russians’ own fault. If the U.S. had been occupied by Soviet Russia after WW2 we would also be wanting ANY KIND of protection against it happening again. Of course we emphisize the reason for the antiballistic system is mainly for antiterrorism. But the anti-Russian reason for the Poles is equally real.

Next the Baltic States, then what?

Rational partner?

We need a safer entry point into Afghanistan but the West, yes, the West, will pay a heavy price.

Of course, you can depend on the Dims to try and kill the airborne laser at every opportunity. It really sucks to be caught between malice from abroad and the stupidity of the left here at home.

Theoretically this missile shield could be used in part of a first strike against Iran or other minimally armed nation. But not Russia.

Freevillage’s comments about MAD are redolent of the Cold War. I thought we and the Russians had agreed to stop targeting each other’s cities and missile bases.

Ed is right: We desperately need more ways to get into the Afghan/Pakistani border regions.

With China dominating Asia, it would make sense to pull Russia along with her former provinces and satellites into NATO. Not likely, I know, but it would make sense for both Europe and Russia–and the USA.

This looks like an attempt to rebuild an alliance with Moscow that may set some teeth grinding, but in the long run might — might — provide us with a more rational partner and one with less risk.

Let’s put aside sentimentalities about democracy and our nostalgia for Reagan’s days and look at the matter practically.

An understanding with Moscow, if there’s good faith on both sides, is to be welcomed. We need their energy; they need time, decades, to undo the carnage of the last century. During their recuperation, they will want a powerful friend to help them against becoming a suburb of China, which demographically speaking is highly probable. Buti If Russia can stop thinking with the chip on its shoulder and if the US can stop being so damned-dumb for once, there could be a zone of mutual prosperity and mutual defense belting the entire Northern hemisphere. Anybody else think that sounds pretty good?

It seems like lunacy to rely on Putin’s good will, like Freevillage wants us to do. “if we leave the door unlocked, they won’t break in! If we lock the door, they will think we have precious stuff and expend much more effort to break in!” So let’s disarm completely–isn’t that the ultimate end of this line of thought? Why, if we disarmed our military completely, no one would fear us, so no one would target us!

Leftist thinking completely.

Oh yeah, lets scrap the missile defense system because we can trust them!

Why were those treaties signed at the time? How come they are no longer needed?

I suggest you pick up a copy of Surrender Is Not An Option by former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Here you will find a detailed account of the logic for, and necessity to end United States compliance to the ABM treaty.

As for the subject of this post, the sooner we can make Pakistan truly understand it is their best interest to play ball with us the better. The Mashariff era is over, little if anything good has come out of it!

… the Russians … are more concerned about us having a DEFENSIVE system then they are about Iran having an OFFENSIVE capability, even though Russia is a target of (Chechyen) islamic militants. Chechnya, Iraq, The P.I., A-stan, Kashmir, etc, why don’t the Ruskies understand that to the islamos, this is all the same war?

Iran is not a real threat to Russia because (a) such an attack would not leave Russia in a state of moral paralysis; instead Russia would either reduce its inventory of nuclear weapons by using them or else bury Iran under the bodies of hastily-called-up soldiers (just like it took Berlin); and (b) Russia would be happy to occupy and hold Iran in a way we would not, since Russia is a continental power.

Thus the Iranian missles are not a credible thread to Russia. But solidarity against her by the states on her western border is a considerable threat, because they can strangle or manipulate her economy by controlling the flow of petroleum and gas that Russia has for sale, and can greatly restrict her access to commercially valuable seaports. (The Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg remnant of East Prussia has no land access to the rest of Russia, and St. Petersburg is a warm-weather port.)

Being surrounded by states which may have unpredictable consciences is also uncomfortable. Russia stretches across eleven time zones, with access to both Europe and the Pacific. She has deep, untapped stores of mineral wealth and her peoples have long and storied histories. Such a nation should be a Power, and no self-respecting ambitious politician could think otherwise.

Physical and political geography deserve better treatment in K-12 than we give them.

yeah, I still fail to see Freevillages overwheming concern that Millions of people in Europe be sitting ducks for missiles from Iran, or yes, even Russia.

1. Iran doesn’t have missiles threatening Europe.
2. Defense system will sure mean more Russian missiles targeting Europe.

I think a quid-pro-quo over Georgia and Ukraine is a strategic error.

There will be no such thing. Nobody in Russia will allow any land use by the American forces, and the US will not have to pay for it in any way.

I think you are complaining because it is fashionable for you to do so. I believe you are parroting the “correct” rhetoric without really thinking it through yourself.

I think I have provided you with a fairly clear description of a scenario where the defense system becomes instrumental specifically against Russia. A scenario that I didn’t invent myself. Instead of addressing it, you started insulting me. You’ll be ignored from this point on.

The point is, you trade our missiles in Turkey for theirs in Cuba, they’re gonna force us into trade after trade, until finally, a couple of months from now they demand something we won’t trade, like Berlin, and we do end up in a war. Not to mention that long before that happens this administration will be politically dead.

We cannot trust Russia. We just can’t. And, they don’t even border Afghanistan. If anything, first, we should be reaching out to the ‘stans that do border it. You can get to Afghanistan without having to fly over Russia or Pakistan. I think a quid-pro-quo over Georgia and Ukraine is a strategic error. We need to continue to bring those countries into the Western fold. Sec. Rice’s continuing insistence that Russia has common interests with us is utterly ridiculous.

Does he honestly believe that Bush is slavering at the bit to nuke every city in Russia, and is only waiting until he has a working missile shield to do so? That’s well beyond Truther level.

A defensive missile system is not a deterrent to massive attack because an attacker could very easily overwhelm the defensive system with more targets than it can engage. It is designed to thwart attacks of single or a few missiles as might be launched by some rogue state or lunatic general with the key to a nuke in his hand. It makes it LESS likely that such a lunch would result in a full blown nuclear war as it provides a mechanism to defuse the problem before you have a million people dead.

The system would never defend Europe if Russia decided it was going to engaged in a full blown attack. In that respect the defensive system is no threat at all to Russia.

What the Russians apparently do NOT want is powerful European RADAR units peering deep into Russian space. We have agreed to work with them on that. We have also agree to share the anti-missile technology with them so they have the potential to have the same kind of system that we have.

I think you are complaining because it is fashionable for you to do so. I believe you are parroting the “correct” rhetoric without really thinking it through yourself. Maybe you do this to be accepted by a group of friends or something. I would suggest than an alternative to knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric might be some serious thought on the subject.

I don’t really want to argue this point now. Let me finish by saying this. If Ed thinks that concerns regarding a change of this scale is some crazy talk pushed by Putin and me, then he doesn’t live on the planet Earth.

For instance, Russia may not have enough time to launch all of its missiles while American missiles are still in the air. Since the attack will surely be primarily on Russian military bases, it means the few survived missiles will be tasked to retaliate. In this scenario, the defense system in Europe actually may become an adequate protection against Russia.

Meaning, implementing the defense system in Europe gives the US extra incentive to strike first. Now, Ed who apparently doesn’t know much about the subject, may think this is some crazy stuff that onnly I and Putin are thinking about. This type of apocalyptic scenarios is what everybody talks about when at issue are wars with infinite costs.

All those treaties aimed at controlling the arms race weren’t written by idiots.