Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

Just when you think the wingnuts are taking over the asylum, something happens to restore one's faith in rational analysis. Here are one and a half items that offered me some solace.

The half-full glass is the Obama administration's decision to replace the planned deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe with "a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting short- and medium-range Iranian missiles." The original scheme was always a pretty silly idea, insofar as it was allegedly supposed to protect Europe from a presently non-existent "Iranian threat." If Iran ever did get nuclear weapons and missiles with sufficient range, why would they aim them at Poland or Czechoslovakia or other European targets? Plus, if those dastardly Iranians could develop a missile and warhead to do that, they could undoubtedly find some way to sneak a nuclear device (i.e., one small enough to fit on a missile) into Europe via clandestine means, thereby negating any benefit we might derive from being able to knock down a few incoming ballistic missiles. Spending billions on that task always struck me as like spending thousands on a sophisticated burglar alarm while leaving your doors and windows unlocked.

We had this program because missile defenses have been a sacred cause for the GOP ever since Reagan launched the old "Strategic Defense Initiative." Because building effective missile defenses is hard, expensive, and potentially open-ended, it is an appealing full-employment policy for government weapons labs and certain sectors in the U.S. defense industry.  These corporations are happy to take some of their profits and give it to think tanks and lobbyists who will push the idea to the public and to Congress. There are also some diehards who saw deployments in Eastern Europe as a way to stick a thumb in Moscow's eye, ignoring the fact that Putin & Co. could and would cause trouble for us if we did. And of course our Eastern Europe allies liked it, less because they were worried about Iran than because they saw it as a way to strengthen overall ties with Washington.

To be sure, Obama has bowed to these political realities and sought to preempt criticism, reiterating that there's still an Iranian threat and that he's merely decided to replace the original system with one based on different architecture. Secretary of Defense Gates and the JCS have backed him up, the former remarking that "those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing." So this glass is only half-full. But I'm going to hope that this decision is the first step towards abandoning the whole idea, so that we can spend those billions on weapons we might actually need.

Which brings me to Item No. 2: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak's declaration that Iran is not in fact an "existential threat" to Israel. He's right, and he deserves praise for saying so forthrightly. Iran remains an obvious national security problem for Israel for a number of reasons, but the frankly hysterical talk about "existential threats" was becoming counterproductive, unless your aim is to persuade people that war is necessary and that it will make everything better. Exaggerating the potential impact of an Iranian bomb may have been more dangerous than the capability itself would be, especially if it began to convince worried Israelis it was time to emigrate or led Iran's leaders to mistakenly think that getting a weapon would suddenly give them a lot of additional influence or leverage. So kudos to Barak for reminding us that Israel is strong and offering a saner perspective.  

These two moments of sanity reinforce each other, of course. If a future Iranian nuclear weapon isn't an existential threat to Israel then it isn't a politically meaningful threat to anyone, save countries that might be tempted to conquer Iran at some point in the future. So if Barak is right (and I obviously think he is), then the case for missile defense deployments in Eastern Europe is weaker than Obama is admitting.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DAVE123

9:22 PM ET

September 17, 2009

"Exaggerating the potential

"Exaggerating the potential impact of an Iranian bomb may have been more dangerous than the capability itself would be, especially if it began to convince worried Israelis it was time to emigrate."

Your analysis is flawed. 25% of Israelis polled would actually leave Israel if Iran gets the bomb. Far less than any amount who would leave because of any "hysterical talk."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087342.html

Iran getting the bomb would then actually be an existential threat to Israel even if it never used it (the equvalent of 75 million people leaving the US). But I am sure you already knew this being an expert on Israel.

Just so you do not repeat the canard that no one but neocon, zionist, or AIPAC extremists think Iran is developing nukes:

September 16, 2009 French intelligence agencies are certain that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program, President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/france-certain-iran-working-on-nukes-20090916-fq3n.html

The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html

The Institute for Science and International Security, run by Albright, recently published a paper on the German investigation.
http://isis-online.org/publications/iran/MohsenCaseStudy_16Sept2009.pdf

Are France and Germany conspirators with AIPAC? Apparantly, in Waltland.

 

THUCYDIDES

9:40 PM ET

September 17, 2009

Where exactly has Steve Walt

Where exactly has Steve Walt denied that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Moreover, where has Steve Walt ever denied that Iran getting nuclear weapons would be an unwelcome development with destabilizing consequences? All Walt has ever said is that (a) Iran is not an existential threat to Israel (given Israel's own nuclear deterrent) and (b) attacking Iran is not the way to deal with the Iran nuclear issue.

Have your beefs with Walt, but at least ground them in what he actually has said.

 

JAIBRIOLQOXII

6:21 AM ET

September 18, 2009

Sarkozy Not Credible on Jewish or Israel-related Issues

Taking Sarkozy seriously on Jewish or Israel related issues is difficult:

.German intelligence is too dependent on Israelis on Iranian issues to be trustworthy.

 

DAVE123

10:09 PM ET

September 17, 2009

"Where exactly has Steve Walt

Where exactly has Steve Walt denied that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?...Have your beefs with Walt, but at least ground them in what he actually has said.

Walt's post on 9/11

"And please remember: Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon today, and there is still no sign that it has an active weapons program"

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/10/theyre_baaaaack

All Walt has ever said is that (a) Iran is not an existential threat to Israel (given Israel's own nuclear deterrent)"

As I said, I disagree, even if it is not an existential threat in the sense of actually launching a bomb. Losing 25% of your population is an existential threat by any metric. What do you think the impact on the US is if 75 million people emigrated?

Moreover, where has Steve Walt ever denied that Iran getting nuclear weapons would be an unwelcome development with destabilizing consequences?

Walt has said in earlier posts that he feels that deterrence is the best way to deal with an Iranian bomb (i.e. he doesn't care if Iran gets a bomb as deterance will work). Does he think it's worse than Iran not having the bomb, of course, but he really isn't worried about it.

That is because he doesn't care about the effects of Iran getting the bomb for example, on Israel. He does not think Israel is a strategic asset to the US and, therefore, in his "realist" perspective, it is a liability.

He also doesn't address the issue of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile area in the world developing once Iran gets the bomb and how that effects US strategic interests.

Walt also does not actually have a plan to deter Iran from getting nukes. He obviously doesn't want to bomb Iran, but he also doesn't want sanctions.

Lastly, what about tougher sanctions? That will probably end up being the default option -- because it lets the United States and its allies appear to be doing something -- but it's not going to work either.

Last paragraph
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/node/52779

So how does Walt propose we stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? He doesn't; which makes sense since he doesn't even think they are trying to make them.

 

THUCYDIDES

12:42 PM ET

September 18, 2009

Brilliant selective quotation

Dave123,

Well done with the seletive quotation of Walt. How about we take a look at the entire paragraph he wrote. As Walt acknowledges in this post, Iran is looking for a "breakout capability", and presumably by suggesting alternative ways of dissuading Iran from doing this, he implies that he thinks this would be a bad thing.

"Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon today, and there is still no sign that it has an active weapons program or is enriching uranium to sufficient purity to permit them to build a bomb. (For a rebuttal of Coats et al's claims on this point, see Daniel Luban here.) As of right now, they appear to looking for a "break out" capability that would enable them to get one rapidly if they decided it was necessary. If so, then it may -- repeat, may -- still be possible to persuade them not to weaponize. But the only course of action that stands a chance of doing that is the exact opposite of the one that the hawks are proposing. Instead of rattling sabers, setting deadlines, and mobilizing for war, as Coats et al suggest, we need to take the threat of force off the table entirely. Pointing a gun at their heads merely reinforces their desire for a reliable deterrent, and probably strengthens the hand of any Iranian officials who think they ought to get a bomb as soon as possible. It may still come to that -- which would force us to fall back on deterrence and containment -- but following the hawks' prescription makes that outcome more likely."

 

NORWEGIAN SHOOTER

10:16 PM ET

September 17, 2009

Oh, happy day!

A double batch of good news! I'll bookmark this post for when the Afghan soldier request debate starts up.

 

DAVE123

10:26 PM ET

September 17, 2009

I wonder if Walt realizes his

I wonder if Walt realizes his half glass full scenario is only possible because of the Israeli Arrow Missle defense system it will be based on. Good thing Israel is our ally, Professor Walt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8260406.stm

And no this doesn't mean Israel has nothing to worry about from Iranian nukes even if the system is perfected as a bomb smuggled in by Hezbollah is just as dangerous (not to mention the exodus an Iranian nuclear bomb will cause in Israel--see my link above)

 

ROBERTH

11:09 PM ET

September 17, 2009

25% of statistics...(@Dave123)

Seriously, anyone who trusts a public opinion poll of a hypothetical question ("Would you leave Israel if Iran had a nuke?") enough to set policy on it has a screw loose. Anyone who has conducted or is educated on primary research would know not to trust that number - it's unreliable for a host of various reasons, and the actual figure of how many would leave Israel in that event is most likely much lower. The reasons for that include facing the REAL pain of having to relocate against a possible threat, public statements from Israeli officials that will quantify the threat and of course promist overwhelming retaliation if Iran ever where to use a nuke, etc. It is not exactly as if Isreal has no experience living under threats, and the possible threat of a nuke is, frankly, a lot less threatening than several hot wars of possible extermination that Israel has undergone in recent history.

Lastly, why does ANYONE really believe that Iran would ever use a nuke? Let's say they build a handful - we still have, oh, around 2000, and Israel has several handfuls, and the Brits have a Trident sub, and the French have a nuke sub...in short, there is no real target for Iran that won't turn around and simply obliterate Iran off the map in instant retaliation. THAT is missle defense - not some multi-trillion dollar taxpayer funded boondogle that may, or may not, actually intercept a missle in real-time, and can be easily defeated by putting a bomb on a sailboat and detonating in the Chesapeak harbour.

And please stop with "the mullahs are mad" line of reasoning. They are very casual with the lives of their flock, but notice how very few of THEM actually perform suicide bombings? It is impossible to lead an Islamic Revolution if all of the leaders are dead in smoking craters that were Tehran or Qom - and they know that too.

The US has decades of Cold War experience in Mutual Assured Destruction - except this time we would only be Damaged, not Destroyed. However, Iran certainly knows IT would be Destroyed.

The more I think about it, the best deterent against an Iranian nuke program may be to simply let them know that the day they obtain a nuke, an Ohio class strategic sub will be programmed with launch coordinates for all Iran's cities and nuke sites, and always at sea. And re-activate the old ELF transmit antennas to back it up for instant launch notification to the sub (expensive, but less so than a missle defense). Let them chew on THAT...because I would wager that is a lot more scary to them than a missle defense system...

 

FLICKERVERTIGO

11:47 PM ET

September 17, 2009

meanwhile, mr walt doesnt want to discuss his status as...

Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, and the belfers' connection to enron, afghanistan, and 9/11.

but how could he do otherwise and survive?

 

REXW

2:34 AM ET

September 18, 2009

Israel and the US, allies?. Hardly.. Unhappy bedfellows

How does anyone see Israel as an ally of the US? It has become increasingly obvious that Israel dislikes America intensely.
So in the unlikely event that Iran develops a bomb and 25% of the population decides to leave Israeli shores, I doubt if the US will open its doors again to accept such an influx of people likely to swell the ranks of the disloyal (to the US, that is) Aipac malcontents.
As for the Arrow Missile Defence system, compared to the hardware marked 'made in the USA' proliferating in Israel, it is indeed pleasing to see one small Israeli contribution to military technology.
Giving something back?. Quite refreshing for Israel after taking for 50 years.
With Israel's sound economy there should soon be a case for them to make a start to commence reparation for all the aid they have received (some say plundered) from the US over time and which to this day is still flowing into the military storage depots in Israel, thanks to the Israeli-controlled Congressional puppets.
Yes, the insidious little Israeli tail still wags the toothless American dog. However, the poor overworked dog is now stirring, has started a new administration on a course of hormones to garner strength to rid itself of the one country which has dragged her down for years and who, even as we speak, are doing everything they can to thwart a US-initiated peace. Allies and friends don't do that, do they?
Perhaps then the US will build some respect from their true non-grafting friends by commencing to make decisions for the good of the USA, as it should be, and as it used to be before the stars and stripes became a symbol of one-way support for a country for over 50 years who have, time and again shown their true colors, in spades.
Time to cut the umbilical cord, once and for all.

 

COURTNEYME109

3:27 AM ET

September 18, 2009

 

GRANT

2:45 AM ET

September 18, 2009

Putin had better appreciate

Putin had better appreciate it, U.S presidents rarely roll back a predecessor's hard fought plan so openly because there's nothing besides tradition to stop their replacement from doing the same to them.

 

SAINTSIMON

10:36 AM ET

September 18, 2009

One, the Eastern European

One, the Eastern European missile defense was never about Iran, which indeed as you say would have been a bit silly, but rather about Russia. It was strategic and in essence no different from us floating aircraft carriers all over the globe.

Two, despite Obama's nice rhetoric nukes are never going away - in fact the exact opposite in that they are certain to continue to proliferate. The only way to defeat that threat is either for the US to take over the entire world, unfortunately a little beyond our reach at the moment, or protect yourself against it. The only way to effectively do that is a missile defense shield and therefore continued research, unending research if need be, makes complete sense and is absolutely necessary.

Three, if Israel has at times used enhanced rhetoric it has done so in attempt to get world to take Iranian threat seriously by making the possibility of them attacking seem real and necessary. If they have concluded that tactic is played out Barack's statement may be a reflection of such. Or not. Unless you've been sitting in on their security meetings you can have no idea what they're thinking or planning since their language on Iran, deliberately it seems, has been a little convoluted.

 

BRETT

9:52 PM ET

September 18, 2009

If Iran ever did get nuclear

If Iran ever did get nuclear weapons and missiles with sufficient range, why would they aim them at Poland or Czechoslovakia or other European targets?

Intimidation by proxy. The Iranians could say "Do this and this or we'll nuke Prague". The US could say, "Then we'll reduce Iran to a radioactive wasteland!", but that won't bring Prague back, and moreover, it puts the US in a position where we have to be the ones to decide whether or not we should annihilate an entire country for launching a single nuke. Better that that nuke never arrives in one piece.

Plus, if those dastardly Iranians could develop a missile and warhead to do that, they could undoubtedly find some way to sneak a nuclear device (i.e., one small enough to fit on a missile) into Europe via clandestine means

Please. The "suitcase nuke" threat is a myth, because it's actually really difficult, from a technological and expense point of view, to build one. You think any country that builds one is going to give it to a potential set of operatives who might get caught?

Because building effective missile defenses is hard, expensive, and potentially open-ended, it is an appealing full-employment policy for government weapons labs and certain sectors in the U.S. defense industry.

"Full-employment"? Don't make me laugh. The entirety of the program's funding amounted to $10 billion a year - that's a drop in the bucket in terms of defense spending. We could cover that simply by getting out of Iraq three months earlier than schedule.

But I'm going to hope that this decision is the first step towards abandoning the whole idea, so that we can spend those billions on weapons we might actually need.

I'm afraid the cat's already out of the bag on that one, Walt. It's not just the US that's doing this - the Turks just announced a $1 billion expansion in their own missile defense program today, the Russians have had one for years centered around Moscow (which was legal under the ABM Treaty), the Japanese are both working on their own as well as buying from the US, there's work on one covering NATO (although it's not finished or perfect), and Israel has been working on one for years. That's just a few - I have no doubt the Chinese and Indians are developing their own programs.

Perhaps you should be asking why all these countries apparently believe that Missile Defense is a worthwhile idea. Most of them seem to realize that A)it works, and it's only been getting better since the first program (Nike Zeus and Hercules) in the 1960s, and B)missile technology is spreading to the point where even non-state actors like Hezbollah have it, and ABM effectively returns the ball to the court of states like the US (who can afford alternative methods of delivery).

Besides, ABM is a good idea that comes with a very low cost compared to the benefits it brings. Even a light shield, to cover a small number of ICBMs and rogue states, would be an immense boon - it could prevent the loss of millions of lives in an accident (if, say, one of these weapons was accidently launched - and it's a possibility; there are at least eight known incidents where the US and Soviet Union nearly came to a nuclear exchange over bad information or a miscommunication), and help prevent a limited exchange from turning into a country-destroying affair.

THAT is missle defense - not some multi-trillion dollar taxpayer funded boondogle that may, or may not, actually intercept a missle in real-time, and can be easily defeated by putting a bomb on a sailboat and detonating in the Chesapeak harbour.

So you'd rather that millions of Iranians potentially die than a small number of missiles simply be stopped.

As for your "bomb on a sailboat" scenario, you do realize that

A)nukes are bigger than you think they are - and the small warheads are very difficult to make, and

B)the US actually monitors its coast.

The US has decades of Cold War experience in Mutual Assured Destruction -

Only a fool would assume that MAD is something resembling a viable strategy. There are at least eight incidents on record where the US and Soviets came near to blows simply because of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of data, and on several of those, it was literally the decision of a single man that made the difference. You call that "stability"? Pardon me if I put my trust in a system that's tested reasonably well since the 1960s, and which will put the advantage back in America's court (unlike most other states, we can afford to build large groups of strategic bombers).

The only way to effectively do that is a missile defense shield and therefore continued research, unending research if need be, makes complete sense and is absolutely necessary.

Exactly. It always amuses me when people like Walt talk about this "great boondoggle" (even though its expense is pretty pitiful in the scheme of things), and others talk about an "untested system" (even though there are tests on it going back to the 1960s - successful tests, too), and then want to cancel the funding. So, you think the system is untested, and that means . . . you want to cancel the funding for the testing? Lord give me strength.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

9:00 PM ET

September 20, 2009

There has been no test of NMD

There has been no test of NMD that uses countermeasures.

Walt is right on all counts.

Regular deterrence works fine.

Plus, even if we do have NMD, Iran can still threaten us with its missiles -- unless we are foolish enough to assume our defense are 100% effective. NMD will make no difference in our strategic calculations. It is useless.

 

BRETT

7:47 AM ET

September 21, 2009

There has been no test of NMD

There has been no test of NMD that uses countermeasures.

Wrong. The test missile in the link to be shot down included a set of counter-measures, although in this particular test they failed to activate properly. Moreover, as the link points out, they tested balloon decoys earlier, back in 2002.

Regular deterrence works fine.

Only if you're completely ignorant of how close the US and Soviet Union came to a nuclear exchange on multiple occasions during the Cold War over things as simple as a misinterpretation of radar. All it takes is one fuck-up, one accidentally fired missile (and the thing about ICBMs is that once you launch them, they can't be called back - Isaac Newton is very firmly in the drivers' seat), and a city disappears.

Say, for example, that a fuck-up occurs, and Los Angeles gets incinerated accidentally by a Russian, Chinese, or other missile. You think the US is just going to say, "Well, we'll let bygones be bygones - don't let it happen again!"? But with even a light ABM screen, that missile would be shot down, and then the US could wait. If the launcher shows signs of taking it further, we prepare our own strike. If they then call up and apologize profusely, then ultimately there's no permanent damage.

Or, let's say that, as I mentioned, Iran threatens to launch a missile into Europe if they interfere with something they're doing in the Middle East (like fucking with Dubai). With ABM, that would be a non-issue for the most part - Europe could tell them to fuck off. If not, well - as I mentioned, do you want to put the US in a situation where we have to annihilate an entire country in retaliation for a single nuke strike, killing millions (less a country get away with a successful first-strike)? Better that the missile never gets there.

Plus, even if we do have NMD, Iran can still threaten us with its missiles -- unless we are foolish enough to assume our defense are 100% effective.

Do you think missiles and nuclear warheads grow on trees? Most states with missiles simply don't have the technology or resources to build more missiles than the US can build interceptors (particularly since the interceptors themselves are cheap - the major cost in Missile Defense is the initial installation plus the Command-and-Control network), and that almost certainly includes Iran. Even if missile defense were, say, only 90% effective, that's still enough to heavily blunt any potential strike - and nuclear missiles themselves are far from 100% accurate.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

11:04 PM ET

September 21, 2009

You obviously have NO technical education

Why MD does not work:

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/the-false-promise-of-missile-defense

 

BRETT

7:54 PM ET

September 22, 2009

Povdig's an idiot. He assumes

Povdig's an idiot. He assumes that, say, intercepting 90% of missiles is no different than intercepting 0% of them, and that it won't change the strategic calculations. This is utterly idiotic, for the reasons I pointed out in my response (which you should have read before posting a worthless link) - being able to intercept the majority of incoming missiles drastically raises the cost and risk of launching a nuclear strike, since

A)You need considerably more missiles to hit the same amount of targets reliably - and missiles don't grow on trees. The technology is becoming cheaper, but most states still aren't able to build ICBMs in numbers greater and cheaper than the US can build interceptors.

B)You run the risk of not hitting a bunch of targets, particularly enemy missile sites. ICBMs do not by any means have 100% accuracy.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

2:08 AM ET

September 23, 2009

No you are the idiot. If the

No you are the idiot.

If the enemy can threaten just DC instead of DC and New York and LA, then it does NOT change our strategic calculations. Do you think we will say: oh OK, well Iran can just get DC, no problem?

No missile defense has to be perfect to affect strategic deterrence. It will never be.

Therefore it is useless -- or worse.

And expensive. I hate the tax-and-spend republican hawks who always want a bigger government.

 

BRETT

4:25 AM ET

September 23, 2009

No you are the idiot. If the

No you are the idiot.

If the enemy can threaten just DC instead of DC and New York and LA, then it does NOT change our strategic calculations. Do you think we will say: oh OK, well Iran can just get DC, no problem?

If it's a choice between "if X Country launches ICBMs at us, and we're totally defenseless" and "if X Country launches ICBMs at us and we have a very high chance of shooting most or all of them down", you can bet your ass that that changes strategic calculations on how we'd react to, say, Iranian possession of them. Obviously, the best outcome for the US would be for Iran to simply not have them at all, but if that's unavoidable, than the latter position is much better.

No missile defense has to be perfect to affect strategic deterrence. It will never be.

Therefore it is useless -- or worse.

I've explained it to you, twice, but what the hell - I'll do it a third time before writing you off as hopeless. As I pointed out, it changes deterrence because even a system that could only, on average, shoot down 90% of all incoming warheads drastically raises the costs of both an enemy first-strike and second-strike. Suddenly, the enemy can't be sure if all of their missiles will hit the important targets, particularly since odds are good that many of those missiles will never make it for technical or weather reasons.

But to give an example, let's say the US has a missile defense capable of stopping 90% of an all-out Russian missile assault, and the Russians do so. Suddenly, instead of being able to take out not only next to all of the US's strategic assets and population centers, the Russians have to worry about whether they hit all of them. They have to concentrate more missiles on certain targets, and even then they run the risk of not getting through the shield.

If the ultimate outcome is the difference between 30% of the country's population and capacity lost to a nuclear strike (which would be a hefty blow, but one we could survive) and 90% of it being wiped out (which would be essentially the death knell of America), it makes a huge difference.

If you want proof of that from history, look at how the Soviets reacted when the US started really going after ABM again in the 1980s under Reagan - it through them into a panic. Gorbachev came forward with some serious concessions in negotiations with Reagan if Reagan would stop working on the system. You can see that in some memoirs from officials in that period, including current Secretary of Defense Gates.

And expensive. I hate the tax-and-spend republican hawks who always want a bigger government.

Ten billion a year is fucking cheap in terms of military expenses, particularly with the benefits it potentially offers. We could pay for it simply by leaving Iraq three months earlier.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

4:08 PM ET

September 23, 2009

We are talking about Iran.

We are talking about Iran. Wake up. The USSR is dead.

The threat from Iran was always about a few missile: there were to be just 10 GBIs in Poland/Czech anyway. No More. Ten. As in 10.

Thus even if Iran can threaten 1 US city or 10 or 20 makes no difference in OUR strategic calculations.

Even AFTER we have missile defense we will STILL worry about Iranian missile. It will not buy us anything.

We will still be afraid of Iranian missiles. Even if it is possible just 1 gets thru.

There are no second strike calculations w/r/t Iran.

Get an education.

 

BRETT

12:54 AM ET

September 24, 2009

We are talking about Iran.

We are talking about Iran. Wake up. The USSR is dead.

I was talking about Missile Defense in general.

The threat from Iran was always about a few missile: there were to be just 10 GBIs in Poland/Czech anyway. No More. Ten. As in 10.

See the above.

I should point out, though, that once the installation was in place (the most expensive part of Missile Defense, along with the Command-and-control), it wouldn't exactly be difficult to greatly expand the number of interceptors. That's what the Russians were afraid of.

Thus even if Iran can threaten 1 US city or 10 or 20 makes no difference in OUR strategic calculations.

Sure it does. If it's a risk between one Iranian ICBM (when and if they get around to building one) having a slight chance of getting to a US city, and 10 of them having only error and weather to stop them, it changes the calculations on both the US and Iranian sides. Particularly with the retaliation that would almost certainly come in response to an attempted Iranian strike - do you think the Iranians will risk nuclear annihilation in exchange for nothing, if it came down to that?

We will still be afraid of Iranian missiles. Even if it is possible just 1 gets thru.

We'll be considerably less afraid.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

3:38 AM ET

September 24, 2009

So you are saying Iranians

So you are saying Iranians are rational.

Exactly.

They won't risk nuclear annihilation by even attempting a nuclear strike. MD is a waste of $.

Plus there is no evidence anyway that Iran has an ONGOING nuclear weapons prog.

 

RICHARD WITTYQ

7:48 PM ET

September 19, 2009

Good points all around

"Iran remains an obvious national security problem for Israel for a number of reasons, but the frankly hysterical talk about "existential threats" was becoming counterproductive, unless your aim is to persuade people that war is necessary and that it will make everything better."

We are best served by sober assessments, and sober motivations.

It is a relief to note Professor Walt's sober approaches in real life, which contrast very starkly with many that quote him.

 

DEOVANTRI

2:05 PM ET

September 20, 2009

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore. On 1st January 1993, Czechoslovakia peacefully dissolved into its constituent states, the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

7:13 PM ET

September 20, 2009

Remind me why I should care

Remind me why I should care if any country is or is not an existential threat to the apartheid state of Israel which commits war crimes with my tax dollars?

 

DAVE123

2:32 PM ET

September 21, 2009

I just wanted to thank

I just wanted to thank Professor Walt for endorsing Jstreet in his Washington Post op/ed. Combined with his broken record blaming everything on Israel, his AIPAC conspiracy theories, and not a mention of Hamas' utter rejection of peace, if Israel supporters were on the fence about Jstreet, the Walt endorsement will turn many away. Thanks again Professor Walt; especially when today Hamas AGAIN reiterated its total rejection of any peace agreement with Israel.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0920/p06s01-wome.html

 

DAVE123

5:09 PM ET

September 21, 2009

 

GEORGE VISAN

2:40 PM ET

September 30, 2009

Missile Defense

http://civitaspoliticsblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/us-makes-major-strategic-shift-on-missile-defense/

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More