Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Its not about whether BP or something else can defend against them or not (for the record I do like BP and thinks its the best missile defense system currently achievable), the issue is that Russia is concerned enough already with out current missile defense system to go ahead and spend hard cash on ways to defeat it.Russia considers its nuclear deterrent as vital for the survivability of the nation and any attempt to undermine it as a threat to their sovereignty. Remember they probably have a requirement for a minimum number of warheads that must hit in a retaliatory strike to achieve suitable levels of deterrence. Anything that drops them below that level is a significant threat, this includes US first strike capability (even if we would never actually use it) and missile defense. Throw in BP and now they feel they are very vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike.Remember we where well on our way to getting rid of MIRVed land-based ICBMs under START II, untill the US left the ABM Treaty. Had the US stayed in ABM, we could have seen New START with even lower limits (1000 warheads?) and less capable ICBMs. Now we are looking at the possibility of no replacement for New START, no INF, and a very possible new nuclear arms race. I believe that in our effort to increase our missile defense capabilities we have pushed foreign powers to increase their nuclear forces capabilities even further, paradoxically decreasing stability and making a nuclear strike more likely. The only way BP works is if it's a joint US-Russia project that provides both nations with the same amount of capability.
Its not about whether BP or something else can defend against them or not (for the record I do like BP and thinks its the best missile defense system currently achievable), the issue is that Russia is concerned enough already with out current missile defense system to go ahead and spend hard cash on ways to defeat it.
Russia considers its nuclear deterrent as vital for the survivability of the nation and any attempt to undermine it as a threat to their sovereignty. Remember they probably have a requirement for a minimum number of warheads that must hit in a retaliatory strike to achieve suitable levels of deterrence. Anything that drops them below that level is a significant threat, this includes US first strike capability (even if we would never actually use it) and missile defense. Throw in BP and now they feel they are very vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike.
Remember we where well on our way to getting rid of MIRVed land-based ICBMs under START II, untill the US left the ABM Treaty. Had the US stayed in ABM, we could have seen New START with even lower limits (1000 warheads?) and less capable ICBMs. Now we are looking at the possibility of no replacement for New START, no INF, and a very possible new nuclear arms race. I believe that in our effort to increase our missile defense capabilities we have pushed foreign powers to increase their nuclear forces capabilities even further, paradoxically decreasing stability and making a nuclear strike more likely. The only way BP works is if it's a joint US-Russia project that provides both nations with the same amount of capability.
