I believe that that the US has already unilarterially backed out of the ABM treaty. Although the ABM treaty was intended to limit nuclear tipped antiballistic missile missiles--the newer technology of 'brilliant pebbles' seems somehow a little more acceptable to me personally. Basically a brilliant pebble is little more than an infrared imaging telescope--about 4-6 inches in diameter; a liter of liquid nitrogen to cool the imaging sensor; a guidance, command, and control computer; a small radar unit for ranging; a battery; about fifty pounds of hydrazine monopropellant or nitrogen tetroxide/monomethyl hydrazine bipropellant; a system of thrusters, usually about 12 (+/- yaw, pitch, roll plus xyz translation); and a helium tank for pressurization of propellant. The thing probably masses not much more than 120 pounds (say about 50 kilograms.) The unit would be about foot across (30 cm) and 18-24 inches long (40-60 cm.)

What is disturbing to me is how the Russians might feel about this. I've seen various maps--Poland is along one of the likely flight paths for missiles fired from Iran. If the missiles are relatively short range (as the Standard 3 based ABM is) then this will do little or nothing to stop missiles launched at us from Polyarny, Plesetsk, or any Siberian site. It also does nothing for missiles fired at us from North Korea--this is why the base in Alaska was selected.

With relatively short range missiles, the cross range capability is much less, then these systems should not provoke the Russians into thinking that they are a destabilizing threat. Of course, that is simply "good ol' boy, American thinkin'" However, playing the Devil's advocate: the Russians will more likely be inclined to take the presence of any US missile intercepting system so near their borders as a direct threat and a provocation. They may even attempt an agressive or provactive tactical strike on such a site, before it is even operational--and this leads directly to various cold war scenarios that quickly become 'hot war' scenarios, with real nuclear missiles flying around, and real cities getting wacked; and a whole lot of people getting real dead real fast.

The US under George W has in the amazingly short span of eight years managed to reverse nearly ten years of 'post cold war' thawing; nearly ticked off every ally or nation that we have dealt with; and managed to make 'anew' mortal enemies with former mortal enemies.

In all fairness it is not entirely his fault--it was getting pretty messed up anyways; but we seem to be 'going out of our way' to rub other nations the wrong way. I'm not saying we should just roll over--but geez, can we ever get our act together!

I've said it before: I think that we (the United States) should retain a nuclear force capable of credible deterrance. I think we should make it our policy that if we (the US) are attacked by more than one ballistic missile (one could be considered an 'accident.' More than one is a concerted attack--and hence, deliberate.) then we should retaliate with nuclear weapons. So that puts everybody on notice, Iran and North Korea included. We aren't kidding around. If you (Iran or North Korea, or anybody else for that matter!) guys lob a couple of missiles at us--we won't wait to for the warheads to hit the ground in our territory to find out if it was a nuke; a mustard or VX round; or ten thousand party favours. We will launch a counter stike immediately.

We can base short range interceptors in Alaska (which covers likely flight paths for ballistic missiles from North Korea) and in Maine (which is along the likely path of missiles from Iran.) If we want, we can sprinkle more short range sites along the border with Canada (to cover possible missiles from Russia or China;) maybe a few on the West Coast and East Coast; and maybe a few along the southern border (incase we so alienate the Mexican government that they want to build ballistic missiles and point them at us )

In all seriousness: with the way things are presently going, I see more of a danger of seriously escalating this thing with the Russians, than any benefit of safety from a couple of small missiles that the Iranians might eventually develop. So what if they develop the capability to lob a 100 kg ballistic warhead at us? If its a nuke, it won't be very powerful. If its chemicals, it won't kill very many people because the warhead will be traveling so fast most of the chemicals would simply burn up in the atmosphere. Ditto for biologicals. They'd have to put a parachute on the thing--more complexity; more inert weight; less payload...not much danger.

But the risks associated with antagonizing the Russians, in my opinion, are much greater: they have large missiles; with large accurate payloads; and they have many of them. Our only good option is to find a way to come to terms with what has happened and find a path back to peaceful coexistance. And remind countries like Iran and North Korea that if they want to join the ballistic missile club, then the price of admission is the threat of assured destruction should those missiles fly. So having said that: "welcome to the club."

We have long ago withdrawn from the ABM Treaty based on a clause that allows either side to do so with six months notice.  That's done.

We have actually deployed anything to Poland yet.  They have agreed to the deployment.  I don't think Russian has the technology to respond in kind in Venezuela.  What they are do is selling high quality fighter jets and other arms which is leading to a response from Brazil who is now going to by high end figher jets from the U.S.  The could set off a Latin American arms race. 

The big question is will Russia actually attack Poland over the deployment?  I really doubt it.  These missile present no real threat to the Russians.  What they are really upset about is a policy of including one piece of their former empire after another into NATO.  I tend to think that is a bad policy.  For example the recent Georgian conflict.  If Georgia had been in NATO just what would we have done.  Gone to war with Russia?  I doubt and as a result the credibility of NATO would be diminished.  We should make treaty commitments that aren't worth fighting over and which we lack the capability to fight over.

On this issue of how to respond to a small missile attack I think that Googlenaut is being a little too aggressive.  It would seem to me that it would best to try to intercept it if we have the BMD in place to do so.  If it gets through then we should assess the damage and the intent.  The retailiate a the appropiate level after notifing the other nuclear powers of what we are doing so that they won't be surprised and react as if it was an attack on them.  If fact it might be best to use an aircraft/cruise missile system to carry out the counter move so as to make more controlled.  Remember if we are going against Korean we are dropping nukes right close to Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea.  With Iran we are hitting very close to Russia.  I agree that if we are hit with a nuke we must strike back but we need to be very careful about not escalating the situation. 

-- Edited by John at 01:59, 2008-09-02