Replies

This is a very scary and disturbing development. If the Russians help design and develop our missile defenses, they will, in all likelihood, be able to counteract and neutralize it in the event they decide to launch a nuclear first strike or limited nuclear attack against us.

I disagree.
President Reagan wanted to do this way back - build a missle defense system and share the technology with Russia.
The thought being that if each side could defend against the other's attack, there would be no point in attack capability.
I'm sure after we had worked together to get a basic system working, our people could tweak it to negate outside knowledge of its operation (adding security layers).

This is a good idea whose time is past due, IMHO.

I disagree. President Reagan wanted to do this way back - build a missle defense system and share the technology with Russia. The thought being that if each side could defend against the other's attack, there would be no point in attack capability. I'm sure after we had worked together to get a basic system working, our people could tweak it to negate outside knowledge of its operation (adding security layers). This is a good idea whose time is past due, IMHO.

Actually, it was a very bad idea when Reagan proposed it and it remains an equally bad idea as it has been proposed by Bush today. Reagan offered to share SDI technology in the mid-1980s at the times when the Soviets remained overt enemies to us--that was perhaps more dangerously naive and self-defeating then it is now with President Bush offering to jointly develop a missile defense system with a authoritarian KGB-led Russia which is purported to be our newest NATO ally. Although with the latest Bush proposal, the Russians might actually contribute some of their technology, by doing so they will be much better able to defeat any limited missile defenses which we deploy and perhaps even prevent them from working at all. This is a danger that the Reagan proposal did not include since the Reagan proposal was based exclusively on US technology.

The fact is that the Russians have the best NMD technology in the world which they have deployed in the form of a national missile defense system consisting of 8500 SA-10 ABMs as the author notes here. The Russians today can shoot down about 2000 incoming warheads, whereas the US lacks the capability to shoot down even one strategic warhead. The Russian nuclear arsenal is as much as five times larger than that of the US, which has downsized to a mere 8000 total nukes under President George W. Bush. By 2012, it could be as much as ten times larger if the planned Bush evisceration of our strategic nuclear deterrent is implemented as required by the newly concluded Treaty of Moscow.

The Russians pushed for language limiting the scope of the planned US missile defense system in the recently signed arms control treaty. However, President Bush persuaded them to accept this language in a separate ‘strategic framework’ document, which accompanied the treaty. This language is reportedly a reiteration of Bush’s previous assurances to the Russians that the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the US from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles.

As noted by the author, Bush has signed an agreement with the Russians that his planned missile defense system will be too limited in size and scope to defend against a Russian nuclear attack on the US. I anticipate that Bush will deploy a missile defense system consisting of only a few hundred ABM interceptors much too weak to counter Russian missiles. In contrast, the current Russian NMD system ability to ensure that any US nuclear attack is completely shot down will be much increased by this treaty so once again we have a President, who like Jimmy Carter did in 1977, is locking in continued Russian offensive nuclear and strategic defensive superiority well into the forseeable future. The most likely result will be the demise of the US as a nuclear superpower and our replacement as global hegemon by a newly empowered Sino-Russian alliance whose relative military power vis a vis the US will be much increased by this agreement.

I am sorry to disabuse you of your mis-statement about what Ronald Reagan was proposing. He explicitly intended only to offer sharing the technology AFTER we had the system deployed and up and running. Not before. Certainly he never intended to invite them into a joint planning capacity, which represents the clear opportunity to sabotage conceptual architecture, and veto the more effectual systems and deployments. So hence, this is an idea whose time should never have come so long as it is clear we have more of a geo-political adversary (albeit camouflaged by recent postures), rather than friend.

This is a good idea whose time is past due

It was startling when Reagan announced it, and should do more to cement the friendship and mutual trust between the two countries than almost anything else.

Was it offered to China as well? It should be.