Department of Insulting Our Intelligence
Russia interprets the construction of missile defense facilities on Polish soil as a hostile act. And rightly so — clearly the only possible adversary such a system could be aimed against is Russia. The Bush administration, however, not only believes in the missile shield but believes in pretending it’s not an anti-Russian gesture. Thus we get stuff like this:
“This is an agreement that, of course, will establish a missile defense site here in Poland, a missile defense site that will help us to deal with the new threat to the 21st century of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea,” Rice said yesterday at the Polish presidential palace in Warsaw.
As Spencer Ackerman wisely points out the idea of a North Korean missile attacking Poland is laughable and of an Iranian missile doing so only very slightly less so. The countries that Poland worries about are Russia and Germany; the countries with substantial missile arsenals are the United States and Russia; the country that this would defend Poland against if it worked (which it doesn’t) is Russia.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to “Department of Insulting Our Intelligence”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 21st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
How is this different than Cuba ?
anyone, anyone, Bueller ?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
It’s a “hostile act” to install a defense system? Seems kind of absurd.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
You seem to think these missile defense facilities are for defending Poland–why is that?
The missile defense facilities in Poland could not be aimed at Russia (at least within the next decade or two) simply because the Russian missile arsenal is far larger than that of our missile defense system.
The truth is that this installation in Poland could only handle a small attack from a country with only a handful of nuclear weapons/missiles, i.e. Iran and North Korea in the next.
Of course, that does not address question of whether investing in a missile defense system is worth it, but it would be difficult to argue that the main focus of this system in the near to mid term is Russia.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Um, I’m thinking Matt doesn’t understand how this technology is supposed to work. It currently doesn’t work, and is flawed in the conception anyway, but at least Matt should understand the theory.
Theoretically, this sytem would intercept long-range missiles in midcourse (as opposed to during boost or reentry). Accordingly, you want the bases somewhere in between the launch sites you are concerned about and the targets you are protecting.
So, for example, our bases in Alaska aren’t there to protect just Alaska from just Siberia–theoretically they would also protect the continental United States from launches throughout East Asia (say, North Korea). Similarly, Eastern European bases could theoretically help protect the United States from launches in the Middle East or North Africa, and Western Europe from Asian launches as well.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
In all fairness, Poland intercepts the ICBM route from Iran to Washington. So Rice’s explanation is logically coherent, even if it’s not very convincing.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The key here is that conventional maps distort the shortest paths between distant points on the globe. The shortest route often appears a great looping curve on the map you see on the news or in a classroom. Thus my flight from Atlanta to Paris may pass over Boston and a missile launched from Tehran would pass over eastern Europe.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Doesn’t work? It will work fine if our enemies give us week’s warning and supply us with the missile trajectory. And if they promise to launch in good weather. And attach homing beacons to their missiles. And only launch one missile at a time. And don’t deploy any decoys or jamming equipment. And limit the total number of missiles to our anti-missile capacity. Our enemies will surely agree to all those constraints. After all, they’re not launching missiles to harm us, are they?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Doesn’t work? It will work fine if if our enemies give us a week’s notice and supply us with the trajectories. And attach homing beacons to their missiles. And launch only one missile at a time. And only launch during good weather. And not use decoys or jamming equipment. And limit the total number of missiles to our ant-missile capacity. Our enemies will surely agree to those restrictions, won’t they?
August 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
If the system is capable of hitting missles in-flight (that is, not in boost phase), it’s also capable of hitting Russian missles deployed against Europe. Most Russian missles targeted at the US would go over the pole (heh) but intermediate range missles aimed at other places would not. In any event, the system wouldn’t defend against the missles the Iranians actually have, particularly since those would be targeted at Israel.
Strangely enough, missles can take all kinds of flight paths, and a system based in Poland is going to be optimal for certain types of Russian missles that actually exist. Throw in radars, airbases and whatnot, (which are also going to be primarily useful against Russia), it’s fairly obvious the crap about Iranian missles is a cover story for the actual target. Of course, the fuckheads who run our foreign policy may actually be so stupid as to believe that guarding against Iranian missles and warheads that don’t exist is some kind of high defense priority, but that simply indicates that they’re basically as militarily inept as Saaskavilli.
max
[’Have a nice day!’]
August 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Long range missile threat from Iran?!?
Must be silly season.
ICBM launched from North Korea intercepted by missile from Polish defense site?!?
Definitely silly season.
Some people will say anything to defend the appearance of a first strike capability.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Oops. Seems to be a delay in the comments now.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Yeah, what Jediflyer and DTM said. The missles aren’t going in Poland because they’re meant to defend Poland, they’re going there because it’s convenient. Pointing out that Iran and North Korea aren’t going to attack Poland is a straw-man; it’s like saying the FBI shouldn’t build a DNA lab in North Carolina because Georgia has a higher crime rate.
This really isn’t a case of us being hostile, it’s a case of Russia having a hissy fit. Anybody who understands the basics about what the technology is and how it works knows that there’s simply no possible way it even comes close to being a match for the Russian arsenal. The US knows this, Poland knows this, and Russia knows this. The US is building it because we’ve never met a weapons system we didn’t like, Poland agreed because they want to thumb their nose at Russia (especially given the recent events in Georgia), and Russia’s angry about it simply because it gives the US a shiny toy that Russia can’t play with, and by golly, if Russia can’t have one, nobody’s going to have one.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
But Sec. Rice obviously can’t say “We’re installing these missile interceptors to protect against Russia,” that wouldn’t be very conciliatory towards Russia. Should she say nothing? Come up with a more plausible lie?
August 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“In all fairness, Poland intercepts the ICBM route from Iran to Washington. So Rice’s explanation is logically coherent, even if it’s not very convincing.”
True, but the path from North Korea to the US goes over the North Pole, not Poland. So why is she mentioning North Korea? Either she’s stupid or thinks we are. If you want to stop missiles form North Korea, you’d do it from Greenland.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I think we ran into this same disconnect back when it was Reagan/Gorbachev. By complaining about the threat that this defense missile system poses, Russia reinforces the idea that it works, which it doesn’t. Not sure why they would do that, except as an excuse to ratchet up hostilities on their end. I think a better response would be something along the lines of “Sticks and stones will break my bones but fantasy technology dreamed up by an old movie actor after seeing it in one of the crappy B-movies he starred in will not hurt me.”
August 21st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
August 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’m glad we’ll be protected from those PhotoShopped Iranian missiles.
Could someone just PhotoShop OUT George, Condi, Dick and the rest of the crew for the next couple of months?
August 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think Matt and Spencer jumped the snark here. From a long-term strategic standpoint positioning missile defense in Poland is totally sensible for the US, for reasons mentioned. It doesn’t protect us from anything now, but clearly would in the future, and cementing diplomatic relations with Poland on this matter now rather than later has clear advantages to the US.
American liberalism has a dark history of Russian apologists. Matt should reflect more deeply on the ways in which his prescient analysis of recent US foreign policy failures (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) do and DO NOT apply to the Russia situation.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Sorry –
Iran Test-Fires Long-Range Missile
Jon Wolfsthal
Senior Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS
Wednesday, July 9, 2008; 1:00 PM
Silly season.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/09/DI2008070901362.html
August 21st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I’m not sure if they’ve managed to fit a nuclear sized warhead on the Shahab-3 but I suspect it’s irrelevant anyhow since they don’t have miniturized nukes yet (or any other kind for that matter).
At any rate, Tehran is 1800 miles from Warsaw. I’m not sure how well missile defense in Poland will work to intercept missiles that impacted in Russia or the Ukraine.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The fact that the missile system that doesn’t work isn’t designed to deal with Russia anyway hardly means Russia should be thrilled about us building new new bases and weapons facilities on their border. In fact the hilarious failure of the anti-ICBM technology would seem to suggest it was a cover for something else. Of course you and I know that it’s merely a wasteful boondoggle, but the Russians can’t take that on faith.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
It’s a “hostile act” to install a defense system? Seems kind of absurd.
It is when peace is maintained by mutually-assured destruction.
The missile defense facilities in Poland could not be aimed at Russia (at least within the next decade or two) simply because the Russian missile arsenal is far larger than that of our missile defense system.
After a “First Strike” by the US, how many missiles will the Russians have left. A missile defense system could deal with enough of the remaining missiles that the US suffers little damage.
With missile defense in place, the Russian nuclear arsenal will be on a hair trigger, the first sign of anything, real or imaginary, the Russians will launch and who can blame them.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Speaking of insulting our intelligence, just up on Drudge, suspicious white powder sent to McCain’s campaign office. I don’t mean to sound cynical, but McCain is desperately trying to kill the elitist story that is emerging about him, starting with his houses. We also know that he is not above telling lies when it is to his political advantage. Bottom line? Something about this white powder story doesn’t have the ring of truth. It just doesn’t sound like straight talk to me.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
It strikes me that this is an excellent tactic by the Bush administration for selling continued missile defense fuinding to a skeptical Democratic congress during the next administration. Missile defense has been a sacred cow to Republicans since the Reagan administration. But critics have always countered that the whole program is a boondoggle, and the technology doesn’t work. The very angry Russian response to the Polish missile system suggests that the Russians, at least, clearly believe the system works. And I suspect a lot of members of congress will be inclined to think, “Well, if the case is good enough for Kremlin intelligence, it’s good enough for me.”
It’s not a very telling criticism of Rice to complain she is insulting everyone’s intelligence by not publicly acknowledging that the missle shield is at least partially arrayed against Russia. Obviously, Rice is not going to broadcast that message or engage in needlessly provocative language. Installing the missile system is a pointed enough message as it is. The Russians know what we are up to, of course, but the job of the Secretary of State is to put the best diplomatic face on the decision that she can. Would we really want our Secretary of State to say, “OK, we admit it. Yes, this is missile system that will enhance US first strike cpabilities against Russia and neutralize a bit more of the Russian nuclear arsenal?”
I don’t have the foggiest idea what Matt and Spencer are talking about with respect to Iranian nuclear attacks on Poland. Obviously, that is not the kind of scenario that anyone is talking about, on any side of the debate. The part of the missile shield that is in Greenland, for example, is obviously not there to protect Greenland.
One issue I don’t think has been mentioned is Pakistan. I believe they have intermediate range missiles with a range of 2000 km. And our main ally there is no longer in charge.
Nuclear nonproliferation is going to be a very big issue in the Obama administration. The US public has gone 15 years without thinking about these issues very much. EWe’re all going to have to get back up to speed to participate in the debate in an intelligent way, and defend our values successfully.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The US wants to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, and Russia has 2,146 land-launched nuclear warheads, 1,392 sea-launched warheads, and 624 air-launched warheads. So what do you think, do 10 interceptor missiles pose a threat to the effectiveness of Russia’s nuclear deterrence?
Source: BBC News
August 21st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
North Korea is relevant because in the event North Korea launched on a target in Europe, Poland would be roughly along the path.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Poland is a member of NATO. Nobody’s surprised to find American weapons there, least of all Moscow.
This isn’t about Poland, this is about Georgia.
Consider: In Georgia, the Russians are doing what they like, we’re powerless to stop them, and we’re reduced to ineffectual complaining.
In Poland, the Americans are doing what they like, the Russians are powerless to stop them, and Moscow is reduced to ineffectual complaining.
Thus, this carping yields two worthwhile results for Russia:
First, it raises their stature by framing them as our adversary. It’s just like the way Nixon in ‘68 raised his stature by provoking Johnson into engaging him, thus making Nixon the de facto leader of the opposition.
Second, it frames their Georgian land-grab as just one move in a game of superpower tit-for-tat. You can’t legitimize something like that at a single stroke, but every little bit helps.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
In my opinion, you have all missed the point of why Russia is upset. Missile Defense technology such as this are good for one thing and one thing only - a first strike. As has been pointed out, it is pointless to “defend” against Russia’s (or really anyone’s) ICBMs because the system would be overwhelmed. With regard to “rogue” states, they will never fire a single (or 2 or 3) warheads against a U.S. target because the U.S. will most certainly annihilate the country shortly thereafter. If, however, you are aiming for nuclear supremacy and the potential strategic advantages that come with it, what about designing a system that allows you to shoot down a few missiles after you have pounded all of the silos, airfields, etc. That is the purpose of a missile “shield,” to mop up after a devastating attack. Personally, I don’t believe any U.S. President is stupid enough to launch a full-scale attack on anyone, but the U.S. has historically tried very, very hard to maintain nuclear supremacy and, if this system functions at all (I maintain my serious doubts), it could be very effective at preventing a nuclear exchange from the adversary. This is why the Russians are so unhappy - they rightly see this as a first strike weapon. Same goes for Iran.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Actually the “missile defense system” would only stop a few missiles, even if it worked, which it doesn’t. So it could never give us first-strike capability against the Russians. The whole thing is about politics and money. The politics is “to protect the American people” and the money goes to the contractors - billions of dollars. What difference does it make whether or not it works - neither Iran or North Korea is ever going to fire an ICBM at the US. So the American people feel protected, Bush gets their votes, and the contractors get our money. Win, win, win.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Morons.
Look, stupids. It’s utterly irrelevant whether the missile system actually works as long as it’s BEING PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS. If you haven’t figured that shit out by now, you have no business using the Internet - or doing anything but being fed baby food by your mother. Expensive military systems are intended to be PAID FOR, not USED.
Secondly, it’s utterly irrelevant whether the location of the missile systems is practical for ICBM interdiction or not. The bottom line is that US military bases are being planted in countries near Russia - as a first step, to be followed up by Bondsteel- and Bagram-size bases housing US Special Forces, long-range stealth bombers, and God knows what over the next decade or two. Russia simply wants to nip this bullshit in the bud before it gets started.
And it has been pointed out before that all of this is a violation of the ABM Treaty, which is what Russia is slightly pissed about.
Russia is MORE pissed about the rest of the obvious ploy by the US to marginalize Russia and ring it with military bases based on the neocon concept that NO country on Earth except the US has even a REGIONAL influence anywhere in the world. Go back and read the PNAC documents - or all of US history for that matter. The US intends to continue a hostile relationship to Russia - and Putin knows it.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Who are the lobbyists for the missile defense contractors?
Seems like that should be the first question when that much government money is invested in something that doesn’t work.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Sorry, I meant “follow the money when that much government money is spent on something that doesn’t work”.
Who has the contract to build this not-working hardware?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
How about the Swiss? Their 334 years of neutrality is an obvious ruse to cover up their clearly hostile intentions toward Poland. The fact that they haven’t ever done or said anything hostile toward Poland (or any country for that matter) is particularly alarming. It’s always the quiet ones you have to watch. Go get ‘em W.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 am
The big joke is that we’re deploying a missile defense system that is not even close to operational yet and may never be.
Has even the Patriot missile clocked a confirmed kill yet? All of its vaunted success in the first gulf war was simple propaganda. I’ve heard that the new system is better, but I don’t know that I’ve seen a report from anyone I respect which would lead me to believe that it is working any better now than then.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 am
You know, it’s funny, but the Poles who support this seem to think that the missile defense system is 1) for their benefit, and 2) to be used to protect them from / deter Russia. Not even they buy the line that this is a system to deter Iran and North Korea, although for some reason they seem to think that the US taxpayer is willing to foot the bill so that the Russkies don’t nuke Warsaw.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 am
The bottom line is that US military bases are being planted in countries near Russia - as a first step, to be followed up by Bondsteel- and Bagram-size bases housing US Special Forces, long-range stealth bombers, and God knows what over the next decade or two.
Camp Bondsteel doesn’t have a runway, doofus. You think these bombers are going to take off from a football field?
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 am
Has even the Patriot missile clocked a confirmed kill yet? All of its vaunted success in the first gulf war was simple propaganda.
Yes; it shot down an RAF Tornado by mistake during OP TELIC I.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 am
Its not the missile defense that will keep Russia from attacking Poland, its the new security treaty tucked (actually it is hardly tucked since it has been published in every article I have read about the deal) into the missile defense deal between Poland and the United States that is meant to deter Russia. That is the only reason Poland agreed to house the 10 interceptors, and it was the same reason the US hadn’t, until the South Ossetian War, agreed to Poland’s demands of Patriot missile batteries manned by American personnel. Now the claims of new Patriots being more accurate against in bound tactical ballistic missile is still very much up-in-the-air, but its effectiveness against aircraft isn’t, and considering the Phased Array Tracking Radar is far more advance than the system the Georgians used to take down at least 4 Russian aircraft, which was of Russian design (I still can’t believe the Russians couldn’t evade their own anti-aircraft systems) it provides a pretty good deterrent from a Georgian style attack against Poland.
Now the contention is that if Georgia had a such a security agreement (which guarantees a faster and more comprehensive response to an attack than American gives other NATO nations) the Russians would have never fired a shot. That is very debatable given the geographic location of Georgia. Since World War II the US conventional military power has been projected through its carrier groups(even though carrier groups carry nuclear weapons) which it has twelve, and it would be very hard to have a “blue water” navy operate in territorial waters such as the Black Sea. But given Poland’s location on the Baltic Sea, it would be much easier to defend, not to mention its proximity to Ramstein.
Plus South Ossetian War has made the most harden dove rethink their position on the need for a more comprehensive strategy for deterrence than MAD, making this system and all other future defense spending harder to eliminate or even curtail spending. Time to buy stock in some defense contractors…
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Lying? Check
Fear-mongering? Check
Playing the douchebag? Check
Just another day in the life of Condi Rice.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
I’m sure that Mr. Yglesias will want to comment on todays’ column by his favorite columnist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103109.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Owen,
The usual suspects. Boeing is the primary contractor. The major subs include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Orbital Sciences.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
“Mr. O’Hanlon notes that if Russia were to base the same number of interceptors in Cuba, it would spark wide concern among “old fashioned nuclear targeteers,” but that in the end the concerns are baseless.”
This is the Polish Missile Tiff (not quite a crisis).
The people who say it’s a good idea are the people who are wrong about everything.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
guys,
I am not talking about astronomical cost of the system and political motivations of US and the host countries.
From technological standpoint you put infrastructure in place and go through few iterations advancing the product. It will eventually be capable to hit with high probability ballistic warhead that is not actively changing trajectory. It may take many years though.
some perspective from Russian media.
Given the bad shape of Russian military in general, especially in terms of buying new weapon systems, nuclear forces is very sensitive issue. The number of warheads mentioned few times above is irrelevant if delivery systems and infrastructure are in bad shape. The pace of replacements is very slow and most of the capable systems will be beyond their maintenance limit in a decade. Then nuclear parity is gone if US has potentially effective countermeasures.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Ajay, did I SAY Bondsteel had a runway? Doofus…