Negotiating European Missile Defense

Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, implied earlier in an article published by the Christian Science Monitor that the current missile defense plans for Eastern Europe may be open for negotiation - an echo of previous statements by President Obama. Obama, for his part, has emphasized the need for openness and diplomacy with Moscow and believes that cooperation, understanding, and compromise are possible between the two countries. However, despite all his good intentions, it is not clear that the Russians are open for such things - at least on the subject of European missile defense. Quoting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:

If our partners decide to create an American missile defense system with global reach, this will undoubtedly cast serious doubt on the prospects for further strategic offensive arms reductions.

As this blog has noted previously, Russia has been fairly insistent on the abandonment of European missile defense, while refusing to negotiate on its arsenal of at least 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons - something the Obama administration has yet to address also. This, of course, is not to suggest trading U.S. missile defense plans for Russian tactical nukes, rather that there are more options available than straight-up talking.

At any rate, despite Russia’s ranting about how the missile defense plans undermine their nuclear deterrent - it is difficult to believe that they sincerely think that 10 (count that, 10) interceptor missiles in Poland and some radar units in the Czech Republic seriously stand in the way of some 2,000 strategic and 4,000 tactical weapons.

Also, the debate raises additional questions about the role of missile defense in arms control negotiations and even its necessity/feasibility. Answers to these questions could potentially negate the ongoing controversy over European missile defense, but unfortunately, there are no easy answers here. Chris Hellman, of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation tries to brush off the broader issue of missile defense:

Missile defense has always been an issue for a small cadre of ultraconservative, ultraparanoid people who see the threat of ballistic missiles from places like Iran as a real threat to US security interests.

However, this does not really address or solve the dilemma at hand. An independent government agency with a $10 billion budget is not exactly a “small cadre” - and neither are the 74% of people who believe that it is at least “somewhat important” that the U.S. build and deploy an effective missile defense program.

What it really comes down to is a simple cost/benefit analysis of what is necessary in order to prepare for an event with a very low probability (albeit high consequence, should it happen) of occurence. As a result, the debate should be restructured around the question “is there a threat?” and then proceed from there. If there is not a threat, the debate is moot because it’s irrelevant. However, if there is a threat (real or perceived), the debate is again moot because the answer is obvious.