Missile Defense Systems and the President of Poland
November 5, 2008
Missile Defense Systems
Early History
o Developed missile system s in the Cold War to shoot down (specifically) Russian
bombers
o Nuclear based interceptions
o 1972 ABM Treaty
Limited US and USSR to one missile battery each (Moscow and North Dakota)
Strategic Defense Initiative
o Defense against a massive missile attack
o Space and land based system (kinetic and laser interceptors)
o Shared technology with US SR so Regan could reject proposal that it was destabilizing
Modern Missile Defense
o Strategic missile defense
Defense against long range ICBMs
Ground based mid-course defense system (GMD)
o Theater Missile Defense
Ex) China’s choice against Taiwan, Iran’s choice against Syria
Defense against medium range ballistic missiles
o Tactical Missile Defense
Defense against short range missiles
Ex) Patriot Missile Class
Poland and Czech Republic
o Czech Republic
Seeks installation of advanced x-band radar to detect
o Poland
Installation of GMD interceptors
Couldn’t hold off a large attack but could prevent blackmailing
Russia is strongly opposed to this—but missiles would be under NATO
control primarily
Different phases of a ballistic missile
o Boosting phase (no systems target these yet)
o Transition phase
o Descent phase (missile is inbound to its target—Patriot and Thad systems work here)
Pro s of Missile Defense (not defensible against a nuclear war—but would target a rouge
weapon)
o Deterrent capability—discourage nations from building weapons system because our
defense system would render them inactive
o Protection from rouge or accidental missile launch
o Continuing dominance of US and allies in military technology
Missile Defense Systems and the President of Poland
November 5, 2008
o Sharing the technology with other nuclear powers with the hope of eventual total
nuclear disarmament
Summary: Yeah, we haven’t perfected it yet but closing the entire system because of the
failure of a few early tests would be a horrible mistake.
Arguments against Missile Defense (Joe Gambino)
o It undermines strategic deterrence because you are willing to proceed farther—
undermines MAD and increases chances of attack
o Costs of Missile defense system are astronomical relative to today’s economy—is it a
good idea to have a missile defense system eventually, but a bad use of money now?
If the missile defense shield is not 100% effective yet, is it worth funding?
Former President of Poland Talks on Missile Defense Systems
“We need instruments to fight against a terrorist attacks” if we plan to be successful.
o We need weapons and solidarity in this fight. Poland understands the fear of attack
from these rouges.
A country with one nuclear weapon is more dangerous than a country with hundreds.
Problem of Russia is very important to Poland, if not to America.
Cost is important, however, as well as the Russian reaction in the region.
Why is Russia not as powerful as everyone things? It has many weaknesses.
o Lack of state of law
o Lack of civil society
o Economy is too dependent on the volatile price of gas and oil
o Demographics are screwed
What is the main difference between Russia and the Soviet Union?
o Soviet Union
Powerful ideology of communism
o Russia
Doesn’t have many things going for it to rebuild its superpower standing, but if
it decides to go ahead and try anyway, it means trouble for the next US
administration.
President’s Reaction to Obama’s Election
1. Polish-American alliance won’t change when Obama takes office because continuity is
important. Missiles defense systems may be debated, but that is the right of the new
administration. What may be an issue are visas. Polish people want/need more visas.
Missile Defense Systems and the President of Poland
November 5, 2008
2. Why was I so excited about Obama?
o He can repair America’s reputation with its allies in Europe.
o He will strengthen cooperation with Europe.
He can do this because he is very popular there and listens to the Europeans.
o Poland should be very interested in this new relationship between America and the EU
because they are a very large participant in the EU.
Now what? Continuing the President’s thoughts in response to questions:
We need success in Afghanistan. NATO needs success in the region. If NATO cannot solve this
situation, NATO’s future will look bad. If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, we will have a deep
crisis in NATO. Yes, it is a particularly dangerous region, but because we decided to go in, we
must follow through and give it our best.
The problem with Iraq is that we need a political solution rather than a military solution. We
can do nothing more militarily. America is 100% prepared to win a war (capabilities, technology,
experience) but they cannot win “peace” by organizing administration, police force, political
parties, intelligence units…
Should the US sacrifice the gains of the surge and the Awakening Councils in Iraq in order to give
more resources to Afghanistan? This is one of the toughest questions facing Obama will be that.