Washington, Aug. 31 (CNA) An American expert on weapons systems is convinced that the ballistic missile defense systems now being developed by the United States may well be insufficient to deal with the sort of massive attack the Russians might mount, but if it at least neutralizes current mainland Chinese military expenditures, it may be well worth the price of development and deployment.
Norman Friedman, author of "The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems," wrote in the latest issue of Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute's monthly journal, that the hostility expressed by the Russians and the mainland Chinese toward the US missile defense programs is understandable, because both countries depend heavily on their nuclear weapons.
He noted that the Russians still have a very large standing army, but its equipment is rapidly aging and there is little hope of replacing it. "It is no great surprise that the Russians have based their remaining claim to great-power status on their substantial nuclear arsenal. They cannot welcome any technology that might reduce its efficacy. That does not make their view particularly attractive to anyone outside Russia, however."
Any U.S. offer to share the new missile defense technology with the Russians will not give them what they really want, which is to retain as much of the military status they acquired during the Cold War as possible, stated Friedman.
"Much the same applies to China, which hopes to gain at least as much leverage from a much smaller (nuclear) arsenal. Again, missile defense would buy the United States increased freedom of action, which the Chinese clearly would not like," he wrote.
In effect, Friedman pointed out, "a world in which missile defense was effective would be more like the one that existed before 1900 than one in which we have grown up."
Strategic attack in general would be nearly impossible, because no one would have the ability to do very much damage with the small number of deep-strike aircraft that now exist. These weapons can hit point targets very effectively, but they cannot do the sort of collateral damage that devastates whole countries.
"If the assessment is correct, then war will revert mainly to an earlier pattern in which the only reasonable goal is to destroy or neutralize the enemy's military. That sort of world does not admit of quick or total solutions, which is not really bad news if we do not face a mortal enemy who has to be smashed altogether," he said.
Friedman emphasized, "The ballistic missile defense systems now being touted cannot deal with cruise missiles (which are generally a less-immediate threat). Anything, however, that eliminates the threat of sudden incineration, perhaps half an hour after a hostile decision has been made, seems quite attractive." (By Nelson Chung)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
