Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Secrecy in Iran and deciphering Obama's Missile Defense policy

By Marko Beljac - posted Tuesday, 29 September 2009


There exists no reason to conclude that Iran cannot be deterred even if it did have nuclear warheads. The problem that Iranian strategic capabilities would represent is that they would be a powerful "anti-access/area denial" capability. The issue is not that Iranian nuclear warheads could be used for a first strike against Europe or the US, but rather that they could deter the US from engaging in military intervention in the critical Middle East region.

That's a big difference.

The present BMD system first emerged during the Clinton administration. Clinton grudgingly accepted BMD following the GOP's capture of Congress during his period in office. He was not a warm supporter of the idea and largely left the final decision on BMD to his successor. However, the Clinton plan was a capped plan. The idea was to have a system built under a limited and sealed capability. Clinton did this in order to try and mollify domestic BMD supporters without scrapping the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the cornerstone of strategic arms control.

Advertisement

Under Bush this policy was changed to an "open architecture policy." As NSPD-23 states, "the Defense Department plans to employ an evolutionary approach to the development and deployment of missile defenses to improve our defenses over time. The United States will not have a final, fixed missile defense architecture. Rather, we will deploy an initial set of capabilities that will evolve to meet the changing threat and to take advantage of technological developments."

The Obama decision, and comments accompanying it, demonstrate that the open architecture provision of NSPD-23 will remain. Although the nature of Obama's approach to European BMD might not preclude a nuclear arms control agreement with Russia based on the agreed Obama-Medvedev parameters, open architecture BMD will remain a barrier for strategic arms control directed towards deep cuts let alone disarmament.

In so far as strategic concepts go it thereby follows that the Obama approach is consistent with the Bush approach. When Gates and Co inform us that the Obama decision rationalises rather than scraps the Bush era policy they are correct.

However, when they tell us that their system is based on an existing threat to Europe and, what's more, is purely based on technical considerations they are taking us for a ride.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy