January 9, 2006 :: Analysis
Victor Davis Hanson, military historian and fellow of the Claremont Institute, takes note of the subject of missile defense in a recent piece for The Washington Times. Hanson discusses the geopolitical stakes in the games being played by Russia and Iran, and notes that missile defenses will prove an important element in these maneuvers.
Hanson notes that Russia and China would play the role of “spoiler,” despite their (apparent) interest in keeping rogue nations from obtaining nuclear weapons. Yet the Russians currently make enormous profits from trade with the oil-rich Iran, and “derive a certain satisfaction from tweaking the United States.” Likewise, the Chinese see advantages in allowing North Korea to preoccupy their rivals, especially Japan, Taiwan, and the United States.
“Strategic missile defense will prove invaluable in the decades ahead against regimes that have only a few dozen warheads,” writes Hanson. Of course, truly “strategic” missile defense capabilities would be arrayed against all threats, and not only those by Iran and North Korea. In the parlance, “strategic defenses” are those which, like Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, are meant to replace the reliance upon purely offensive deterrence (or mutually assured destruction) with a defense against large-scale or “strategic” threats, such as those posed by Russia and China. (Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
