Is the new U.S. missile defense system heating up the Cold War?

If I relied on our mainstream press, I would think that Russia is responsible for what is starting to feel like a “the global warming” of the Cold War. Russia is objecting to the new US plan for a missile defense system in Europe, the subject of my April 27 post, The U.S. missile defense system "blowback".

For instance, from the May 2, Washington Post’s Missile Test, “Vladimir Putin has skillfully and cynically used the administration's plans to deploy 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic as a way to stir up trouble in NATO and to justify new steps in Russia's increasingly belligerent foreign policy -- such as moving toward the renunciation of a treaty limiting conventional military forces in Europe. The administration is right to call Mr. Putin's broadsides 'ludicrous.'"

On May 4, the New York Times op ed, Reading Russia Right:”The criticism by Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, of the United States and NATO put one in mind of an alpha dog at the junkyard gate — tough, unrelenting, pugnacious…. But to insist that the United States and NATO are the enemy? The argument contradicts Russia’s own interests, never mind that it has little link to reality. The cold war is, in fact, over.”

I don’t rely on the mainstream press. For instance, I receive frequent e-mail alerts from the Global Security Newswire, a Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) service. This past week, I received the following e-mail alerts:

May 3, House Panel Cuts Missile Defense Funding: “A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee yesterday eliminated funding in the fiscal 2008 budget for construction of a missile interceptor site in Poland….'The Bush administration has not adequately addressed Russian and NATO concerns about the project,' said subcommittee Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.)."

May 4, Democrats Question U.S. Missile Defense Plans. In addition to questioning the value of the system itself, the article states, “Lawmakers also addressed Russia’s frequently voiced objections to placing 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. 'Defying Moscow in this instance could damage efforts to drive Iran away from its suspected nuclear weapons program,' said Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).

'We need cooperation on Iran,' Sherman said. 'I can think of no better way to ensure that Russia will do very little to help stop the Iranian program than to stick it to them by putting our missiles in what used to be their allies.'”

Finally, take a moment to read Katrina vanden Huevel’s April 30 post, The New Cold War.

(photo- logo of Nuclear Threat Initiative)

Part Two: The U.S. missile defense system: does it work?

Last Friday, I posted Part One: The U.S. missile defense system: "blowback" about Russia’s decision to suspend its pact with NATO, apparently as a result of the U.S. proposal for a new missile defense system in Europe and the Bush administration’s unilateral pull-out from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

A logical follow-up question to Bush’s insistence that we have a missile defense system despite the reaction of Russia and other countries is: Does it work?

Hmmm, not an easy question to answer. Depends on what you read. According to a April 27 CBS News report, U.S. missile defense test is successful, “The U.S. military's sea-based missile defense system on Thursday showed it could intercept two targets simultaneously when it destroyed a cruise missile and a short-range ballistic missile during a test off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The test marked eight out of 10 times the Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Navy's Aegis ballistic missile defense system successfully intercepted targets. But it was the first time the system knocked out two targets at the same time.”

A comment posted in response to the article: “Will missiles intercept atmospheric nuclear explosions? LOL,” linking to an article at the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). I receive e-mail alerts from NTI and trust this source of information.

As recently as last August, the Washington Post reported Rumsfeld Unsure of Ability to Intercept Korean Missiles: “After his first look inside the nerve center [at Fort Greeley, Alaska] of the U.S. missile defense system, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in 10 underground silos here would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea.

Asked at a news conference whether he believed the missile shield was ready for use against a North Korean missile like the one test-fired unsuccessfully on July 4, Rumsfeld said he would not be fully convinced until the multibillion-dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing.

‘A full end-to-end’ demonstration is needed, Rumsfeld said, ‘where we actually put all the pieces’ of the highly complex and far-flung missile defense system together and see whether it would succeed in destroying a warhead in flight.”

Short range? Long range” I’m certainly not an expert in missile defense systems, but I note that there’s a significant difference in the distance between the island of Kauai where the missile target was launched and offshore Kauai where it was intercepted, and Fort Greeley, Alaska and North Korea.

The bottom line for me is to continue to pay attention to this issue.

(photo - DefenseIndustryDaily.com)