New pact places no limits on missile defenses

**Horhey** · 27th March 2010 12:01 PM

"Missile Defense" -recognized on all sides to be a first strike weapon. It's a sword not a shield. It expands the domains for freedom of aggression.

In case you missed it..

The US foreign policy establishment now openly contemplates nuclear first strike capability

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy

The Council on Foriegn Relations

Foreign Affairs - The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy (Published by the Council on Foreign Relations)

New pact places no limits on missile defenses

White House says new nuclear treaty places no limits on missile defenses

Staff

AP News

Mar 26, 2010 10:38 EDT

The White House says the new nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia imposes no limits on current or planned U.S. missile defenses. Russia, which is highly critical of U.S. missile defense plans, had sought to include such limits in the treaty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032601980.html

**Daktoria** · 27th March 2010 05:24 PM

[quote name='Horhey' date='27 March 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1269712863' post='133776']

"Missile Defense" -recognized on all sides to be a first strike weapon. It's a sword not a shield. It expands the domains for freedom of aggression.

[/quote]

No. This would only be true if the usage of nuclear weapons was deemed an appropriate response.

However, the notion of proportionality in just war theory is an incredibly politically correct platform not to mention how even the partially reduced likelihood of mutually assured destruction is not politically (or rationally) acceptable.

Missile defense does not provoke. It contains. Those are vastly different strategies, and it is incredibly negligent to dismiss that difference.

For example, imagine the following.

Let's say in 1979, the Soviet Union convinced France to leave NATO and wanted to deploy missile defense system there. Would the Soviet Union still be deemed an aggressor? Would that not be comparable to how the Soviet Union took initiative in the Cuban Missile Crisis in order to neutralize American nukes in Turkey?

Now let's say that after the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, the United States launches nuclear weapons at the USSR. Would the United States not be deemed as overreacting? Would the Soviet Union not be deemed as prudent? Put it the other way around. Say the United States deployed missile defense systems around Vietnam. If the Soviets launched nukes at American forces, would the United States not be deemed as prudent and the Soviet Union as overreacting?

What about the Aegis Cruisers in the far east which protect American allies from the North Koreans and provide peace of mind against the Chinese?

What about the Pakistani/Indian and Israeli/Iranian nuclear situations? Would not the side that pursued a missile defense system instead of a counterarsenal be deemed merciful or even naive?