Originally posted by Dowding
You are unusually misinformed, wulfie.
I don't know about the 'unusually' part, but in this case...you're it!
The missile defense program is a very wide one. The part of it that primarily makes the (irresponsible) media reports is the part that would protect the U.S.A. from an ICBM launched from China.
I say irresponsible because the U.S. based media somehow overlooked the fact that the Russians began secret, and totally 'illegal' (per signed treaties) work on missile defense systems back in the mid-1970s. There were radar arrays detected in/around Moscow that were purpose built for the direction of anti-ICBM defenses. So calling the U.S. missile defense plan 'destabalizing' wasn't a really accurate thing to say.
Anyways - back to the point - the missile defense program in it's entirety has many different components. One of the most important is the 'theater' missile defense shield. This part is one of the most important as it's designed to prevent a medium range missile from being used vs. friendly troops operating away from the U.S.A., or - in your case - a medium range missile fired from one Nation to another nearby Nation.
This is why alot of the tests have involved Aegis-class cruisers. One of the main ideas behind theater-level defense is to base it on the very powerful (and presently very underutilized) Aegis equipped warships. There have been briefings and concept write-ups involving the positioning of such ships in the gulf of Arabia to protect friendly troops involved in combat in the middle East and/or to protect Israel. The same briefings detail positioning such warships in the English channel and/or the Adriatic Sea to protect large areas of Europe from mid-range missiles.
This is why China (due to Taiwan) is so pissed by the idea. They already hate the fact that the U.S. keeps some Aegis equipped warships very near Taiwan (guranteeing massive Chinese air losses in case of an attempted invasion). But when these warships can act as part of a theater missile defense system the medium range missiles targeted on Taiwan are no longer a 'sure bet'.
The whole point of the program as a whole is to prevent the 'rogue' use of missile delivered WMD by anyone. Think about it - 2 nuclear weapons targeted on 'the right 2' major cities in Europe would have a truly devastating effect on the world economy. Just defending the U.S.A. would almost be pointless - especially when you can cover almost anywhere with 'theater defenses' at a very small overall increase in cost.
Not to mention the fact that the 'annoying/clueless Cowboy attitude' of the U.S.A. (which can be naive at times for certain) - i.e. "We'll come fix 600 years of problems in a year or two becuase we know what's *right*" works both ways. The American public (for the most part, barring Jane Fonda and certain other groups) sees the world very much in terms of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Civilians in the U.K. and Europe are very much in the 'good guys' category. Can you imagine the public outcry in the U.S.A. if it was determined that the U.S.A. could have protected the U.K. from a rogue ICBM and didn't?
Warship deployable theater defense plays directly to 'our' strengths. This is the first time in history where 'the good guys' (U.S., U.K., N.A.T.O., Russia - i.e. predictable major powers with beneficial relationships) have total control of the sea. Think about that - for the previous 400 years no one group of Nations could basically operate 'unchallanged' at sea. That's not the case today. No Nation could keep 'us' (i.e. U.S., U.K., N.A.T.O., Russia) from deploying such a defense - anywhere in the world - for more than 2 months I'd say. And by 2 months I'm saying 'deploy into the most hotly contested areas', i.e. off the coast of India.
We couldn't let the U.K. get nuked. The loss in good beer and people to keep Germany from dominating the world cup would be unbearable.
Mike/wulfie
