On 27 January 2011 at the NATO combined air operations center in Uedem, Germany, NATO commanders were handed over military hardware which protects troops in the field from ballistic missile attack. This development is significant as it marks the cornerstone of a "future missile defense system for the protection of territory and populations", according to NATO Deputy Secretary General, Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero, who was present at the event.
The event marked the end of a series of rigorous tests which saw the combining of technological know-how and successful collaboration between five Allies: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United States. It is envisaged that the new system will be developed in incremental steps from 2013 to 2018, eventually being expanded to protect not just deployed forces, but NATO European territories and populations as well.
To read the full press release from NATO, please follow this link.
 |
|
Atlantic-community.org's new web module "NATO's Agenda" is sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Division of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We encourage you to comment and submit op-ed articles with your analyses and policy recommendations for NATO's Agenda. |
- 7
February 5, 2011
John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)
With missile defense, commanders and operators have only minutes to decide if an incoming threat is real and launch their counter-measures. If the threat is real, there is a decent chance that the threat can be neutralized an a nuclear explosion avoided. If they decide wrongly, the result is a wasted missile that can be either dis-armed while in flight, or detonated harmlessly (and non-nuclearly!), most likely over friendly or neutral airspace.
Before missile defense, commanders and operators also had only minutes to decide, but the consequences were incalculably higher. "Success" meant launching an attack that will kill thousands or millions, and accepting the incoming attack which will also kill thousands or millions. Failure meant loosing significant retaliation capability, or, launching a nuclear weapon at an adversary for no real reason. Even if the nuke can self-destruct, the very possibility of the weapon material being released into the environment makes people very nervous, and would have a significant diplomatic cost.
An additional, side benefit to missile defense has been a huge investment (and hopefully, improvement!) in our ability to detect and classify various fast-moving flying objects, which will undoubtedly be of great use in other contexts
Of course there is the possibility that missile defense might destabilize the balance of power, or lead to an arms race, or something. These concerns have turned out to be minimal since, for now at least, none of the major powers have the economic resources to engage in an arms race. But even if they did have the resources, these concerns pale in comparison to the inherent moral and practical superiority of a defensive system which, even when it fails, fails in a way that is far less catastrophic than the alternative.
Ronald Reagan (and Jimmy Carter), take a bow.