Missile defence in Europe

Behind America’s shield

A deal on missile defences angers Russia even though they may not work

See article

Readers' comments


coal camp

The greatest danger in reliance on this shield is that there would never be a real life test. If it works as hoped, it will be wonderful, but if it fails, well may the good Lord help us. What will happen when the missile is destroyed? Where will the debris fall in Europe or US? What if Russia first fires at the shield to destroy it before firing the missile aimed at US? The best protection a small country has for its defense is neutrality as demonstrated by Switzerland and Swaziland. Alliance with a big brother can only bring trouble.


I am no technological expert; neither am I an expert in international relations.

However, an article by George Monbiot in The Guardian entitled " America's Missile Defence System : The Magic Pudding that will never run out" was highly enlightening and made a great deal of sense to me. In brief, Monbiot's argument is that although it is quite clear the Missile Defence System will never work, the U.S. government will continue to fund it in perpetuity in order to feed the vested interests of the militaryindustrial complex.

At first sight, this view might seem to be a typical left-wing conspiracy theory - I had never read of this in any British or American newspaper before.

Except, though, when you recall President Eisenhower's prescient warning about the military-industrial complex in his Farewell Speech to the nation in 1961, upon John Kennedy's accession to the Presidency. This is part of what he said :

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
office of the Federal government… In the councils of government, we must guard
against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist. "

From George Monbiot's article - and from America's need to be persistently at war from 1945 onwards,it seems that Eisenhower's warning has been forgottent and ignored by Americans and that Orwell's vision of a world where "Peace is War" has come to pass.

One might ask, how could this happen in a democracy?
Hermannn Goering has the answer to that question :

and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."

As I said, I am no expert.

So,I would like to read the views of The Economist and those who can enlighten me on these two questions :

1. Would America's Missile Defence System ever work?
2. If not, what is the REAL reason for this Missile Defence System? Is it really
Monbiot's "Magic Pudding"?

Will the Economist, with its dependence on its American reader base ever tackle the issue?
Or is it a topic that, as in the American media, could never be broached because of the vested interests in the militaryindustrial complex that it would expose?

I await some answers.

Wim Roffel

"Besides, the critics have a big weakness: if missile defences were just expensive junk, why would the Russians protest so loudly?"Before the detente there was an arms race between the US and the USSR with both steadily increasing the number of nuclear war heads. From a strategic point of view it made hardly sense as both had enough warheads to destroy the whole world several times. But there was both the factor that giving up would be seen as weakness and the remote possibility that some of these increases still might make sense in the case of a real conflict. The detente was based on the principle that if both decreased their arsenal this would make the world a safer place without the risk that one side got the upper hand.The Missile Defense System starts this war race all over again. The fact that it doesn't work does not save the Russians from the trouble to make precautions for the small chance that it might work. And so we have the arms race all over again.


The system is big question mark and even if it works correctly it is nothing in comparison to number of warheads Russia has. The idea might to eliminate the threat from countries with small nuclear arsenal: we are not afraid of you becouse we have shield (but consider that when you try we will completly burn you anyway). With Russia it is rather beging of race for future supremacy in the space (you have to start with something). For me as a Polishmen it is important as it is more and more difficult for Russians to consider Poland as their possible zone of influence.


The Patriot missle defense system was successfully used against Iraqi Scud missiles in the Persian Gulf war. Technology has improved significantly since then, so it is reasonable to believe that the US has the capacity to provide some missile defense against a nation with a small arsenal of WMDs.

Even if the missile defense system has only a 30% chance of stopping a missile, that is still far better than having no chance.

I find it ironic that most of those, in the west, who oppose a missile defense shield also oppose preemptive strikes against Iran, Syria, etcetra.


You Know that things are NOT Getting Better, when You Find yourself Longing for the Good Old Days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War!
Even in those Darkest of Days, we were always Comforted by the Knowledge that there was a Simple, Mutual UNDERSTANDING.
That of Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD!!

To Further Discourage either Party from Launching a First Strike, the Complicated ABM Treaty was Signed in Moscow (at the height of the Cold War) by Nixon & Brezhnev on May 26 1972.

Ronald Reagan, was the First to Mess with the Treaty, with his Hollywood inspired "Star Wars" or SDI. (The Strategic Defense Illusion)!!!
Bush's Withdrawal from the Treaty (following the Events of September 11), was met with a Deafening Silence from the Shameless Senate!!!!
But to learn (thanks to the Economist) that the American Taxpayer has Footed a $110 Billion Bill, Chasing this Mirage of Missile Defense, Just makes me Sick & Sad.

As for Poland's Fateful, Regretful Decision to Allow their Territory to become a Base for these UNPROVEN, OUTLAW Missiles in exchange for an equally Pathetic Patriot System, is a just a Sick JOKE!!!!!!

Peace, Love & Respect.

Walter Bruno

To Scobbles:
A dog on leash defecates on public pavement in front of your house. The dog`s leftower does no harm to your property, nor does it endanger your security ( you know its location). However, you are rightfully annoyed by the dog owner`s slackness, his impertinence. You will call him to task, if you can.
Now, compare this scenario with the Polish, American and Russian actors. Any SIMILARITY to living persons may be purely coincidental.
So, you do not have to call up conspiracy theory to understand recent events although, it may have facilitated the dog owner`s conduct.


The USA, having signed an agreement with Poland to put missiles on its land as part of its 'missile defence shield' against attack from rogue states has rightly infuriated Russia. This shield is an old and largely unpopular idea that suddenly took on a new urgency with the conflict between Russia and Georgia, which was, I believe fueled, by NATO encroachment on Russian borders . Nobody expects the U.S. to consider the fragile peace that has thankfully existed in Europe since 1945 nor do Europeans, it seems, have any say in it's strategy to maintain that peace.It seems ironic to me that a few days before the 911 attacks George Bush made a speech reviving Regan's 'Stars Wars Project'The 911 attacks would have been stopped with a missile defense shield? I don't think so and surely you don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that. This 'Face to Face' video takes a look at the background to America's grand missile defence shield, its problems and possible repercussions for the world.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a5hqz-8_Ac



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

