How can the US missile defense system be strategically agresive?

Question

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/randalmark.php?articleid=13340

"enhancing strategic missile defense is a profoundly destabilizing policy that is essentially strategically aggressive".

Answer 1

The country WITH  the missile defense system has the advantage of being able to "knock out" the enemy's missiles, while at the same time allowing theirs to be UTILIZED ...effectively negating "mutually assured destruction" POSSIBLY encouraging the enemy to attack before said systems are put in place. Its not rocket science you know.

Answer 2

First off, you should probably take whatever is said on antiwar.com with a grain of salt. Everything militarily owned and operated is considered agressive in their eyes.

Missile defense is a missile to missile program, not a missile to ground target program such as MLRS systems or nuclear power. It is strictly a way to keep the damage of a missile attack on the US to a minimum. It is only agressive as a means of destroying other missiles in order to launch missiles to our enemies.

Answer 3

Its a DEFENSE system, its not aggressive unless fired upon. It will only fire on other missiles, we have other missiles to be aggressive.  

Answer 4

Nuclear weapons are regarded as a deterrent against aggressive actions from other nations and if you render their deterrent useless by putting into place the ability to intercept their missiles` then you have basically made them defenceless! And one of the key tactics before striking at an enemy is to take away their ability to defend themselves or to respond.

No one saying the shield is being put in place as a prelude to a pre emptive strike` but the Russians might see it that way.

war1776

Surely you have had to write your job description enough times to be able to spell the correct term “Multiple Launch Rocket System”……..

Answer 5

Because the Russians want it to be and if they say so it must be true.  The system would not protect any one from more then a single or very small number of missiles so is not even a defensive threat to the Russians and they know it.  The Russians have more defensive missile systems then any other country around Moscow so why is a single site with five launchers that is not even proven to work such a aggression and threat?  The threat is that they can no longer control eastern Europe as they once did and that upsets them but is not a military threat.  The surprising thing is the number of people here in YA and even in the press that seem to parrot that line as the truth.  The reason the US and Russia limited strategic anti-missile missiles was to ensure that launchers were not protected and not nothing to do with protecting cities from single missiles of a very limited number of missiles.  That is what the ABM Treaty was actually about-if you have the capability to take out the others guys missiles and protect your own from being destroyed it would increase the chance of war.  This limitd system is to protect cities from limited strikes and not stop a massive attack; if the US started installing those systems around all major cities and to protect launch silo's it would be dangerous but that is not what this is.  Apples and oranges.

Answer 6

it is offensively defencive it removes everyone else's ability to attack the us or its allies therefore it gives them a one up on the playing field and could start another arms race because a system like that would need someone to develop something to defeat it and then that system that defeats the first system would have something to defeat it especially something so large as strategic missile defence if it was just on us soil then it would not be such a big deal but putting it in poland in Russia's backyard just when they are starting to become power full again and poland a country that is in Russia's traditional sphere of influence a country of such significance with warsaw u know the warsaw pact the USS R's answer to NATO  a very important place in the eastern europe / western asian world  doing this is going to royally tic off a sleeping giant of russia which is the largest regional power in eurasia not overlooking china but china doesn't have the power projection capabilities to war ant being pissed off about that yet russia does and it is hungry for its old power and it already started to take it back starting with georgia , that was just the first and a very small statement to the west and nato . to say you rant going any farther east this is our territory and you cant have it . and now they wont because russia has shown int rest in it and nato if it were to allow any of these countries into it would have to defend them against russia which on paper means that they would  have to send troops over there to push the russians out and that would mean war with the largest regional power in the area of most of the nato member countries and that just ain't Gona happen because russia can shut off the oil and natural gas to eastern europe and that has been done before when the germans and ukrainians were complaining about prices the russians turned the pressure down and in the winter that's not a good thing so they both caved and the pressure went back up .. it was a malfunction in the pipes somewhere I'm sure that's what it was Lil so strategic missile defence is a very bad thing if its off of us soil unless they include russia