Missile Shields and Deterrence

Excellent post over at The Belmont Club today on missile defense and deterrence.  Well worth a read.

UPDATE: In the comments:

It’s a little disturbing when a major Presidential candidate’s first instincts after the Iranians test 9 long missiles are to blame his government for not engaging in direct talks. The real story here is to ask why, if Teheran has no WMD ambitions, it has any ballistic missile program at all. Does anyone actually believe these expensive missiles are going to be fitted with conventional warheads? That would be so cost ineffective as to be implausible. Any reasonable person, looking at the situation, would regard the firing of the 9 missiles with alarm. I think BHO’s reactions are almost unnatural.

8 thoughts on “Missile Shields and Deterrence”

  1. That is because he hate America and everything it stands for. Doesn’t everybody see that.

  2. The commentor you quote doesn’t appear to know much about missiles. Fitting such missiles with conventional warheads is quite common, and quite effective. It is especially effective for a regine whose interest is in terrorizing its neighbors. See the V-1 and V-2 used against London in WWII. Very little actual damage, but significant psychological effect to see entire buildings come crashing down from a missile fired hundreds of miles away.

    As for the Obamessiah, well, God help us all if he’s elected.

  3. Also, see Tomahawk – costs over $1M a pop, and carries a 1,000 lb conventional warhead. It’s not about how much your missile costs, its about how much damage you can inflict on the enemy (or in defensive missiles, how much damage you prevent being inflicted on what you’re protecting).

  4. I’m not so sure about Iran sticking with conventional warheads. If I were going up against someone who would flat out kill me I’d rather floor them with a baseball bat than slap them in the face with my bare hand.

  5. Ahmadinejad is about as popular in Iran as Bush is here. He’ll be gone soon enough. Iran is a modern, industrialized nation with lots of educated people who know damn well that nuking Israel means they won’t be around anymore.

    The real question is why anybody thinks we’re going to get anywhere by NOT talking to them. Appeasement isn’t talking, appeasement is giving a bully country territory and power hoping they’ll want more, vis a vis giving the Czechs over to the Nazis.

  6. I wouldn’t suggest talking to Iran is appeasement, what Obama suggests isn’t appeasing Iran, but Iran does need to be left guessing that if they attack our allies or interests, that our reaction might be unpredictable. Even Hillary Clinton understood that.

  7. I thought the Presidency of Iran was just a figurehead position. The real power has always been with the religious oligarchy. His popularity doesn’t actually matter.

Comments are closed.