WAR DECLARED ON RUSSIA

So, the Russians are pissed at the US over its announcement to install an anti-ballistic missile system, citing long-standing arms control treaties. Putin (pot) has likened the US to the NAZIs (kettle) and US-Soviet (oops, I meant Russian) relations are at an all time low.

Perhaps because I am a child of the Cold War, the current circumstances resonate very strongly with me. I was one of those elementary school children who was taught to hide under their desks in the event of an attack (useless except as an exercise in making the later collection of remains easier) and I went to bed many nights wondering if the jet flying over my house was the one that would be dropping the big one.

I remember a distinct sense of relief (very short-lived) when the Berlin Wall came down and Gorbachev dismantled the Soviet Union. For a few weeks there was a strong possibility that we wouldn't be blowing ourselves up any time soon.

I'm sure that other children of the Cold War can relate very well to these feelings.

So now the Bush administration has announced that its planning on erecting missile defense systems in te Czech republic and other former Warsaw Pact nations which have since become members of NATO. The Administration claims they're for defensive purposes only, designed to prevent 'rogue states' from launching missile attacks on our soil. Putin says they're only there for one purpose, which is to denude the Russian nuclear capability.

Ummmm, Hello, George, knock, knock - anyone home? If the missile bases were in Israel, Afghanistan and Mexico, you'd be able to make a somewhat decent case for them being aimed to prevent rogue states from successfully launching missiles. But since the proposed locations just happen to ring the former Soviet territory, isn't that like saying that Russia is a rogue state?

The ban on missile defense systems, worked out by the USSR and US was based on a solid foundation of twisted, M.A.D. logic. Mutually Assured Destruction was the concept that if both countries posessed the wherewithal to retaliate to a first strike in a devestating manner, there would be little point in launching the first strike, since in the end it would gain nothing. Missile defense systems were, under this system, considered to be destabilizing and threatened to create a new rounds of arms races. The development of STAR WARS systems (actually, the potential development of such systems) was a key factor in bankrupting the Soviet Union.

Many analysts put the odds at 50/50 whether the USSR would respond to STAR WARS with an attack or start developing their own. Fortunately for everyone, they took the latter path and quickly discovered that they couldn't compete.

Now we're at it again under the guise of defending ourselves from terrorists with missiles and nuclear warheads. Come on.

If the Bush administration really wanted to make a statement, they'd partner with the Russians, the European Union, India, Pakistan and China, and erect a world-wide system of detection and anti-missile defense systems.

Afterall, if the biggest threat of a potential nuclear attack lies with terrorists (and this is what we've been told for the past five years), there are a lot of good reasons to suppose that the attack could originate from virtually anywhere. A Slovakian anti-missile isn't going to do the folks in Houston much good if a short-range missile is launched from Nicarauga, now is it?

Short range missiles are much more likely than medium range missiles are much more likley than ballistic missiles. The shorter the range, the more accessible the technology. The shorter the range, the simpler the guidance system. The shorter the range, the larger the potential payload.

Furthermore, states that sponsor terrorist groups that are likely to launch a missle, should they come into posession of one, are VERY unlikely to sanction such a launch from their own territory. While I would expect the US to restrain itself and refrain from launching a punitive nuclear counter-strike, aerial attack and ground invasion remain good possibilities. The longer it takes to find justification for such actions, the better off our 'rogue state' is. Again, its much more likely that the parts and payload would be smuggled into some remote location, as far away from the sponsors as is possible. Preferably a neutral, 'innocent' country would be used, making it very, very difficult for the US to retaliate in any fashion whatsoever.

If what Bush wants to do is truly protect us from rogue state missile launches and, at the same time, reduce the threat of nuclear weapons regardless of who has them, he'd be looking to create an international pact that would erect a world-wide blanket of defense, capable of dealing effectively with any kind of a missle attack, regardless of where it came from. Such a system would have the added bonus that it could be designed to deal with hijacked airliner kamikazees as well.

That's, of course, if the real objective were defensive in nature. But of course it isn't. Putin is right. Russia is regarded as a 'rogue nation', in so far as Bush's Imperial ambitions are concerned. If he can neutralize Russia's one remaining claim to super-power status, the only real threat left is China.