• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • On Missile Defense, Russian Paranoia Trumps Reality

    Yesterday Nikolai Korchunov, Russia’s acting representative to NATO, had an article in The New York Times about NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense entitled: “You Say Defense, We See Threat.”

    Unfortunately, Korchunov did not elaborate on how NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense system is an actual threat to Russia. NATO leaders have said time and again that NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense is not directed toward Russia but against rogue states like Iran who are developing ballistic missiles that may reach Europe. This fact was most recently pointed out by the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder in another article in the Times appearing on the same day as Korchumov’s. Even with these public assurances from all sides, Russian paranoia trumps reality.

    Korchunov’s article contains both technical curiosities and blatant hypocrisy. For example, he writes:

    Even the limited current deployments of missile-defense elements are worrying for Russia. The proposed BMD base inPoland, housing increasingly capable SM-3 interceptors, is less than 100 kilometers away fromRussia’sKaliningradregion. At the other end of the Continent, the AN/TPY-2 phased-array radar inTurkeycan potentially monitor the air space over the entire Caucasus, parts of Central Asia and much ofSouthern Russiaas well.

    Firstly, SM-3 interceptors carry only kinetic warheads. A kinetic warhead is a projectile that does not contain an explosive charge. It is effective against incoming missiles because it can attain a high muzzle velocity and collide with its target at high speeds—without the use of explosives. This is unlike conventional warheads on missiles that contain explosives likeRussia’s Iskander missiles, for example. SM-3 interceptors pose no threat to Kaliningrad.

    Secondly, Russia has very little room to talk when complaining about NATO’s AN/TPY-2 phased-array radar in Turkey. In 2006, Russia established a similar radar system at its Armavir Radar Station near the Black Sea. Russia also has its Gabala Radar Station in Azerbaijan, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and covers parts of Turkey, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and parts of China. It has been reported that U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles launched during the early days of the Afghanistan operation were spotted by Russia thanks to its Gabala Radar.

    By definition as a defensive weapon, missile defense is not directed at anyone who is not a potential military threat to NATO. Therefore, the only way NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense system can be considered a threat toRussia is ifRussia plans on using ballistic missiles againstEurope—a scenario that seems so unlikely it is almost implausible.

    Russia’s argument that NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense is a threat is no more valid than saying that the body armor worn by NATO troops in Afghanistan as protection against the Taliban is also a threat to Russia. If the technology exists, which it does, then NATO has a responsibility to protect its people.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to On Missile Defense, Russian Paranoia Trumps Reality

    1. freedom (TM) says:

      funny really i have not seen any evidence that iran is developing ballistic missiles to hit europe…

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×