« Return to Boom Goes the Dynamite on the Bush Third Site

You got it

Scott,

“You are correct in the sense that their focus is on Russia and not Iran.”

That's all I meant. Your analysis is spot on. My point was that for these countries it was all about Russia, not Iran. If the U.S. wants a system focused on Iran, it was right to change the configuration.

Matt Yglesias articulated it well:

"...nobody in Europe particularly wanted this thing built. The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America’s commitment to defend them against Russia. Which is how we wound up situation an anti-Iranian missile shield in a place that doesn’t make sense as an anti-Iranian measure, but does piss off Russia."

[snip]

"This is another example of inane spite-based thinking in foreign policy. Basically the idea is that if the Russians don’t want us to do something, we have to do it because otherwise we’re appeasing them and next thing you know Vladimir Putin will be marching on Paris."

Travis | Sep 17, 2009 | rated none by 0 others

Center Analysis

Growth in U.S. Defense Spending Since 2001
The Pentagon's budget has increased dramatically since 2001. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the total defense budget has grown from $432 billion in FY01 to $720 billion in FY11, a real increase of approximately 67 percent. The Pentagon’s base budget, whic...

Lips and Teeth
If it is true that North Korea’s WMD programs are being funded principally from illicit arms sales, then it is imperative that China take its UN Security Council sanctions obligations more seriously. In this new analysis, Chad O'Caroll questions whether t...

FY 2011 Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Funding
In his historic Prague speech on nuclear weapons, President Obama pledged that the United States would lead “a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.” While last year's budget request was wel...

The Obama disarmament paradox: A rebuttal
Greg Mello's recent Bulletin article "The Obama Disarmament Paradox" distorts the Obama administration's nuclear agenda by making unjustified assumptions that discredit President Barack Obama's historic commitment to seek a nuclear-weapon-free w...

Fact Sheet: 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
The Nuclear Posture Review is scheduled for release sometime in March or April 2010. The review will set U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the next five to ten years and influence the implementation of President Obama's far-reaching agenda to reduce the rol...