Azriel Bermant
As the United States deploys anti-missile batteries to the Middle East as part of its force buildup in the region, the idea that these systems are a purely defensive means to shield against attacks—and thereby deter an adversary from attacking in the first place—is looking increasingly unconvincing. Instead, the current round of conflict in the Middle East suggests the opposite: A reliable anti-missile shield could just as well create an incentive for escalation. If policymakers believe that their state is secure behind the shield, they may calculate that their own offensive military actions carry significantly lower risk.
The purely defensive and de-escalatory case for anti-missile systems is easily made. Exhibit A is Ukraine, where the the Kremlin’s perceptions of Ukraine’s vulnerability—including its lack of missile defense—incentivized Russia to attack in 2022. Between February and May that year, Moscow fired more than 2,000 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukrainian military installations, infrastructure, and population centers in an attempt to clear the way for taking over the country. Had Ukraine been able to deploy large numbers of sophisticated anti-missile systems, the Russian leadership may have calculated the risks of an invasion very differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment