Sunny Man’s Blog

June 9th 2007

(1) How to Piss Off the World

Blogging, Life, Politics

When I was listening to the news the other day, I could not believe what I was hearing. I thought the news was replaying a clip from cold war era. Russian President Vladimir Putin was threatening to aim potentially nuclear weapons at sites around Europe because some countries had agreed to play host to American anti-missile and radar sites. If it’s his aim to piss off most of the world, he’s succeeded. I’m going to allow myself some less than appropriate language here and say to mister former secret agent; where the hell do you get off threatening Europe with missile attack? Have you been in a coma for the past sixty years? Mr. Putin, why are you so against a defence system for Europe and America? Is it because it’s America’s system? I don’t understand you, Mr. Putin, why don’t you want me to be safe from the evil in the world? Well, enough of those common words. Let us enjoy a read and discuss the implications of America’s new ‘defence’ system.

Big-Arse America

If you haven’t been keeping up with America’s expanding international presence lately then you may not have heard about their growing plans to set up an anti-missile defence system around Europe and their own territory to combat what they think is a real and growing threat from ‘evil’ countries like Iran and North Korea. Their system involves a number of radar and missile sites throughout Europe - one radar site is located here in the UK. Mr. Putin’s outrageous comments came after it was announced America wanted to place sites in Poland and the Czech Republic - former Soviet states and signatories of the Warsaw Pact.

Firstly, I think we should take a look at the plans for this new defence system. It’s aim is to protect America and its allies from missile attacks by attacking the missiles mid-flight, even before they enter friendly airspace. Sounds quite a nice plan - we get protection just by giving up a few acres of land and playing host to a radar station and/or a missile site.

Not So Invisible Threat

This plan raises a number of questions that need to be investigated. What and who are we being protected from? Are the missile sites dangerous to us? Could the radar stations be used to spy on us? Could the sites be used to spy on other countries? Should we allow America to militarise an area that is still recovering from both the fall of the Soviet Union and a number of civil and bloody wars? Some of these questions have answers that we can only speculate on but I think I can speculate deep enough to hopefully allow you to make up your own mind.

Just off topic, I recently read that Mr. Putin declared himself the only true democratic leader in the world today. He must be living in a world of fantasy. If the words democratic and authoritarian have switched their meanings, then sure, he’s correct. Democratic is not closing media outlets because they disagree with you. Democratic is not cracking down on people with different political views and democratic is certainly not threatening nuclear attack; even if it is justified.

Firstly, let us concentrate on the question of what this system would be protecting us from. One state that has already proven that it has the capabilities to fire nuclear weapons on board missiles - although whether it could hit Europe remains to be seen - is North Korea. Could that fat, four-eyed Doctor Evil imitator become a pain in our backside? It remains to be seen but at the moment it appears he’s more of a threat to his own people than us. That’s another post right there. Do we need to be worried about attack from China? I think the answer’s no but I they are becoming slightly arrogant because of their unsustainable high economic growth. Their recent destruction of a satellite with a missile showed us how all strong and mighty they and most importantly how they care more for putting on shows of military might than they do care for helping the older, traditional and more remote members of the population. My own opinion is that China isn’t a threat to us but in an economical sense, they could inflict quite a lot of damage.

So, if those states aren’t a threat to Europe, who is? Well, there are many different types of threats to Europe and most are not missile based or in fact posed by a particular state. Groups of individuals, known rather generically as terrorists, pose a more probable risk to us than any one state. Do these terrorists in question have access to missiles that could carry a nuclear bomb? They most likely have access to missiles but to missiles with a range not large enough to pose any risk to us.

Before I come to a conclusion about the answer to this question, I’d like to talk about whether or not a state would actually launch a missile at another state in today’s world. Most states are in alliances of one political direction or another except for states like Switzerland which has a strategy of neutrality in war and non-alignment in peace - hence why Switzerland has not been in a foreign war since 1815. If one state was to attack another, the allies of the attacked state would defend it either politically and/or with military force. An eye for an eye, as it were, will only lead to more attacks until something along the lines of mutually assured destruction occurs. You have ‘alliances’ like NATO, the UN and the lesser known CSTO. Some states are part of one or more of these alliances and so the number of allies a state has and the military might of these allies is a rather large deterrent from attack. Political views on military action, especially that of big superpowers, is more of a revengeful attitude than other states. Instead of responding with political talks they just go and attack with force out right. This will more than likely lead to a mutually assured destruction scenario and so states will take this into account if deciding to attack. To put this whole argument into perspective, would you beat up a member of a local gang without any mask on knowing there’s the potential risk of the other gang members coming and doing the same to you? I wouldn’t, but then again I’m quite sane which is more than can be said for some leaders in the world.

Dangerous Missiles?

Another question is do the missile sites and the radar platforms pose any risks to us. Obviously, there’s the risk of being blown up by a poorly guided Russian bomb but besides that, people are more worried about any health risks that may be present or the risk that the presence of possible nuclear material may pose. To be honest, the risks of anything bad happening is quite small and these bases are traditionally secluded and placed well away from any built up areas. The question is whether these sites will every be used. Radar sites pose nearly no risk at all - except maybe annoying drivers by turning their engines on and off at whim - and missile sites are strategically placed to pose as little risk as possible.

Putin’s Surprise

In the middle of writing this article, the G8 summit occurred and Putin surprised most people by actually offering a disused former military site for the specific use of President Bush’s missile defence system. After such offering though, Mr. Putin again stressed his opinion that George Bush shouldn’t go ahead with spreading his defence network further into Europe. Damage control at work? Most likely. Mr. Putin and his public relations office most likely had a serious discussion and have tried to hide his true authoritarian attitude and perform a clean up operation that has understandably failed.

Also bear in mind that the disused military base he has offered is not in Russia but rather in Azerbaijan and Mr. Putin said that he would retract the threat of aiming Russian missiles at Europe if the United States agrees to use only this radar site in joint cooperation with Russia. Sounds like Mr. Putin is a little green with envy.

Put Up and Shut Up

Why do we continue to accept regimes that, thirty years ago we would have at least made an attempt to correct and sixty years ago we were pushing out of western Europe? China and Russia are just two states, of quite a few, in the world which is now more than ever dictated not by moral values or righteous acts but by the greed of the people we put in office to serve our best interests. We indulge the states that we ourselves cringe at the thought of living in and our governments express fake façades of disapproval at the regimes whilst taking no actions whatsoever to impose trade restrictions or cause change.

The reason why the governments of some of the most democratic nations on earth tolerate such oppressive, undemocratic, authoritarian and militarised regimes is the fact that those same democratic nations have let those regimes become so economically powerful that they are scared to do anything because those nations have the power to literally cripple our ‘developed’ way of lives. An example is that China is suspected to have such a large reserve of the Dollar, if released, could cripple the American economy and the value of it. We buy clothes and toys and electronics from these nations that have been exploited at the pleasure of the nations’ governments - something of which even I am guilty of - and we don’t think that each time we do we are supporting the regimes; effectively funding the regimes in the process.

Time is Money

To give an answer to the purpose and title of this article, how do you piss off the world? To piss off the world, you really need to do one of two things. Either build a missile defence system that has stations dangerously close to countries that you don’t exactly have the best relations with. Or, threaten to launch missiles at missile defence system stations because the owners are a nation you don’t exactly have the best relations with.

Or, I suppose you could spend £400,000 on a logo that is supposed to represent a country but that only represents the kids with caps who you see under bridges at night, delicately covering the walls with affectionate names for their best mates and ex-acquaintances. Oh, and this is all happening in the early nineties.