Well, Missile Defense is sure a matter of great importance for Russia and other nuclear (or not) powers. But it is no less important to the country mentioned - that is Poland. Though no heated debate over this subject has been witnessed so far, Poland and her elite has yet to determine the cohesive standpoint on the question.

Not getting to deep into details, there are numerous arguments for and against the decision to support an idea (to deploy US ballistic missile interceptors in Poland), that can be generally divided into two sets of dimensions.

Polish authorities has to look at this from purely military/strategic point of view, as well as take into account the political/economical implications of the potential approval for the plan. As far as military and strategy is concerned, it is a well known goal of Polish foreign policy to tighten relations with the US as much as possible, for US is perceived as the best and only guarantee of Poland’s security.

So, on the one hand, placing American military/strategic installations on Polish soil would achieve just that, since that installations have extreme importance for both US and Russia, and thus can be widely considered as a premium target in case of any Russian hostilities against Poland. And if so, attacking Poland would inevitably entail the engagement from the US in rather strong and quick fashion. On the other hand, however, that concept has one obvious drawback, that can be easily abused by the populist opposition, that is, putting Poland at risk of a preemptive nuclear strike (by Russia).

Then, there is the strictly economical and political frame of things. Given that Poland is still underdeveloped (compared to western states) and has a high unemployment rate, the idea to place such an installations can be easily portrayed as a major US investments in Poland, giving also some new work places. And finally there are some in Poland, who can question the idea of strengthening ties with US, especially when Poland is already viewed by West Europeans as an ”American Trojan's Horse in Europe”.

So, the decision to proceed with the deployment of ABM installations in Poland can be more political than content-related after all, and that said, not only on the Polish behalf.

That was exactly the point - the whole issue of interceptors (and missile defense in general) is purely political. You are right - Poland has a number of reasons to want a large U.S.-financed project on its soil (investment, closer ties, etc.). But it has nothing to do with intereceprting missiles - I would seriously doubt interceptors deployed in Poland (or elsewhere in Eastern Europe) would be able to intercept anything - it's the matter of geometry and physics, not politics.

I agree. It’s pretty obvious that Poland or any other Eastern European country will base it’s eventual decision to support the idea (or not), on strictly political (or generally non merit-related) foundations, fortunately or not. But I wonder what sort of arguments will shape the stance of the US itself? After all, the eventual decision to go on with the deployment of any such installations belongs to the Americans. Poland is just a potential host-nation, so the political/populist debate based on arguments given earlier is all that we can expect from her on that matter. I’m very curious, whether the US will present any reasons behind the eventual decision (proposal) to deploy ABM site in exactly that or the other, European country. I’d also like to see the very motive or incentive to create one at all. I mean, what the US wants to achieve through this in the first place?

I'm quite certain that the U.S. missile defense program will never come to the point where deployment of interceptors in Eastern Europe will be a seriously considered option.

Even if this possibility is mentioned today (I haven't seen anything - do you have an example of a plan that would involve interceptors in Poland?) these talks are unlikely to lead to any real development.

I don’t have any knowledge regarding such a plan, at least I don’t know anything more than is in the media. But there were numerous reports (rumors I’d say) in the polish press about the idea (and variations on it) in recent months. Also, Poland was visited by a high official from the US Department of Defense last year, reportedly to discuss the matter of an ABM post in that country. So I guess we can’t rule out the "Polish option" completely, but I do agree, that the probability of that is very small.

I would say it's all politics (as well as the whole missile defense). For the United States and for Poland the idea of hosting missile defense interceptors is just a way to seek closer ties between the countries.

Would you say the "all politics" comments goes for all countries, or only for Poland? Is the US asking others to "sign on" to BMD for reasons of international politics, even though it has no practical need of their assistance in making the system work?

Here in Canada, our government has already quietly altered its NORAD agreements with the US so that NORAD's early-warning and tracking information will be made available to the BMD system, and yet the government continues to face calls from US Ambassador Paul Cellucci to "sign on" to BMD. I wonder exactly what "signing on" to BMD means, apart from the political and financial support that might flow from an official Canadian "okay" to BMD (which will almost certainly come, I think).

Another query: Russia's ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov, has said he's seen American plans that show BMD leading to space weapons, and that Canadian claims it won't do so aren't taken seriously by other countries. He's spoken against Canadian involvement in BMD. Do his comments reflect real Russian concerns about BMD and space-weapons? Or is he just making diplomatic mischief?

I must admit that given the obviously political nature of some of the Americans' BMD requests, I'm wondering if assembling an "impressive" list of international BMD cooperators isn't part of a strategy to "shape" the international legal and regulatory environment regarding space, as called for in Donald Rumsfeld's 2001 report on Space Management and Organization.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I think it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that with missile defense it's all politics, since the system, when it's built, will have very little value. At the same time, if we assume that it will have some value (as the current administration certainly does), then Canada's participation is important, even if it is simply because it would make things easier logistically.

As for Russia's position on space, Mamedov probably just follows the official "party line" on missile defense and space - that it would undermine stability and all that. But in reality this position is mostly a protest against U.S. not taking Russia into account (although, the Russian leadership may well believe that the missile defense may have some military role).

Finally, you are right - the U.S. is trying to set a stage for "more permissive" legal environment for space weapons and enlisting Canada and other countries into its missile defense program is an important part of that effort. Whether it will have any practical consequences is another matter (I believe it won't).

Regarding our discussion about the possible placement of US ballistic missile interceptors in Europe, I’ve come across an interesting information on a British website. The thing is about a forthcoming debate in British parliament on Missile Defense cooperation with the US, and of a special interest is the following sentence: “The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has said that he wants to base at least ten interceptor missiles in Europe within the next five years, and has confirmed that the UK is in the running to host the interceptors”. This was supposedly stated by a US official. There were already some minor – preliminary hearings before the British parliament on that matter, and some questions were addressed to British Defense Secretary, Geoff Hoon. One of them was, whether he or British government in general, had any discussion with US about basing missile defense interceptors in UK, and he answered :”The government has not yet decided whether UK requires it’s own missile defense, so any discussions do not regard basing or structural plans”. Other answers were similarly vague and evasive. So, the idea to deploy US ABM sites in Europe is still alive, but I cannot help but wonder, is this whole issue with interceptors in Europe still devised as a part of US NMD, or is it now something else? Whose protection against ICBM are those (future) interceptors to secure?

Placing interceptors in Britain or Poland may make sense if the missiles that are supposed to be intercepted are coming from places like Iran. But they would be useless for intercepting Russian missiles - these would go over Sweden and Norway.