I don't know anything about the religious ramifications, but I think it's great that people in Transcarpathia are opposed to the idea of an American missile base being set up in there backyard. Maybe Vladimir Putin could ask the governments of Canada and Mexico for permission to set up missile bases close to the US border, as a DEFENSIVE measure of course.
So long as the missiles were not nuclear interceptors of the 1950s type BMD systems I would guess that the Russians would be rather surprised at how little the US government would actually respond.
The US actually does not care where France or the UK point their missiles. As Russia moves away from their old Soviet pathological mental states, we care less and less about where they point their missiles as well. The name of the game in US diplomacy is to slowly normalize Russia so that no matter who wins power there, they are considered and act like a friend. Close, distant, or in between is another matter but a country whose missile targeting decisions are irrelevant because we know they won't launch is the best situation.
As I recall the US raised quite a stink when missles were planned to be placed in Cuba...
Yes, offensive missiles that could land in DC faster than US C3 systems could order a retaliatory strike *were* viewed with hostility, and with good reason. Had they remained, they would have been incredibly destabilizing and very much increased the chance of the US accidentally launching because we would have had so little time to respond. Thank God that the Cuban missiles were removed and we were spared those risks.
Many of you seem to misunderstand the nature of the threat. There are two problems that BMD systems need to counter. The first, and scariest, are rogue states that have their own missile programs, Iran and North Korea being most threatening at the moment. The second problem is a little further down the road and that is in the impending new space age that is coming. Private rocket companies are here and proliferating fast. Hijacking one of these either from the ground or in mid-flight is as exotic as airline hijacking but with the disadvantage that many of these systems travel too fast to be intercepted by plane.
Weapons to take out missiles traveling at ICBM speeds are going to become a global necessity. The problems are significant and we might as well start getting the 1st generation systems out there so when, God forbid, a real emergency happens, a defensive system can save lives by destroying an aggressive missile.
Religiously, I cannot see how such a state of affairs would be worse than the madness of the old balance of terror/MAD situation. In fact, I think it much more christian to destroy aggressive weapons as they try to strike and not people in revenge afterwards.
