New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

almarst-2001 - 06:26pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4086 of 4113)

gisterme,

I still do not acept your points as credible or logical.

It seems we are moving here in circles.

Let's other participants to decide, if you aggree.

As a general comments, I think you accept for granted the American socio-economical and cultural systems as superior to anything different it tried to crush anywere in the World since WWII. And I don't. For too many reasons to mention, including the too short period of the time to make this conclusion final.

But even if the US system would be absolutly superior and the most suitable for all, I would never accept that it has a right to impose it on others by a brutal force.

How come that you don't see this policy contradicts the bases of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Indipendence is beiong my understanding.

Remember, the Dynasoures rulled the World for millions of years. I am sure it will take much less to figure this one out;)

almarst-2001 - 06:38pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4087 of 4113)

Bush opposed to softening US sanctions against Cuba - http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010519/world/afp/Bush_opposed_to_softening_US_sanctions_against_Cuba.html

U.S. and British Planes Attack Iraq - http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap789.htm

Russian Accuses Aid Groups of Spying - http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap33.htm

by ANDREW KRAMER Associated Press Writer

"MOSCOW (AP) -- A Russian intelligence official claimed Friday that foreign spies are working under the cover of humanitarian relief groups in and around the warring province of Chechnya, news reports said."

And I sincerelly believe that is true. The same tactic as was used in Kosovo.

gisterme - 06:52pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4088 of 4113)

So...let's sum up this discussion with regards to ballistic missile defense.

Arguements "FOR" a BMD:

1. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy requires having large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons "at the ready". It is a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Building missile defenses is one way to begin moving away from the "balance of terror" concept.

2. A BMD would be a significant bargaining chip that could accelerate the world-wide stand-down of strategic nuclear weapons. A partial missile shield would allow the US to unilatirally take down about 4500 strategic nukes and their delivery systems.

That could be the beginning of a "disarms" race that might bring the US and Russian strategic arsenals to a small number, perhaps about on par with others who have strategic nukes. At that point (or some point before) the missile shield could be shared with all as a sort of "insurance policy" that should simplify negotiations to get rid of the remainder of the strategic nuclear missiles in the world.

3. A BMD is technically feasable including countermeasures to defeat decoys and other means of deception.

4. An effective missile shield would give some protection, both real and psycological against a suicide attack from from some small nation with rogue leadership or an independent terrorist organization that has managed to buy, beg, borrow, steal or secretly build an ICBM or MRBM.

5. The pursuit of solutions to tough military technical problems in the past century has cost a lot but has produced a windfall of scientific and technological advancement, especially in consumer products, as a collateral benefit. There's no reason to think that BMD research would yield any less return on the investment even if the BMD were never acutally deployed.

6. Certain segments of the Military Industrial Complex could be kept buisy re-processing those first 4500 US warhead cores into nuclear power plant fuel. More of those folks could be used to be sure we know how to build and operate nuclear power plants safely...a way to use at least part of the MI complex to beat weapons into plowshares.

7. Non-nucler BMD components are safer and less expensive to maintain than strategic nuclear weapons components.

8. An effective BMD could provide protection against an accidental strategic launch or a launch due to a small conspiracy anywhere in the world.

9. Removal of the entire ICBM class of nuclear weapons will reduce the worst case nuclear scenario from "total anihilation" to "someplace got devistated".

10. There will still be plenty of tactical nukes to assure defense of home or allies from attacks by otherwise overhwelming conventional forces.

gisterme - 06:52pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4089 of 4113)

Summary, contiued:

Arguements AGAINST BMD:

1. Mutually Assured Destruction policy has worked so far, why rock that boat? After all, we're all still here.

2. If the US builds a BMD it will disturb the "strategic nuclear balance" and that will lead to a new strategic arms race. Russia will MIRV all its missiles to maximum capacity, China will build many more ICBMs and MIRV them and India and Pakistan will jump on the arms-race bandwagon as well. The world will wind up with many more strategic nuclear weapons if the US builds a BMD.

3. A BMD is technically unfeasable. Two out of three test shots of an experimental rocket interceptor have failed. The one success is claimed to be under unrealistic or questionble conditions or falsly reported. A BMD can be easily defeated by decoys or other means of deception. BMD can't be done.

4. US fears of ballistic missile attacks from "rogue nations" or terrorist organizations are groundless. There is no danger.

5. The BMD is too expensive at around $100 billion. That would just be money down the rathole.

6. The BMD is just a way to keep the US Military Industrial Complex going.

7. The US might have to withdraw from the 1972 arms control treaty with Russia. That would be an immoral thing for the US to do.

8. A BMD, even at $100 billion spent does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons or other WMD that have delivery methods other than ballistic missiles.

9. The elimination of strategic nuclear weapons world-wide would leave the US with an overwhelming advantage in conventional armament.

gisterme - 07:05pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4090 of 4113)

gisterme(#4089) continued:

Forgot one arguement in the "AGAINST" BMD list:

10. If the US has an effective BMD then it will feel emboldened to make a "first strike" against some enemy. The threshold of acceptance for use of nuclear weapons would be reduced by removal of MAD through strategic disarmament.

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense