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?

smartalix - 02:30pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4276 of 4466)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

gisterme,

You said,

no claim by anyone that an NMD would protect against more than accidents or the type of nuclear blackmail some rogue leader might be tempted to try if he managed to get hold of a few ICBMs. For example, if Saddam had had a dozen ICBMs, the respose to and outcome of his Kuwait adventure would have been quite different.

Not.

First, an ICBM is more than a bottle rocket that one can just prop up and light. It requires a significantly higher level of technical expertise to prepare and launch, as you are essentially making a space shot.

Second, the only country we worry about with more than a dozen ICBMs is Russia. China has less than 2 dozen, and the other wannabees only have warheads on theater-level weapons.

Third, as far as Iraq went, one A-bomb would have been more than enough, and it wouldn't have had to be launched on an ICBM (inter-contintental ballistic missile) to achieve results, either.

Missile defense does not only have poor rationale, it fails at even the limited role it has been portrayed as being good at. Unilateral deployment of a missile-defense system of any kind is destabilizing.

smartalix - 02:32pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4277 of 4466)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

gisterme,

As Bush is currently pushing it, BMD would be a unilateral program. Who are we involving? Do you think Bush would actually include the Russians beyond paying them off for silence?

rshowalt - 02:33pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4278 of 4466)

And especially destabilizing because of deepseated perceptions in place.

Almarst does "keep talking," and in context, his MD4252 almarst-2001 5/28/01 11:45pm

makes a great deal of sense, and asks key questions.

" How about just "safety" for all?

great question -- how about it !

almarst goes on:

" Specifically, "What will then protect the next Hanoi, or Bagdad, or Pana City, or Belgrad ... or Moscow or any other city against US's stealth bombers, aircraft cariers, cruise missiles, DU munitions, clustered and smart bombs and planned satelite-based lasers? Protect their citizens' water and power supply, schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, workplaces, children and themselve?"

That's a key question , and all concerned ought to notice how concerned almarst is with the question. It is deeply in there intest of the US, and the whole world, to adress that question - and the painful history, and barriers of trust and communication, associated with it.

The question

" Who and how will guarantee their safety, freedom and independance?

has to be sensibly answered.

MAD , terrible as it is, is percieved as a partial answer to the question -- an answer Russia cannot safely give up.

We have to do better than MAD - and that means adressing the real fears that are in place for entirely valid reasons.

rshowalt - 02:38pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4279 of 4466)

This thread has been helpful -- untidy as it may seem to be -- because it takes large word count, and multiple things to match against, to move things toward convergence.

gisterme - 03:10pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4280 of 4466)

rshowalt 5/29/01 2:14pm

rshowalter wrote: "Thought experiment.

"Suppose that, within the United Nations (which is a human group full of informal and ad hoc organizations) there was an " organization of un-american activities" including a "committee of the whole, minus one" --every nation but the United States....

..."If such an "ad hoc" organization knit together, and took intelligent action, how effective could it be?"

Effective at doing what, Robert? Exercising the golden rule? What sort of "intelligent" action would such an "ad hoc" group be empowered to carry out? Would there be a separate "committe of the whole, minus one" for Norway too? How about Afghanistan? Or, would the US just be singled out because it's the rich kid on the block? Sounds more like a gossip club to me, Robert. Certainly an excuse for another layer of bureaucracy at the UN for the US to pay the lion's share of.

"...Is the world really helpless before U.S. power?..."

Of course not. We agree on that, Robert. But why do you frame the question as if the world is somehow separate from the US? It doesn't serve US interests for the "world" to be an unsafe place any more than it serves Russian, Chinese or any other nation's interests. Painting the "world as us" and the "USA as them" sounds like an echo from the age of empire. Is that the kind of "RIGHT" thinking that will lead to the "RIGHT" answers we need to find?

"...Isn't it unhealthy that countries seem to think so?"

Of course it's unhealthy, Robert, because, as we both agree, it's not the truth. It's never healthy to believe an untruth.

gisterme - 03:34pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4281 of 4466)

smartalix wrote:

"...First, an ICBM is more than a bottle rocket that one can just prop up and light. It requires a significantly higher level of technical expertise to prepare and launch, as you are essentially making a space shot..."

Right, smartalix. Exactly why all the worry about folks like North Korea and probably Iraq who are working very hard to develop that kind of technology and expertise. Doesn't it seem arrogant to assume that other folks can't develop ICBMs or nuclear bombs?

"Second, the only country we worry about with more than a dozen ICBMs is Russia. China has less than 2 dozen, and the other wannabees only have warheads on theater-level weapons."

Russia and China aren't US enemies and are not the object of the proposed BMD. If you've seen any evidence that the case is otherwise, I'm sure we'd all like to see it here on this board.

Third, as far as Iraq went, one A-bomb would have been more than enough, and it wouldn't have had to be launched on an ICBM (inter-contintental ballistic missile) to achieve results, either.

One A-bomb would have been enough for what smartalix? To discourage the Iraqi army? Would Saddam have cared? Did he care when the Iraqi army was discouraged by conventional means? Any number of US A-bombs could have accomplished noting in Iraq that was not accomplished by conventional means. There would have just been a lot more innocent dead.

(185 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense