Missile Defense

beckq - 01:36pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#258 of 11863)

John B. Rhinelander, ACA vice-chairman and former legal advisor to the U.S. SALT I delegation that negotiated the ABM Treaty

"Just so you are familiar with a little bit of the history of this article, which is really quite colorful, about a third of the way into the SALT I talks, the U.S. gave the Soviets a choice: either one-for-one—one site on each side—or zero-zero, your choice. The Soviets came back, relatively quickly for those days, and said they had chosen one-for-one. Our response was: "You made the wrong choice; it is no longer on the table. In fact, neither choice is on the table; the choice is now four-for-one." And then we went back to three-for-one, and then two-for-one and we ended up with two-for-two with the understanding that two-for-two meant one-for-one all along. That's just to show you that these things don't appear overnight."

beckq - 02:03pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#259 of 11863)

SALT I, the first series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, extended from November 1969 to May 1972. During that period the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the first agreements to place limits and restraints on some of their central and most important armaments. In a Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, they moved to end an emerging competition in defensive systems that threatened to spur offensive competition to still greater heights. In an Interim Agreement on Certain Measures With Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, the two nations took the first steps to check the rivalry in their most powerful land- and submarine-based offensive nuclear weapons http://books.nap.edu/books/0309034914/html/325.html#pagetop

Without SALT the ABM treaty is worthless.Without the ABM treaty SALT I is worthless. Both exist because both not just one, but both attempt to convey via treaty with the other that each side wants to have both

Missile defenses(ABM Treaty) encourage offensive force increases.(SALT) Both countries knew that missile defense(ABM Treaty), no matter how capable, could be overwhelmed by massive attack(SALT). If one country built defenses(ABM), the other would simply increase its arsenal(SALT), seeking to maintain the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on the first. Each country sought the capability to carry out, after an attack by the other, a substantial retaliatory strike.(SALT) As long as that capability was preserved,(SALT & ABM) each would be deterred from attacking the other(SALT & ABM). By agreeing not to build national missile defenses(ABM), the two countries sought to maintain deterrence(ABM & SALT)

beckq - 02:07pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#260 of 11863)

Also paradoxically, relying on missile defenses can actually decrease stability in a crisis, because it increases the temptation to attack first. If one country has a missile defense system that can intercept even a few incoming missiles, it has an incentive to strike first, destroying as much of the other country's arsenal as possible, and then rely on missile defense to blunt the counter-attack. This unstable dynamic pushes the other country to be able to launch its arsenal first, before the first attacks (or before its missiles hit--so-called "launch-on-warning"), to ensure it can overwhelm the defense. This instability is greatly compounded by the "attractive" target presented by multi-warhead missiles. By hitting those targets first, an attacker could theoretically destroy many warheads with one, again pushing the defender to "use it before you lose it." These three factors--the requirement to preserve deterrence, the capability to overwhelm any missile defense, and the instability created by missile defenses and multi-warhead missiles--led to SALT I.

beckq - 05:53pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#261 of 11863)

The signing of the SALT I ABM Treaty formalized the mutual recognition that deterrence based on the assured destruction of an attackers society was the basis of security in the nuclear age. The treaty also signified the two sides agreement that effective measures to limit ballistic missile defense systems would help curb the ongoing strategic offensive arms race and decrease the risk of nuclear war. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309034914/html/144.html#pagetop

beckq - 06:01pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#262 of 11863)

And in conclusion Vic, that and that alone is why your below position when I confrontonted you on it is so important. Rather than admit your mistake you attempt to tell the forum you made a grammical error and attempt to twist your position

vic.hernandez - 07:34pm Aug 10, 2000 EDT (#213 of 261

1) SALT 1 was not about preserving a mutual suicide pact, it was about reducing the expense of the Nuclear Arms Race going on at the time. After all was said and done, both sides agreed that it would be ok to build up to a set limit. All that was agreed to was to slow down the rate of increase, cut down on the expenses.

Yet the experts Vic say otherwise: The signing of the SALT I ABM Treaty formalized the mutual recognition that deterrence based on the assured destruction of an attackers society was the basis of security in the nuclear age. The treaty also signified the two sides agreement that effective measures to limit ballistic missile defense systems would help curb the ongoing strategic offensive arms race and decrease the risk of nuclear war. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309034914/html/144.html#pagetop

A Big p.s. vic.

SALT I is understood to include the ABM treaty and its protocols As so indicated in article VI of SALT I Interm Agreement.

(11601 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense