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?

rshowalter - 03:38pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3370 of 3371)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- becq-cookiess0 (4)

2966-2968 : cookiess0 5/2/01 9:40am ... cookiess0 had a posting I greatly respect and admire, responding to this: "The United States can not and must not shirk its responsibilities as leader and protector of the free world no matter who is in the White House."

"Good then. Do not make the majority of this world, the rational nation state throw nuclear deterrence out the window because the largest nuclear power wants to add the chance of survival into an equation that never had it before.

"By the way. Between 1998 and January 2001, 2.5 million people have been killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 80% from government sanctioned famine, 20% from war. Where is the "leader and protector"? Or did too many senators and GOP office holders still have Hans Morganthau in their hands after 93.

"NMD dear speedbird induces all other rational actors, the majority of this world-the rational state to make nuclear conflict survivable. It ruins nuclear deterrence. The actions of the largest nuclear power trying to defend itself from nuclear strikes makes all other nuclear powers, whom are rationale defend against it. It actually destroys the very foundations of stability one is trying to maintain.

"By perusing a concept that attempts to survive nuclear warfare you give nuclear warfare a ‘chance’. That ‘chance’ of survival destroys the very essence of the worldwide deterrence model. That is why the international community has overwhelmingly tipped the scales in opposition to this system. That is why SALT I and the ABM protocols exist between the two largest nuclear powers. Deployment of such a system embraces the theoretical perspective of Nuclear Utilization Theory. It may not be the intent of those who deploy-but every rational state views the system as a total embrace of a theory designed to win a nuclear war. That perspective (NUTs)(grin) implies that not only will nuclear war be fought-but it mussed be fought to survive and win. In such a pursuit, you lower conventional warfare thresholds and lower the crossover points at which conventional conflict goes into nuclear conflict. This is due to the very fact that one has added a chance to something in which no chance existed prior. You cannot posture yourself against the irrational actor- the minority of this world. Doing so only requires the majority if this world (rational actors) to balance against your own actions. You cannot thwart the irrational actor because the irrational actor has no limits or boundaries. The very name implies that the irrational actor is impossible to deter. As noted by the CIA of May 19th 00, the terminology of ‘rogue’ state has no significant in the course of debate regarding missile deference because ‘rouge’ implies that such states are irrational and every state America has labeled rouge is rational. The rational/irrational actor model is core issue regarding deterrence. As the CIA pointed out, rouge state has ‘more political significance then true value to the structure of deterrence’. In short the largest nuclear power embarking on the deployment of a system designed to survive nuclear strikes creates the impetus for every rational actor, depost to allied to do the same. All at varying levels of technological development all at varying levels of effiencey.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense