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?

gisterme - 08:54pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3386 of 3407)

cookies0 wrote: "..."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...."

Thanks for re-posting this, Robert. There's another reasonable (I think) way of looking at this. Keep in mind that the one bit of common ground that seems universally embraced here is a desire for zero nuclear weapons in the world.

Have we all been sitting here under the nuclear gun for so long that we've just become used to it, you know, grown kind of fond of it and so want to maintain the status quo? SAY IT AINT SO! And yet, BY DEFINITION, if we desire to maintain and not "ruin" nuclear deterrence then that's exactly what we're saying.

If we want to get rid of nuclear weapons we must try something different to what we're doing now. Mr. Bush says he wants to unilaterally get rid of about 4,500 nuclear weapons, over half the US arsenal. Who here thinks that would not disturb that oh-so-delicate balance of the nuclear deterrence scale? Now cookies0 has proclaimed that if the US builds the BMD, that balance will be disturbed. By that arguement cookiess grants that the BMD has "weight" to tip that scale. So if we unbalance the scale by removing the weight of over half the US arsenal on the US side and simultaneously replace it with with an equal amount of BMD weight, how will the balance be disturbed? Would you say that getting rid of 4500 strategic nukes and replacing them with any amount of defensive weapons is a step in the direction of our common ground?

So far as the theory that creation of BMD is to try to make nuclear war survivable goes, that's nonsense. A red herring and an absolutely pessimistic conclusion. As a more optimistic alternative let's try a domino-theory-like case FOR a BMD.

The motivation for doing a BMD system ASAP is that the US has long since reached the conclusion that launching a massive nuclear strike, even in retaliation for an attack in kind, is a morally unacceptable option. Now, really for the first time, the technology exsists or is in reach to build an effective missile shield. So, as a way of LEADING the world out of this nuclear showdown morass, it will find ways to reduce ITS OWN nuclear arsenal, unilateraly. If the US finds it possible to replace half its bombs with defenses, then why not three-quarters? Seven-Eighths? And if the US did that, presuming their good intentions, other nuclear-armed nations should follow suit.

Once all the arsenals got down to a small size, the US could GIVE the same missile shield to EVERYONE when everyone agrees to simultaneously remove the last of their nukes. That will leave the world with zero nuclear missiles, a permanent ban against same, and a real defense against anybody that might be dishonest and hide a few or secretly build them. One would expect that with the massive-attack nuclear threat gone, the world could become more relaxed place, one where over time REAL trust could be built among nations. Once that trust has been built, the defenses could stand down as well.

That seems like a more realistic approach toward zero nukes than endlessly repeating the same old stuff that has been proven not to work because of mutual distrust. Where there is distrust, let's remove the cause. The USSR really did take the final leadership role in ending the cold war. Again, a toast to Mr. Gorbachev. That did a LOT to improve trust. Wouldn't the thing the US could do from its side to improve trust be to reduce its nuclear arsenal?

This approach doesn't require everyone to become South

gisterme - 09:12pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3387 of 3407)

...continued

This approach doesn't require everyone to become Southern Baptists nor does it leave anyone unprotected from any likely degree of dishonesty. :-)

To avoid over-simplyfing the situation I should say here that this approach would only work for Ballistic missile delivery systems of the sort that could deliver an attack on a world-killing scale. It does nothing about tactical nukes that could be delivered individually in other ways. Still, though, reducing the worst case scenario from "total annhilation" to "some place might get devestated by a terrorist attack" couldn't be a move in the wrong direction. Certainly no one could think the vice-versa is true. Do you think that the restoration of trust that could come from removing all strategic weapons could spill over to the tacticals? I do. They are expensive and dangerous to maintain.

How's that for focusing to a solution?

possumdag - 09:28pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3388 of 3407)
Possumdag@excite.com

ALEX:

I note that Putin has picked up all the supposedly rogue countries (according to Bwsh) and put them firmly in the Russian fold. Spare chips lying on the table waiting to be picked up and given a little tender love an care!

If all these countries want is recognition, TLC, help to establish their economies, and a chance to move onwards and upwards ... then why didn't the USA see it?

gisterme - 09:31pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3389 of 3407)

cookiess wrote: "...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"?

If by "leader and protector" you mean the US, I'd say the US is staying right where it should stay. Call it "lessons learned from the Somalia debacle". I've never seen a proclamation from the US government that it has somehow become the "leader and protector" of the world, have you? While there's no denying that the US is in a strong leadership position, proclamations of "world's policeman" and "protector of the world" come mostly from its detractors who seem to delight in the fact that the US can't do everything for everybody everywhere. As shown in Somalia the feeding hand can get bit.

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense