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?

possumdag - 12:36am May 15, 2001 EST (#3885 of 3896)
Possumdag@excite.com

"""he most effective and cost-effective approach would be for the United States simply to announce that it has the right to conduct pre-emptive, unilateral military operations against ICBM missile sites that pose a threat to its overseas-based military units or the U.S. homeland.

The threat from rogue states can be addressed by subsonic Tomahawk or ALCM cruise missiles rather than by resorting to nuclear weapons or even space-based X-ray lasers, the development and deployment costs of which could swallow the entire Pentagon procurement budget.

If Washington can succeed politically in revising or even abandoning the ABM Treaty soon, the Bush administration will have successfully set a precedent for the revision of the 1967 treaty barring weapons in space.

Thus, domestic opponents of missile defense simply are missing the point, in the same sense that its supporters are sidestepping the real issue. """ From the wrong debate above.

possumdag - 12:46am May 15, 2001 EST (#3886 of 3896)
Possumdag@excite.com

Interesting article on the balance of power and restoration of equilibrium. As i said above, the world is trying to knock the USA off its high perch.

The USA is, once again threatening to withold UN fees!!

The UN should never have been built in the US, then America would have had more understanding re meeting the world on world terms.

If the US isn't a financially paid up (to-date) member of the UN, then perhaps it shouldn't be allowed to vote! It can well afford to be a paid up member.

almarst-2001 - 02:38am May 15, 2001 EST (#3887 of 3896)

"The most effective and cost-effective approach would be for the United States simply to announce that it has the right to conduct pre-emptive, unilateral military operations against ICBM missile sites that pose a threat to its overseas-based military units or the U.S. homeland. "

That would basically mean the US can ignore the most fundamental principles of the International Law and strike any nation at will acused of posing the thread to US bases, personal, homeland or interests. For this no special announcement is needed. Just a power of the overhelming force and assurance of no retaliation.

The problems are:

- The US has to get out of the ranks of International community, effectively becoming the ultimate "rogue" nation. This situation is already in progress.

- There can be no 100% assurance of no retaliation. And not necesserelly just by the ballistic missiles. As I expect, the Russia and China would try and succeed in assuring enough power and endurance of their missiles to neutralize the MD. In parallel, they and the other less technologically advanced nations will most likely try and develop some very deadly biological form of WMD at a small fraction of the cost of BM. The retaliation may involve the infiltration of handreds of infected mortires spreading the flu-like slow developing but highly contageous and deadly virus causing the massive epidemy showing simultaneously accross the whole of US and many other countries, particularelly the Western Europe.

No able country would aggree to become a target for the Tomahawk or ALCM cruise missiles without giving a fight. The wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia can no more be viewed as an abberation or the fluke. This is for real and will create the real responce. The Ginie is already out of the boutle. With or without the MD.

leungki - 04:05am May 15, 2001 EST (#3888 of 3896)

Almarst... let Western Europe take care of herself. We had two wars last century and you can be sure we won't let the US drag us into one this century. In the new Europe, NATO exists only as a transatlantic convenience, it no longer guarantees European security in a significant way since all the significant threats are gone (the PRC and Russia as well as all those so-called "rogue" nations with which we trade are not really considered threats over here).

Personally I would not be surprised if the treaty slowly fades into ignominy within a few short years.

leungki - 04:06am May 15, 2001 EST (#3889 of 3896)

In case you haven't noticed, European foreign policy consists of distancing itself as much as possible from the US without actually dropping NATO for the moment.

rshowalter - 06:17am May 15, 2001 EST (#3890 of 3896)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Without getting facts straight, much more reliably than is now done, (and this means that, when it counts, somewhere somehow, checking has to be morally forcing ) the world situation is "beyond redemption."

If we're clear on our situations, we can do a lot better than we're doing, and can avoid many horrors. Though there will still be mistakes, and horrors. There is no reason for anyone to expect universal rightness or good will from anyone else, or themselves. But, on average, and in the aggregate, we can still do better than we've done, and better than we're doing.

Misinformation is dangerous and costly, and the danger and cost increases fast as situations become more coupled and more complex.

Lies and misinformation, however motivated, or unmotivated, have always been expensive and dangerous, and they are getting more expensive and more dangerous all the time.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense