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?
One of the many issues with the anti-ballistic missile shield, is
why don't we include Russia in the proposal? What are Americans
afraid of that Russians aren't? Why does America have to be the
Global Cop?
Those are good questions -- but for them to BE good questions,
issues involving "trust and checking" together have to be
very well specified, and specified to the satisfaction of a
Russia that has a tragic, wrenching history of being on the wrong
end of treacherous, devastating invasions and military surprise
attacks.
I've said before that, as a technical guy, I'd love to work on
missile controls -- - but not when things are grossly unstabilized,
and not when people are asking for undoable things.
*****
Proposal -- and this would technicaally work as a VERY
reliable ABM system for US and Russia.
Station one (Russian, American) with the equivalent of a 50
caliber machine gun at the opening of each and every (American,
Russian) missile. The missiles could be destroyed, with fine
reliability, at early boost phase, in this way.
All it would take is trust.
And if the folks manning those guns were in place, and
comfortable, I bet Russia would be fairly willing to think about a
cooperative ABM missile shield -- which then really would be for
rogues.
China too, I'd bet.
rshowalter
- 07:56pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3999
of 4007) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
And in fairness, if you were America, wouldn't you feel the need
to be a "global cop" ?
The reasons for wanting to be so aren't all bad.
rshowalter
- 08:01pm May 16, 2001 EST (#4000
of 4007)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
For the subs, the same sort of thing would be doable, too, and
only just a little fancier. You'd need a fishing boat sized ship,
shadowing the subs, ready to shoot missiles as they emerged from the
water. And for mobile missiles, the principles would be the same.
ALL IT TAKES IS TRUST.
rshowalter
- 08:01pm May 16, 2001 EST (#4001
of 4007)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Or, in the case of the subs, reliable penetration of some
redundantly stored coordinates, and the same sort of boats.
gisterme
- 08:13pm May 16, 2001 EST (#4002
of 4007)
almarst wrote: "...Also I wish, the US cuts its military spending
to the level needed to defend this country in a time of a peace, and
not a penny more. Why should I pay for services - the "protection of
US interests" I don't understand or given some credible explanation
for?
What is wrong with that?"
As an ideal, almarst, nothing is wrong with that. When we someday
live in an ideal world "defense" in a military sense won't be an
issue.
In the US during the 1930s there was a huge groundswell of
idealism that lead to serious debate over whether or not the US
should just isolate itself behind its oceans. "Why risk our boys
over Europe's problems? Nobody can cross the ocean and successfuly
invade this place." was the flavor of the arguement in favor of
isolationism. Same as before WWI. The US government responded to
that sentiment and practically disarmed. I don't have exact figures,
but I believe the enitre US military, all branches, was only a
couple of hundred thousand strong. That didn't change significantly
until Hitler began to march. If the US had not had such a dynamic
economy, great industrial base, abundant natural resources and
people willing to work hard the war with the nazis might have had a
different ending. Grim thought. As it was though, both Britain and
Russia had to hang on for a few years while the US built its
military to a useful condition and got the war material pipeline
primed and flowing. Stalin was relentless in demanding that the US
and Britain open a "second front" during this whole period, and why
not? After all, Russia was getting mauled. Russia hadn't been
prepared either.
So the lesson learned by both Russia and the US was that being
prepared for peace doesn't work well when somebody else who has
prepared for war attacks.
tshep51
- 08:16pm May 16, 2001 EST (#4003
of 4007)
ALL IT TAKES IS THRUST!
No need to go back to the past, relive old injustices, there are
many. Beginning with the WWW2. Japan has been forgiven as has
Germany, yet Russia and CIS still have that threat to the USA, that
she (USA) cannot quite swallow.
It isn't about rouge countries, it's really about errant missiles
and warheads. Russia has enough bombs to blow up the world, how
effective will a defense shield be against waves of radioactive
clouds, talk about atmosphereric distortions.
When they began building this arsenal, they called it MAD, now
it's just plain SAD.
(4
following messages)
![[F]](../_images/site.gif)
New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science
Missile Defense
