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 - 07:52pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5692 of 5746)

Summary, contiued:

Arguements AGAINST BMD:

1. Mutually Assured Destruction policy has worked so far, why rock that boat? After all, we're all still here.

2. If the US builds a BMD it will disturb the "strategic nuclear balance" and that will lead to a new strategic arms race. Russia will MIRV all its missiles to maximum capacity, China will build many more ICBMs and MIRV them and India and Pakistan will jump on the arms-race bandwagon as well. The world will wind up with many more strategic nuclear weapons if the US builds a BMD.

3. A BMD is technically unfeasable. Two out of three test shots of an experimental rocket interceptor have failed. The one success is claimed to be under unrealistic or questionble conditions or falsly reported. A BMD can be easily defeated by decoys or other means of deception. BMD can't be done.

4. US fears of ballistic missile attacks from "rogue nations" or terrorist organizations are groundless. There is no danger.

5. The BMD is too expensive at around $100 billion. That would just be money down the rathole.

6. The BMD is just a way to keep the US Military Industrial Complex going.

7. The US might have to withdraw from the 1972 arms control treaty with Russia. That would be an immoral thing for the US to do.

8. A BMD, even at $100 billion spent does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons or other WMD that have delivery methods other than ballistic missiles.

9. The elimination of strategic nuclear weapons world-wide would leave the US with an overwhelming advantage in conventional armament.

gisterme - 07:53pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5693 of 5746)

gisterme(#5694) continued:

Forgot one arguement in the "AGAINST" BMD list:

10. If the US has an effective BMD then it will feel emboldened to make a "first strike" against some enemy. The threshold of acceptance for use of nuclear weapons would be reduced by removal of MAD through strategic disarmament.

lunarchick - 07:53pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5694 of 5746)
lunarchick@www.com

The LouMazza who posts here reads the DALLAS paper ... lives in a different State to the Lou Mazza who lives and breaths.

gisterme - 07:55pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5695 of 5746)

Haven't seen much change in the basic arguements since that summary was first posted. It seems that some on the "con" side may have have been abandoned.

dirac_10 - 07:56pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5696 of 5746)

gisterme - 07:46pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5691 of 5692)

I'd say it's a pretty good list. You don't hear much that isn't on it.

Could quibble over this and that I suppose. Could spell out the real threat of MIRVs. That it gives a strong incentive to launch a first strike. One ICBM destroys many. Not the same thing at all as more missles.

lunarchick - 08:00pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5697 of 5746)
lunarchick@www.com

"I can look out from my office and watch the workers building the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail line that passes by our office complex." Mazza9

dirac_10 - 08:07pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5698 of 5746)

And I just don't see how BMD will ease us out of MAD.

And on the pro side, although you mentioned conspiracy, it could be pointed out explicitly that in some scenarios, MAD encourages it. Like a mole setting off an enemies missles.

I suppose the best argument on the con side is the other methods one. I'll probably write out a generic answer, I hear it so often.

dirac_10 - 08:09pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5699 of 5746)

lunarchick - 08:00pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5699 of 5700)

Ok, end the suspense, who is george johnson?

Alarmist gets to be Putin, I sure hope george is real important too. There's a gjohnson on another forum, but he swears he's innocent, and not george.

rshowalter - 08:11pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5700 of 5746)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I could swear I had some files -- not long ago, that I don't have now.

Don't think it was an accident -- my computer gets penetrated with regularity.

Have the html documents for a letter from Kissinger to Ford that used to be on the University of Texas web site -- and has been removed. For a long time, had both the html docus for the letter, and the files, with the jpegs that were the actual letter. But the files to these html documents, with the jpegs, have been removed - - - strange . . . someone must care about them.

First time I've seen the html files left, with the files for them gone.

It was a dandy letter. . . . Glad I'm backed up, but it is a nuisance.

I wonder if this is an unreasonable search and seizure -- an invasion of a home without a warrant?

dirac_10 - 08:18pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5701 of 5746)

rshowalter - 08:11pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5702 of 5702)

I could swear I had some files -- not long ago, that I don't have now.

Me too.

Don't think it was an accident -- my computer gets penetrated with regularity.

Mine too, I guess, and it's been happening since I bought one. Looks like the rot runs deep.

Have the html documents for a letter from Kissinger to Ford . . . someone must care about them.

Ford? Probably not.

It was a dandy letter. . . . Glad I'm backed up, but it is a nuisance.

Looks like you are on top of it.

I wonder if this is an unreasonable search and seizure -- an invasion of a home without a warrant?

Seems unreasonable to me.

(P.S. So how come alarmst gets to be Putin and I'm some nobody george johnson?)

(45 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense