[F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (227 previous messages)

beckq - 10:52am Aug 30, 2000 EST (#228 of 11863)

vic.hernandez - 10:32pm Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#226 of 227)

First. Your statements still contradict each other. You never explained otherwise. So you need to work on that. I see no need to answer all of your questions until you admit that you initial positions have changed. Otherwise you will constantly alter your positions and this argument will never end.

Second your "American Heritage Dictionary" quote

  • "a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a political, scientific, or philosophical group; dogma."

  • Recall what I wrote:” MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence. Its evolution came into being due to the insecurity of the Soviets and Americans. The race of insecurity. The arms race. "

    So that view is indeed what I wrote and fits within your narrow Dictionary view.

  • Why does he say this Vic? Because in 45 America was the only nation to have the bomb. From 1945 till 1949 America went about the world and threatened just about everyone with it, and more then anything intimidates the Russians. This policy, later coined Massive Retaliation made America’s military as well as civilian leadership view the atomic bomb as a stick that could be threatened at anytime. No ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ existed. Why? because the Soviets did not have the bomb-yet. In 1949 this changed-and the Soviets entered the international situation with the bomb. Yet MAD still did not exist because no parity of assured destruction existed between the two countries.

  • Thus looking back at bqs view: :”MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence. Its evolution came into being due to the insecurity of the Soviets and Americans. The race of insecurity. The arms race. "

  • As this race evolved the parity for assured destruction slowly began to appear. In particular after the launching of Sputnik-which demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the Soviets could hit America and destroy America with warheads. Massive Retaliation hit its first wall: the evolution of technology by the Soviets and the possible equal destruction of the United States if America continued this policy. Thus again this support bqs view that MAD evolved

    *If you recall -following this event the administrations of the 50s and the debates of that times general elections followed two major critical debates focused on

  • A) Who lost China?
  • B) The missile gap.

  • The view of (B) was important because it threat Eisenhower’s administration of Massive Retaliation. Why? Because such an action now could well mean the destruction of the United States. Everything about Einsowers view of nuclear weapons (New Look) all indicate that the evolution of MAD would be the nail in the coffin of the policy of Massive Retaliation, A policy that could end in failure not because of the policy of MAD but because of the evolution of MAD. Thus American strategy was off course because of the evolution of MAD. America soon came to the conclusion that it was off course and initiated a set of concepts that would strengthen the principles of MAD. Those being a second strike capability. The actually policy of Massive Revelation caved in and was replaced by Flexible Response under the Kennedy Administration. Thus what you really had was America initially taking a position that highlighted that America had the bomb and nobody else did. The policy of that period was very brash because it ‘could be’. When the Soviets got the bomb and later demonstrated they could hit America with the development of ICBM technology America could not longer be as bold.

  • With the increase of the arms race the United States changed its view to that of Brodie in terms of nuclear strategy. My fellow vic take a look for Bernard Brodie (sp).Excellent introduction to American nuclear concepts-in particular the reasoning for second strike capabilities. All done to reinforce the principle of MAD . A principle I argue because it evolved

    beckq - 10:54am Aug 30, 2000 EST (#229 of 11863)

  • A principle I argue because it evolved with the incremental parity between America and the Soviets. America only abaoned a policy that did not consider the principles of MAD and fixed on ways of strengthening this principle-this byproduct of the arms race.

  • Anyways MAD described the superpowers essential military stalemate as mutual deterrence.

  • Ahhh and what did Becq say:” MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence"

    *This mutual deterrence rested on the military potential for psychological expectation of widespread death and destruction by both combatants in a nuclear exchange”. That is not my words I admit that comes from either Kegley or Whittkopf I forget which one. Anyways the evolution of Soviet parity in vehicle launch and delivery embraced the principles of MAD. This was not of course the intent of the Soviets. The soviets were just in an arms race like the Americans. The reasoning of the principle of MAD was a country would not attack if they knew the enemy had the capability needed to wait out a first strike then completely destroy with their retaliating second strike.

  • Thus MAD is a principle view of nuclear deterrence that evolved as the Soviets began to reach nuclear parity with America. When America realized it they began to consider Brodie and the ideas he suggested that would strengthen MAD, that being a second strike capability. The Soviets did the same. That is why one cannot really conclude that MAD is a policy. It is not. It is the byproduct of the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union. That is why its far more exciteing and interesting to know an issue instead of going by simplistic views that indicate that one day Kennedy woke up and made MAD a policy. That’s far from correct.

    If we accept MAD as a policy as you so want

    *Then you have to explain how MAD was abandoned in the late 70s and early 80s for the policy of NUTS. However if you view both policies instead as principle’s MAD always remains due to the race of insecurity between the two nations and Nuts actually attempts to undermine and destroy MAD. MAD between America and Moscow even exists today.

  • And that brings us back to the entire focus of the initial argument. SALT I continued to strengthen the principles of MAD-it continued to strengthen MAD by maintaining that both sides continue to hold each others civilians nuclear hostage.

    beckq - 11:08am Aug 30, 2000 EST (#230 of 11863)

    Note the switch in your opinions after I brought it to your attention

    VIC.HERNANDEZ 7:34 Aug 10th A"1) SALT 1 was NOT about preserving a mutual suicide pact, it was about reducing the expense of the Nuclear Arms Race going on at the time."

    vic.hernandez - 10:16am Aug 25, 2000 EDT (#222 of 222)

    "SALT 1 was about preserving a mutual suicide pact. What do you think the MAD Doctrine was about?"

    YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF MY FRIEND. You need to aknowledge this.

    More Messages Recent Messages (11633 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company