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?

almarst-2001 - 08:39pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#909 of 913)

{Almarst2001} Was locked out from the forum. It is anyone guess for the reason.

Now, under the new identity...

It is a wery well known phenomen that, like any other living organism, the primary concern of any organization is expansion.

Only the environment of fierce competition prevents an organization to become a self-fulfilling Francenstain Monstr, the ultimatly corrupted monopoly of power.

The military and security-intelligence apparatus have no competition and practically no public oversite for "national security" reasons.

While some level of security may be needed, it seems the current US military establishment has almost a complete freedom to pursee its own agenda.

For the 15 years I live in US, never was I vitness of any discussion of a role and goals of US military. Who are the enemies and why? What is the reason for development and spending on particular military infrastructure? why do we need such a large overseas deployment and so many aicraft cariers (both are purely offensive)? Why do we support the expansion of NATO after end of the Cold War? On what condition are we willing to use a military and to what degree? Are we free to ignore the UN Security Council resolutions and use a military other then in a case of pure self-defence? And, if so, what is justification for the US participation in Security Concil?

This is probably just a very small number of questions any American Citizen ought to know before handling over a third of its taxes.

almarst-2001 - 08:52pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#910 of 913)

BY DENNIS J. KUCINICH

"IN MY CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE, I read the latest reports concerning a recent Executive Order that hands the CIA a black bag in the Balkans for engineering a military coup in Serbia, for interrupting communications, for tampering with bank accounts, freezing assets abroad, and training the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in terrorist tactics, such as how to blow up buildings.

How this is intended to help establish a democracy in Serbia or Kosovo hasn't yet been explained. Nor has the failure to substantially disarm and demilitarize the KLA been explained. Nor has the reverse ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo by the KLA while NATO rules the provinces been explained.

A classic maneuver for politicians caught in a foreign policy morass is to declare victory and get out. In Kosovo, the President and Secretary of State have declared a NATO victory and are staying. Troops will be there to ensure the KLA has a shot at independence--circumstances that will only bring the people of Kosovo more violence. What did we win? We won more war.

NATO's victory talk only sets the stage for the next war, creates a false sense of security about its power, puts faith in arms instead of negotiation, and covers up the endless series of blunders in the execution of the war."

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a Croatian-American, is a Democratic member of Congress from Ohio.

================================================== There could be more understanding for NMD if desired by a nation earned to be called strictly non-aggressive proven by a long history of pecefull behavier.

almarst-2001 - 08:56pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#911 of 913)

Vietnam says US-based armed group behind highlands unrest - http://www.timesofindia.com/080301/08aspc16.htm

almarst-2001 - 09:12pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#912 of 913)

The effects of NMD on Chinese strategy - http://www.janes.com/security/regional_security/news/jir/jir010307_1_n.shtml

Dr Li Bin is associate professor and director of the Arms Control Program, Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua University, Beijing.

"How exactly NMD will affect China's nuclear strategy is currently unclear but some judegements can be made based on a quantitative understanding of how China's nuclear deterrent currently works.

China's nuclear forces were developed to defend the country's national security interests against the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Initially, China possessed only a symbolic nuclear deterrence with no real capability to retaliate, but from 1980, when China acquired the ability to launch inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), its deterrence has been based on the quantitative ambiguity of its nuclear force rather than the size of its arsenal.

The two dozen Chinese land-based ICBMs that have been detected and located by US intelligence agencies would have very little chance of surviving a US preemptive nuclear strike. However, because China has neither confirmed nor denied any US estimates of its ICBM strength, it is difficult for the USA to rule out some margin of error. In its current nuclear strategy the possibility of a few undetected Chinese ICBMs being launched in retaliation is considered enough to deter the USA from attempting a pre-emptive nuclear strike against China.

(more in the article ...)

rshowalter - 10:03pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#913 of 913)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Excellent posts almarst-2001 . Let me deal with the last one now.

The Jane's Security reference in almarst-2001 3/10/01 9:12pm is well worth reading in its entirety.

Note again, as in the case of Russia, that when it gets down to it, the basic circumstances dictate that fear of first strikes will dominate the logic.

The only concievable "win" with nuclear weapons is extermination of an "enemy" nation with a first strike.

China has about two dozen ICBM's, while we have thousands. There is no way for THEM to win with a first strike - even in theory.

Their position is purely defensive -- insofar as "defense" is possible with offensive mass murder weapons.

If Russia and the US were prepared to take down THEIR nuclear weapons, China would have every incentive to take down theirs.

With NMD, China would have to increase its arsenal, and we'd lose rather than gain.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense