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?

wordspayy - 07:14pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10429 of 10657)

Hussein isn’t nuts. But Nuclear Utilization Theory is;0

In an episode of Seinfeld the character of Kramer confronts Jerry with the possibility that the girl he is seeing runs a phonesex hotline. Seinfeld finds the accusations utterly preposterous and tells Kramer he is crazy to say such a thing Kramer retorts, “Is it! Or is it so right on the mark that I just blew your whole mind!” Such is the reaction I have when I attempt to convey to individuals that the despot of Iraq, Saddam Hussein is actually very much a rational individual. This runs counter to the very image we as Americans have created of the “Butcher of Baghdad”.

Mr. Hussein may be many things. He is a ruthless thug but one cannot call him irrational in the practice of foreign policy. The assertion that Hussein is not irrational can be found in the simplicity of how he is examined from the perspective of what is known as game theory. Saddam doesn’t want to get blown up. He does not want to have the very thing he is trying to defend or at times enhance, completely and without question destroyed. In doing so, Saddam Hussein is adhering to a set of unwritten standards that all nations characterized as rational follow. Hussein will not initiate policy that will result in the total destruction of the state. He will not initiate policy that allows for zero maneuverability in trying to maintain the survival of both his regime and the nation state. He may weigh risks and miscalculate response, but his behavior reflects a leadership that adheres to the limits of being rational. For example, if we examine Hussein's actions during the Gulf War you will find that limits of conduct with the American led alliance had been drawn early on. If Hussein was “nuts” or irrational he would have not adhered to any limits in his decision making process. In fact the leadership of Iraq acted in a highly rational mode when conducting campaigns aimed at trying to break apart the fragile alliance created under George Bush. Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel. He had the ability to tip them with chemical and biological weapons. He did not. Why? Because Saddam knew that if he were the first to utilize weapons of mass destruction on another nation state, he would not be the last. He understood that use of such weapons would without question unleash a like response from Britain, America, France or Israel. That message was conveyed to Hussein in clear-cut terms early on through public posturing by the United States and its allies. America and its allies treated Iraq as a rational actor and conveyed the rules of game. America may talk rhetoric to its citizenship regarding the rationality of Iraq but when it comes to policy initiatives Iraq is treated as a rational nation state by the American leadership. If Hussein was not playing by rational standards he would have ignored the set rules and Unleashed WMD not caring about the consequences it had on his own states survival.

Instead he unleashed a limited conventional attack with SCUD missiles loaded with conventional weapons with the sole intent to shatter the coalition created against him. He gambled that Israel would strike back and that the alliance would crumble because Arab states would revoke support once Israel was attacking a fellow Muslim state. Today, with Americas long anticipated withdrawal from SALT I and the ABM protocol now official the United States has in effect paved the way for future encounters with nations like Iraq to not have such crystal clear consequences. America has shifted its deterrence strategy away from the majority of this world, the rational actor to that of the minority the irrational actor. In doing this, America actually decreases its overall security rather then enhances it. Such retooling of the worldwide deterrence model requires all other rational states to follow suit and defend themselves. Not following suit subjects worldwide leaderships with charges of not

wordspayy - 07:15pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10430 of 10657)

Hussein isn’t nuts. But Nuclear Utilization Theory is;0

Continued:

protecting the most important thing, the state.

Just as America is in reaction to its own security environment all other states will be in reaction to Americas. The largest holder of nuclear weapons has undertaken a strategy of believing it can and must survive a nuclear onslaught. For every action a like reaction will take place. The system (nations are actors within a system) will attempt to balance itself. The ripples within the worldwide system of deterrence will break down what has in effect prevented nations like Iraq from unleashing weapons of mass destruction. The technology America now envisions to protect itself with proliferate (it always does) and future encounters with nations like Iraq will result in consideration of WMD by rational states because the risk of survival as been increased due to the existence of shielding technology. Non-survival is no longer an absolute due to the introduction of shielding methods. This was the very reason SALT I was envisioned and signed by the two largest holders of nuclear weapons.

In these times when non state actors are playing an ever increasing role in the world arena and have in all effect demonstrated their use of WMD (A Boeing 747 fuel bomb killing several thousand civilians is a WMD in my mind) Americans need to be reminded with such non state actors, no rules exist. You cannot totally thwart those who do not care about their future existence and survival. Following a pattern that destroys the worldwide deterrence model in hopes of thwarting the irrational actor only makes rational states like Iraq, like North Korea stronger. Iraq rational, North Korea rational? Crazy you say. Is it? Or is it so right on the mark that I just blew your whole mind.

wbtake1 - 09:47pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10431 of 10657)

Don't thinks so... a working systems makes the free world more secure! Just the same as the Nukes did. The Nukes sure stopped the USSR and China and Japan from world domination! I am quite sure that without Nukes we would be speaking Russian and our country would be called the USSR! What ever you think of diplomacy the best diplomat is a fully charged Nuke!

So I am not missing any point...

lchic - 07:11am Dec 18, 2001 EST (#10432 of 10657)

....Yawn .. written in the self-same color ink ...

wbtake1 - 10:28am Dec 18, 2001 EST (#10433 of 10657)

Ichic,

Cat got your tongue? Engage before you criticize otherwise you are just an armchair hack!

(224 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense