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?

rshowalter - 11:38am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2779 of 2786)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I've said on this thread before that I felt that, if there really was an effective antimissile defense -- we should pursue it -- and find diplomatic ways to have it work for peace.

But if it doesn't work -- if it is only for bluff -- it isn't serving the cause of peace.

rshowalter - 11:55am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2780 of 2786)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Peacemaking takes a sense of context. We have to know how our potential adversaries feel -- and why they feel as they do.

I first posted on this thread on September 25 - # 266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am ... a proposal for world nuclear disarmament based on the distrust that nations feel where nuclear weapons are involved. The thread from then to March 1 is summarized in postings 813-818 rshowalter 3/1/01 4:08pm

Three days later, I got a message from Armel armel7 3/4/01 3:04pm .. then I got a posting from a person I've come to respect very much, expressing, I believe, a characteristically Russian point of view. If we want to make peace, we need to understand that point of view -- perhaps it has been a little modified since. Here it is:

applez0 - 11:55am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2781 of 2786)

In terms of basic cost-effectiveness, allegedly Bush's modus operandi, let us examine NMD:

What does NMD protect us from? Missiles, specifically ICBMs which are very effective delivery vehicles for all manner of unwanted payloads.

Who has this missile technology with the range to hit the US? Very few, most of them are allies, or erstwhile friends. Are they likely to attack the US, especially in some unprovoked manner? No. This largely relegates the motivation to circumstances largely in the US's influence or control.

Who is likely to attack the US then? Well, it seems the US should take nutters & madmen fairly seriously, especially those with organizational backing (Hamas, Bin Laden, Aryan Nation, others). Do they have access to missiles and the much-feared nuclear payload? In most cases no. Even then, they'd prefer attacking locally accessible targets, like US bases abroad or US embassies & consulates, or even representative businesses.

If they could attack the US, would they likely use a missile? When a Ryder truck or fishing boat would be more effective, secretive and cheaper, I think not.

How then does NMD protect us from this more-likely unconventional unsophisticated attacks? It doesn't.

Given the nature of how destabilizing NMD is to international relations, and the utter ruination is makes of ABM, the bedrock of stable and peaceable relations for the last half of the last century...especially with those who'd rather be spending their wealth on capital improvements and not expensive weapons to safeguard their security; I'd argue that it is not very cost-effective.

The money would be far better spent, IMHO, on developing local economies, hiring more bureaucrats and border patrol officers with greater training. Those are our true first, second, and third lines of defence.

rshowalter - 11:57am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2782 of 2786)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarstel2001 3/5/01 12:17am

" As I see it, the US military wants the NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, when its tremendous adwantage in power will be useless against anyone who posesses even a single nuclear missle capable to reach the US and who may be ready to commit suiside in case of aggression. Practically that would mean the end of American's ability to dictate and rule by force. Imagine - no more bombings of Iraq, libia, Serbia! For the country which spends about 300 bi/year - 30% of its budget on military, more then 10 next military spenders combined, this is a real nightmere.

" Unfortunatly", that is going to be a reality, sooner or later. The more US will push for world's domination - the sooner. And no NMD will save it for at least the following two reasons:

" 1 - No NMD will ever quarantee 100% success, which will the "domination" wars too risky for US.

" 2 - The offensive means, capable to overcome the defence, are usually much less expensive and simpler to produce.

" However, the current state of affairs already caused tremendous damage to US bu showing its willingness to ignore its pledges and signed laws.

" Who would trust the dishonest arrogant and brutal superpower bully run amok?