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?

cookiess0 - 09:47am May 2, 2001 EST (#2968 of 2996)

By perusing a concept that attempts to survive nuclear warfare you give nuclear warfare a ‘chance’. That ‘chance’ of survival destroys the very essence of the worldwide deterrence model. That is why the international community has overwhelmingly tipped the scales in opposition to this system. That is why SALT I and the ABM protocols exist between the two largest nuclear powers. Deployment of such a system embraces the theoretical perspective of Nuclear Utilization Theory. It may not be the intent of those who deploy-but every rational state views the system as a total embrace of a theory designed to win a nuclear war. That perspective (NUTs)(grin) implies that not only will nuclear war be fought-but it mussed be fought to survive and win. In such a pursuit, you lower conventional warfare thresholds and lower the crossover points at which conventional conflict goes into nuclear conflict. This is due to the very fact that one has added a chance to something in which no chance existed prior. You cannot posture yourself against the irrational actor- the minority of this world. Doing so only requires the majority if this world (rational actors) to balance against your own actions. You cannot thwart the irrational actor because the irrational actor has no limits or boundaries. The very name implies that the irrational actor is impossible to deter. As noted by the CIA of May 19th 00, the terminology of ‘rogue’ state has no significant in the course of debate regarding missile deference because ‘rouge’ implies that such states are irrational and every state America has labeled rouge is rational. The rational/irrational actor model is core issue regarding deterrence. As the CIA pointed out, rouge state has ‘more political significance then true value to the structure of deterrence’. In short the largest nuclear power embarking on the deployment of a system designed to survive nuclear strikes creates the impetus for every rational actor, depost to allied to do the same. All at varying levels of technological development all at varying levels of effiencey. In doing so-you destroy nuclear deterrence-the very concept that has maintained no use of nuclear weapons against states since 1945. If one recalls our operational experience in Desert Storm is that while missile defense did not work very well, deterrence did work very well. Saddam Hussein had poison gas-tipped Scuds that were available for launch at the time of the war, and he did not use them. Subsequently, after the U.S. military interrogated some defectors and some captured Iraqi leaders, it became clear why not: Saddam Hussein did not want to get blown up. Before the war, the United States, Britain, France and Israel had all stated, both publicly and privately, that if he was the first to use weapons of mass destruction, he would not be the last to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his kindred despots in other countries that we are worried about have not survived for extended periods of time by being stupid or careless. They are ruthless and cruel and sometimes reckless, but they don't remain in power, despite our repeated attempts in the case of Saddam Hussein to dislodge him, by being careless about the survival of their regime. Saddam Hussein understood very well that if he initiated the use of weapons of mass destruction, our retaliation would annihilate his regime. So the notion that missile defense is the only bulwark we have against weapons of mass destruction attacks from these regimes simply flies in the face of our actual experience, in which deterrence has worked very well and missile defense has not worked very well at all.

speedbird77 - 09:56am May 2, 2001 EST (#2969 of 2996)

cookiess0 5/2/01 9:40am

Sorry, but I disapprove of attack postings and Im sorry thats the road you chose.

I attack no one while respecting everyone.

rshowalter - 09:57am May 2, 2001 EST (#2970 of 2996)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

speedbird I don't want to be snide at all.

I can see that, based on assumptions you make, what you say is beautiful -- it fits nicely, it seems right, and feels right.

But you're making assumptions that aren't true, when they are checked, and the issue really matters.

Doesn't that make what you say, in basic sense, ugly?

Throughout most of history, doctors believed all sorts of things that were beautiful to them, but were in fact wrong. And millions of patients died, or were afflicted in ways that would not happen today.

Facts matter here, and checking, and reasonable action based on facts, should be morally forcing.

Missile Defense has no chance at all.

cookiess0 - 10:00am May 2, 2001 EST (#2971 of 2996)

speedbird77 - 09:56am May 2, 2001 EST (#2969 of 2970)

Actually, support of such systems designs attacks the entire international community:)

Can't take the heat of the debate?

Why? Because your position is weak and you know it is.

cookiess0 - 10:03am May 2, 2001 EST (#2972 of 2996)

By the way speedbird I did not "attack you". I only provided you a chance to have a debate and defend your position.

rshowalter - 10:05am May 2, 2001 EST (#2973 of 2996)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"OUR FATHERS OF OLD" by Rudyard Kipling http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/241

sets out the ideas of the old doctors -- and conveys a sense of how these ideas seemed beautiful and distinguished to these doctors.

And also conveys how lethal, and tragic these ideas were for patients.

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense