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 - 03:39pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3371 of 3371)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- becq-cookiess0 (5)

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.

(I'd add " not only that, but NMD can't even work." )

2971: cookiess0 5/2/01 10:00am ..... 2972: cookiess0 5/2/01 10:03am

2976: cookiess0 5/2/01 10:42am ..... 2978: cookiess0 5/2/01 11:09am

3121: cookiess0 5/3/01 9:52am ..... 3123: cookiess0 5/3/01 10:02am
3125: cookiess0 5/3/01 10:09am ..... 3131: cookiess0 5/3/01 10:29am
3133: cookiess0 5/3/01 10:44am .....

3142: cookiess0 5/3/01 11:26am ! ! !

"rshowalter - every nation has a right to maintain or have nuclear weapons. Even Iraq. A narrow focus on select nations creates a group of haves and have nots.Thus your focus on Iraq is bigoted.

I responded: 3143: rshowalter 5/3/01 11:28am

"We disagree on a premise. I don't think any nation ought to have a right ot have nuclear weapons. ...... I'm ecumenical about my rejection of nuclear weapons. I'm against them. Anybody elses. Or ours."

3144: cookiess0 5/3/01 11:38am

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense