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?

possumdag - 04:22pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3372 of 3379)
Possumdag@excite.com

Thread : European Superpower:
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee825cf/0

possumdag - 04:24pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3373 of 3379)
Possumdag@excite.com

A comprehensive round-up of viewpoints Showalter. Did you find 'consistency' within each monikers' viewpoint ? Seems as if these guys have gone to the coast for the weekend!

possumdag - 04:30pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3374 of 3379)
Possumdag@excite.com

A point from the BBC MD program above: it was said that the USA began modifying their missiles, reprogram-ing them six months prior to Iraq war .. was there a lead-in to the Iraq war ... i wasn't paying close attention prior to that television-lounge-room event. Wonder if the first missile strike will happen in 'prime=time'?

gisterme - 05:05pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3375 of 3379)

rshowalter wrote: "...gisterme do you contest this?"

The question is with regards to: http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html

That's a great piece, Robert, and certainly makes the discussion more interesting. Before saying anything else, I'll say that the piece includes an excellent and reasonably unbiased chronicle of the major cold war battles. I'd recommend that chronicle as good background for anybody interested in the cold war or this discussion.

I don't agree with ALL the conclusions that are drawn in that piece. I don't agree that it is evidence that the threat of a first strike has been US policy; however I'll grant you some points and suggest that we should clarify the definition of "first strike" so we're sure we're both talking about the same thing:

First Strike: A strategic attack that is designed to destroy enemy strategic weapons as a means to preempt their imminent use.

In all the CW "battles" that are chronicled in the referenced piece, president Truman was the only one say "We're going to drop it on you" in response to a specific tactical situation (Soviet troops in northern Iran). I'm accepting without "checking" that the "reported" statement really was made by Truman to Gromyko.

In every other case there are interesting descriptions of behind-the-scenes suggestions by military folks on both sides that nuclear attacks be launched. Fortunately, those folks didn't make national policy on either side. Also, virtually all of that information would have been classified at the time and so not public knowledge. What's not public knowledge is not a public threat. Now in some of those instances, as a result of specific tactical situations that affected the interests of both sides, threatening posturing WAS done (by both).

So let me offer a compromise. Here's a statement I would agree to:

"Given the overall context of the cold war both the United States and USSR threatened to use their nuclear weapons via posturing during specific tactical battles in that war."

Remember, Robert that what got this whole thread started was someone's statement that the US should be declared an international criminal because it had a "first strike threat" policy during the cold war.

I'll grant that both the US and USSR have "first strike" capability according to the above definiton. So if having the ability to make a "first strike" equates to "first strike as national policy" then both sides did and do have the same policy. I don't think that equation should be made. Do you? Keep in mind that although that war was "cold" it was very real. We both know that terrible things are done in wars that would be considered criminal under any other circumstances.

Finally I would say that the entire insanity known as MAD accepts the possibility that a first attack by one side or another as real. It accepts that the threat is entirely bilateral.

One thing I did notice about the reference piece was that the "outcome" in every case (except Vietnam confrontations) was pretty much in the US' favor. If that had been a poker game, the US would have won almost every hand. A poker game ends for a player when he's lost as many chips as he's willing to lose. I'd take some exception to the article's conclusion that the US did not "win" the cold war. The article assumes that the USSR would have continued status quo if Gorbachev had not been elected (by ONE vote). My assertion against that would be that the USSR was economically "broke" and could not have continued no matter who was elected. Not for the first time, I'll offer Mr. Grobachev a toast for having the vision and guts to count his chips and step back from the table. That's more than many real poker players can do.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense