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?

gisterme - 09:16pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3626 of 3639)

applez wrote: "...A quick examination of matters:..." (#3617)

That's a great post applez. I lays out a list assumptions for discussion in an organized way, item-by-item. More constructive and forward looking than arguing about the past. I'm sure you won't mind if I cut and paste some of the content to this post...to let me add my point of view to some of your assumptions

A quick examination of matters, including a couple of other details:

Assuming a suitable missile defense system is developed and deployed, it is universally accepted that it will be expensive. The US has also unilaterally dismantled 4,500 strategic nuclear warheads and their launchers.

a) The US and some of its allies may gain some cover from a missile threat and 4,500 strategic nuclear weapons will have been removed from the world. Additional US benifit is that they no longer have to perfrom expensive maintenance on those weapons and launchers. World-wide risk of accident or security breach reduced due to smaller remaining number of weapons in the world.

b) To simply maintain defense parity, numerous allies and erstwhile partners (Russia, China) will need to increase their missile capabilities...won't do much for a constructive US relationship. Or, Russia, upon seeing the limited scope of the missile shield that is installed and upon verifying the destruction of the 4,500 US nukes may decide to reduce it's own arsenal by some amount to reduce maintenance costs and improve safety. Russia and the US would have a real opportunity to incrementally stand down their strategic nukes by taking alternating unilateral steps. This is a realistic way to build trust. As to China, they'll be delighted to see the US and Russia reduce their arsenals toward parity with their own. Once the numbers of ICBMs are low enough and about equal the final negotiation could take place to replace all ICBMs with a BMD. The BMD would be maintained for a while after all the ICBMS were destroyed just to ensure that nobody cheated. Eventually the BMD would be dismantled as well. World is left intact with no strategic nuclear weapons to worry about.

c) Denial of a missile method of attack (the alleged aim of NMD) will promote R&D and possibly use of an 'unorthodox' form of attack on the US by aggressors. However, no such attack is likely to have the planet-killing impact of a strategic nuclear exchange.

d) The US will have huge budgetary constraints on its other branches, making early detection and successful defence against these 'unorthodox' methods unlikely. Or the US will redirect the cashflow previously used for manning and maintaining 4,500 nukes to boost budgeting for its ongoing programs to defend against the assymetric threat.

e) Thus far, no reliable means has been developed to break a conspiracy of one...let alone two, as demonstrated at Columbine & Oklahoma City. The World Trade Center bombing also illustrates the reach and success of an even larger conspiracy that had blindsided US detectives. But in spite of that continued vulnerability, the advantages of removing the treat of a massive nuclear exchange in terms of both risk and public psyche are a worthwhile benefit.

f) The likeliest targets will remain those closest to aggressors. The record would indicate that the greatest threat to US civilians will be domestic terrorists, and heavy-handed methods do more harm than good (Waco). The record also shows that foreign aggressors will probably target US government assets abroad: military bases & personnel, and Embassy staff & infrastructure. Since this has already been going on for some time. Impact of a BMD to this behavior would be minimal.

A military outlet may be isolated, minimizing 'collateral damage'

gisterme - 09:21pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3627 of 3639)

continued...(#3626)

A military outlet may be isolated, minimizing 'collateral damage' (actually increasing its risk factor, I'd argue), but an Embassy needs to be connected with its host nation in order to operate effectively. Increased security infrastructure also harms its effective business (visas, US Citizen Services, representation & trade, etc.). Unfortunately, it has been necessary to install such security measures at many US embassies already because of the current threat. A BMD would have little effect on this effort.

When we talk about a US BMD, let's don't forget the all-important 4,500 nuke reduction in the US strategic arsenal. Otherwise the BMD really wouldn't make any sense. My whole arguement in favor of a MD is entirely dependent the US simultaneously getting rid of over half their strategic nukes.

Thanks again for the great post, applez0. In this second form it lays out both points of view side-by-side. That can only help us all focus. :-)

By the way applez, what happened to the "Open Borders" board? Did m00ng get too obnoxious?

gisterme - 09:41pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3628 of 3639)

rshowlter wrote: "...For my part, I think once we undertook military action against Iraq, we should have taken Saddam's regime out -- the idea that he'd "fall apart of his own weight" didn't work well - did it..."

Nope, but I think that hope for that possibility was seen to be the lesser of two evils at the time. Remember that we were MUCH closer to the end of the cold war than we are now. That was a very touchy situaion because the US didn't want it's support for Kuwait to seem like unilateral aggression or outright conquest. That's why such limited objectives were set and adhered to and so much attention was paid to creating the coalition. The US wanted to be able to honestly say "Look folks, we set an internationally agreed objective in Iraq, we met the objective and we withdrew from Iraq." I'll bet part of the reason the US quit before Saddam was done was to help build trust with the Russians that the US was not involved for the purpose of military conquest and occupation. I'll also bet that nobody on the coalition side had any idea what a pain-in-the-ass Saddam would make of himself afterwards. However, based on his track record, nobody should have trusted Saddam to keep his word.

possumdag - 10:44pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3629 of 3639)
Possumdag@excite.com

Interesting to note that the missiles and launchers have been kept in good nick ... let me see .. in 1960 computer systems were light-bulb, then tansistors .. then chips .. ranging through from 286, 386, 486 then pentium and clones ... makes one wonder if these missles are somewhat 'dated' ... ?

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense