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 - 10:58pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3630 of 3639)
Possumdag@excite.com

Since researching this thread, my take on why Hassain was not taken out (1990) is two fold,

(1) the tv audience were at saturation point and

(2) USA policy - which says don't remove the leader.

No leader --- fragmentation with no controls.

applez101 - 11:11pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3631 of 3639)

Gisterme - fair points and thanks for the appreciation. A few more comments in response:

a) 4,500 US warheads or no, two operating principles need to be recognized:

-If you've got a nuke & are a nation, chances are fairly high that you won't use it, no matter the provokation short of a nuclear attack. The principle of MAD is strong. Hence the strategic nuclear exchange scenario is the most unlikely event to occur, no matter how many nukes are in how many responsible parties' hands.

-There will be a timelag between NMD deployment and warhead cut-backs, and in that interim period a whole host of problems can arise. Extensive international monitoring of various parties' stockpiles and reductions efforts will help, but I fear that it is both unlikely and will not be trusted.

b) Recent Jane's article worth including in this discussion: the Russians now have no recon satellites in orbit. The article implies that this is a temporary situation, but it nevertheless displays the dire budgetary situation the Russians are in, especially for something as vital as space intelligence for national security.

c) While a 4500+ warhead reduction can only help budgets and international security, it is highly unlikely that all weapons will be given up, or that there'll be enough cash freed up to fund defence against 'asymmetrical attacks.' Given the nature of defence budgeting, it is more likely that any savings in missile cutbacks will be channeled to more NMD...which incidentally, still doesn't work (sorry, 33% interception is no dice when a 100+ warhead {incl. decoys} can overwhelm it).

It's a classic Catch-22: NMD needs to be credible in order to make missile cutbacks palatable the US public, but a credible NMD makes the Chinese and Russian nervous, threatening a resurrection of their previous alliance in some form.

d) On embassies: "Since this has already been going on for some time. Impact of a BMD to this behavior would be minimal."

To the contrary, in embassies already bled white of resources for consular services and foreign aid (what money is spent is for more barricades, not even more Marines), NMD presents a further reduction in its funding. Incidentally, this increases the risk to these facilities enormously, as the local information network breaks down. Again, one of those bureaucratic backwards budgeting thingys. ;-)

applez101 - 11:12pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3632 of 3639)

Gisterme - on EU/Open Borders forum...it'd be cute if it were Moongs fault (LCD bringing the average so low as to kill the whole realized!), but I think it's simply the revolving/evolving state of those forums. Esp. for the topical sort.

applez101 - 11:20pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3633 of 3639)

"Again, one of those bureaucratic backwards budgeting thingys. ;-)"

To clarify and exemplify:

This isn't some dubious dodgy money-for-info deals that the CIA excels at, rather: how is the embassy to hear about guerilla movements out in the bush if the US program for rural water projects gets slashed? No phones, and walking will take too long. Or, if your overworked consular staff then have their representational budgets slashed (yup, cocktail parties, trade shows and the like), how will lines of communications with local business and government ministries stay firm as all evolve through personnel changes?

For example, how likely is employee X in local ministry Y going to call the US embassy about a coup rumor if he hasn't had a chance to socialize with embassy staff and get to know some of them? Not bloody likely...not until the conspiracy is in full steam anyway (limiting US options).

possumdag - 11:44pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3634 of 3639)
Possumdag@excite.com

Bush appoints new American Ambassador to Australia: qualifications - a nepotisitic friendship with Bush + an interest in baseball.

An insult to a sophisticated country such as ours?

applez101 - 11:49pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3635 of 3639)

Sorry Possumdag, only one proper response, send over a complete drunken football hooligan in response. ;-)

almarst-2001 - 12:08am May 10, 2001 EST (#3636 of 3639)

gisterme.

On Saddam. You don't like the guy. Thet's O.K. But is he the only pitty dictator and a former "friend" of the West you don't like? What do you know about Iraq, its culture and people? How can you justify the mass murder of handreds of thousends of innocent people on such a bases? What makes you different from MacVain who justified his act because he does not like the US Government? By the way, compared to Saddam, the US policy proved to be on the order of many magnitudes more brutal and criminal. Your statement is cynical at best. And remember: Saddam did not attack the US it considered a "friend". Germany, France and Italy helped Iraq to develop the WMD. US provided the wearpons and intelligence during the war against Iran.

But if dictators like Saddam are not for your taste (and not for my either), how about all the other dictators the US created and supported since WWII? Do you like the Saudi King better - a close friend of the US? Do you like the Turkey better - a NATO member and US allie for the long time?

Please chose either "real politics" or morality and stop pretending they can coexist. They can't if even the absolute superpower like the US can't afford the morality in its actions.

On MD. I thought you read my prior posts. The US is not interested any more in MAD. It wants the dictatorial hegemony. And it may be in position to achieve that potential against nation-states. However, the race for assimetric response may create such a monster, no one can predict the cosequenses. Apparently we all witness the opening of a next Pandora Box after the nuclear bomb. If you are an american, I would like the honest answer to this question: "Will you feel more or less vulnerable once MD is created?

possumdag - 03:33am May 10, 2001 EST (#3637 of 3639)
Possumdag@excite.com

Alex poises a demanding question
"Will you (Americans) feel more or less vulnerable
once MD is created?"

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense