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?

almarst-2001 - 10:21pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4100 of 4113)

gisterme,

Your summary is pretty good.

Except one very critical point I already argued with Robert. Nuclear disarmament with or without MD will live the US with overhelming conventional power able to reach practically any point on the Earth without any credible deterrance.

The US military actions, particularelly the bombing of Serbia, automatically excludes any argument that "this will not happen". The only reasonable assumption any other nation can make, unwilling to saccumb to US dictate, is to expect the attack at some point, as long as there is no or little penalty.

That lives the pro/against argument to just one single question: "How far the other nations will go to protect themselves".

Any step to increase the US military power will accelerate the World wide arm race to provide the ballancing deterrance, most likely assimetric. But it still will have to be credible.

Now you can try your imagination.

possumdag - 04:01am May 19, 2001 EST (#4101 of 4113)
Possumdag@excite.com

A point to remember about Nations is that they are not in a closed loop. Most Nations are a composite of ALL Nations.

So, what is under discussion is really the mood of a culture and its leadership.

When does 'war' occur.

Anyone got the 10 points that are indicators of lead in to war, and 10 that are stability/continued peace.

Perhaps this is the important list to compile and comprehend.

artemis130 - 08:12pm May 19, 2001 EST (#4102 of 4113)
caveat venditor

MAD is just the logical culmination of the only thing that's deterred nations/alliances from warring with each other throughout history, although - in the prenuclear era it was simply called PAD (Possibly Assured Destruction). It's an evolutionary system, inherently more stable than a revolutionary one.

To mess with it on a unilateral basis is pure folly.

And to label it "grotesque" is to reveal the amateur status of those that would mess with it, unilaterally speaking.

artemis130 - 08:17pm May 19, 2001 EST (#4103 of 4113)
caveat venditor

I'm curious. Who here thinks that Rumsfeld stays up late at night playing "space invaders" on his computer?

lunarchick - 10:20am May 20, 2001 EST (#4104 of 4113)
lunarchick@www.com

What's the GERM WARFARE stuff with Bwsh?

smartalix - 04:56pm May 20, 2001 EST (#4105 of 4113)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

Maybe he hasn't gotten laid lately...

Gisterme,

you said, "The biggest pole in the tent is distrust. "

I agree. However, unless a BMD were managed by a group of allies that included every major nuclear power, it would foment increased weapons development by nations not included in the system. As it has already been pointed out, BMD is a prerequisite to any first-strike. This means that countries without will severely distrust countries with, since there is now no reason to be nice any more.

Consider Russia. Why do you think they are scared about BMD? without their nukes, they are nothing. They are in fear for their way of life. They already lost the Cold War, with all of the trophies the losers get to take home. They are terrified that without the deterrence of a believable nuclear capability, they would be completely marginalized by the US.

A joint UN Security Council-style club controlling BMD would work. Any one country going on its own only causes trouble.

Russia has a significant space capacity, and a lot more experience with extended-mission space flight and improvisational repair than we do. What if they started to field a BMD of their own?

How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot, and we were standing by watching another country develop this technology?

gisterme - 07:32pm May 20, 2001 EST (#4106 of 4113)

smartalix wrote: "...They are terrified that without the deterrence of a believable nuclear capability, they would be completely marginalized by the US.

That may be true, smartalix, and if it is, anyone who believes that is selling Russia way short, misinterpreting US motiviation and overestimating US power. I'll say again, Russian people have something like liberty now, for the first time in centuries. They have a good industrial base, good technical know-how, and excellent natural resources close at hand, within their borders. They have everything the newborn US had when it won its liberty. Perhaps they have more since they already have international respect and don't have to worry about foreign invaders. They need some honest patriotic leadersip to help them build a domestic economy that can participate as a peer with the rest of the world economy. Their future is in their own hands; it should be a bright one. If Russia winds up "marginalized" it will be because they fail to seize the tremendous opportunity that they now have. That has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, nor does it have much to do with what the US does or doesn't do.

"...What if they started to field a BMD of their own?

How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot, and we were standing by watching another country develop this technology?"

Do you feel threatened by weapons that are strictly defensive in nature, smartalix? I'd trade those for strategic nukes anytime. If someone else wants to foot the bill for getting us off the MAD dime and protect us from the odd maniac, why wouldn't I be pleased to see it?

Even if Russia had a perfect 100% effective missile shield, why would they launch an attack on the US or anyplace else? What would they gain by obliterating the US? Nothing at all. No more than the US could gain by doing same to Russia. The old motives are gone. The US and Russia are not enemies.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense