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 - 04:49pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4449 of 4466)

rshowalter wrote: "...gisterme , if you have any example of a head of state so irrational as to commit suicide by launching a nuclear missile attack on the US, could you set that example out. Somehow, you're reasoning by analogy, but whatever examples you have in mind, that work for you, don't occur to me."

Robert, you only need to think of leaders whose actions have resulted in the deaths of millions among their own and their enemies. Pretty much the sort of fellows that we've previously agreed are evil. That's the spirit of one who could commit such an act.

Next, consider such a person with access to one or more nuclear missiles. One who has organized his resources in such a way that he can't be directly retaliated against...like ben Laden's organization (for example). There's no "country" to blast in retaliaton if a group like that can beg, borrow or steal a missile. So what if you know the missile was launched from Afghanistan or the Egyptian desert or some other remote spot, or even from a ship at sea? Everybody knows that those countries don't have their own stategic arsenals. Does MAD apply to them too? Do you blast them even if their government may have nothing to do with what came from their "outback"? Would you just blast Saudi Arabia because that's were ben Ladin came from? Hardly.

Folks have claimed that a BMD would be a modern day Maginot line. Seems to me that MAD is quite "Maginot-like" when it comes to deterring the sort of threat posed by well-funded non-national groups like ben Ladin's, no matter how the weapons are delivered. MAD is useless against the assymetric threat. Given enough time those kinds of folks WILL manage to acquire some nuclear weapons. I have no reason to believe that one who could order the bombing of the World Trade Center with a huge fertilizer bomb would balk at doing the same with a nuke, however it was delivered.

That's the kind of person I meant, Robert. Doesn't necessarily have to be a head of state. I would be very worried if Saddam had a few nuclear missiles even if they could not reach the US. Let's not be too selfish in our concern here. I'd hate to see the Saudis or the Turks or Israelis on the receiving end of one of those. But there's no reason that even a lowly scud couldn't be launched from a large merchant ship given the accuracy of commercial GPS.

Nope, no great hidden arguements Robert. Just the obvious.

gisterme - 04:58pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4450 of 4466)

aruileo wrote: "...Meanwhile, I am going ahead with special research on ways and means to attack the United States and its allies..."

aruileo, I think those are the kinds of things Fredreric the Great meant by "defending against everything means defending nothing".

gisterme - 05:35pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4451 of 4466)

jimmcd wrote: "...The best defense is a good offense, and the best way to deter potential troublemakers is to make certain they know we can hit back quickly and decisively wherever we have to..."

Isn't that just a subset of the MAD concept? One reason that I've become a proponent of a BMD is because MAD is useless against an assymetric threat. The concept of "hitting back quickly and decisevly" is only useful if you know who to hit back at. Bombs can make marvelous negotiators in extremis but only if there are targets.

I agree with you that there's hardly a better way to project power than by having a carrier battle group (CBG) with a healthy contingent of Marines appear off a potential trouble maker's coast. But doesn't "projecting power" have an entirely new motivation since the cold war has ended?

Most of the military technology that we have today is a cold war legacy. It was designed to fight and win a convetional war against the Soviet Union, primarilly in Europe. That threat is over.

How many carrier battle groups will be needed to prevent another World Trade Center bombing? Apparently the twelve or so CBGs that we had at the time weren't enough. All that strong offense was no defense at all, was it Jim?

I'm not saying the US shouldn't have those CBGs, just that they are a tool that can handle only a specific limited range of missions, just like a BMD would. See the point, Jim?

By the way, thanks for your thoughtful contributions. Hope you stick around for a while.

gisterme - 05:40pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4452 of 4466)

er3book wrote: "...Chemical, nuclear or biological devices can be carried in ships, landbridge containers, or aircraft, to name just a few possibilities..."

Right, er3book. A BMD would be as ineffective against those as a defense for those would be against ballistic missiles. Apples and oranges.

jimmcd53 - 05:52pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4453 of 4466)

To gisterme, thanks, and I can't disagree with most of what you just wrote. The philosophy I'm describing is a variation on the MAD concept, but that approach to strategy is not at all useless against an asymetric threat. If someone knows that the price for assaulting you will be vaporization, they will think twice about assaulting you. Suicidal terrorists aren't afraid of being incinerated but the populations that shelter them are, and the governments that harbor them wouldn't be too fond of the idea either no matter what they might state publicly. And when we can strike at the terrorists directly, either punitively or pre-emptively, we should do so with, among other things, other types of naval assets - like the SEALs and Fleet Marine Force anti-terrorist specialists. As vicious as what I'm proposing might sound, we're talking lesser among evils here. I would rather use SEAL Team 6 and/or Marine specialists to execute a few well placed shots into specific chest cavities than bomb any more embassies or pharmaceutical plants. Killing people who have nothing to do with our problems bothers the hell out of me. If we must kill, we must be judicious about it. One cannot really be all that judicious with a missile launch.

gisterme - 05:56pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4454 of 4466)

almarst, Robert S.,

Consider this from today's NYT in light of the "posturing" discussion that we've recently had...

President Bush asked Congress to extend for a year China's normal trade relations with the United States because they are beneficial to the American economy and imperative to promoting an ``economically open, politically stable and secure China.''...

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense