New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(7229 previous messages)
- 01:13pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7230
As difficult as it is for most Americans to do, lets look for a
moment at the ABM question from the Russian,Chineses and European
prospective (the non-Amenrican perspective). Perhaps most of the
rest of the world see that the US as already possessing fabulous
wealth after having won the Cold War and having a military strength
that is several times that of all the rest of the worlds combined.
They perhaps think that we really ought to be less concerned with
building an additonal weapons system that has the potential to
negate any other nations nuclear capibility which, in effect, would
position the US to dictate to the rest of the world how it is to run
its affairs. This postion is very difficult for many Americans to
understand because we see ourselves with some justification as the
penultimate goodguys who have saved the world from tyranny on
several occassions during the past century and of course who do not
harbor (currently) any territorial ambitions. However, the world at
large is a very scary place for most folks and most of the worlds
population has not had the benfit of stable democratic governments
to help protect their nation. For many people this has resulted in a
national menory of war and oppression inflicted by both internal and
external oppressors. In fact, when many folks look at the US they
remember that we have not always been on the side of democracy or of
the little guy and occassionally will attempt to inflict our will
for porcine porposes on smaller or lesser postioned nations or
people. The American Civil War, The Boxer Rebellion at the end of
the Ming Dynasty in China, The Mexican-American War, The
Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War being ready examples of
this. Now why at the beginning of the new century should the other
nations of the world, simply because George Jr. and his Red, White
And Blue Guard say that they only want to "Protect the world from
outlaw nations or groups", suspend their suspicion and let us
unilateraly abrogate a treaty (the ABM) that has helped keep the
peace for the past 30-odd years without consequence? Aint going to
happen. If the recent history of the Cold War is any sort of
teacher, when or if Jr and his rolling Madhatter party try to face
down the rest of the world and spit on the ABM Treaty the US will be
made to pay for this by a markedly greater destabilized world and
the American people will have to put out increased expenditures on
the military-industrial complex. So much for The Peace President.
- 01:16pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7231
immyz211a - 10:27am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7211 of 7215)
Why should Russia worry about the United States being a threat
Because the system while intended to be defensive is actually
offensive to all.
Thay have nothing we want, and are flat broke.
Russia is a giant in chains. Russian opposition to NMD has
nothing to do with what they have that "we" want. It has everything
to do with the destruction of worldwide deterrence of which
maintains stability for the Russians as well as the Americans.
I don't understand why an antiballistic missile system of ours
would be a threat toward them?
Because NMD introduces chance of survival within a game that had
no such chance before. This destroys the worldwide deterrence model
and replaces it with a system inherently less stable. In actually
INCREASES the risk of nuclear exchanges and requires all nations of
rational behavior (rational actors) to introduce concepts of
survivability into nuclear conflict. The entire nuclear model shifts
to Nuclear Utilization Theory (NUT's).
If we wanted to, during the many times, just in this past decade
Russia was in a bad mess, and if we really wanted to do them any
harm, it would have been easy to carry out. But who would want to
risk any kind of nuclear war?
This is not about the Russians worrying about an American "bolt
from the blue" first strike or an American attack. It is about how
NMD destroys the very fundamental fabric of why nuclear weapons have
not been used between two states in an exchange. The introduction of
survival into a game in which survival was beforehand, without
question taken out of the equation-adds risk of nuclear utilization.
NMD actually makes the use of nuclear weapons during times of great
crisis a highe probability because one has added risk of survival to
a game that had none before.
The 1972 antiballistic missile treaty was put in place so the
arms race would not escalate into yet another area.
Half Correct. The SALT I Treaty and the ABM protocols were put
into place to solidify the worldwide deterrence framework. They
aknowledge that to persue strategies that attempt to survive nuclear
conflict actually increases the chance that nuclear exchanges among
states can happen. That is why they were outlawed among the two
largest nuclear powers.
The 1972 accord is now outdated and is useless.
Incorrect. It is actually more usefull now then ever before
because of the increased proliferation of nuclear weapons among
state actors. We have rouge countries
As the CIA in 2000 indicated the term is useless and has no
strategic impact on nations who are in development of nuclear
weapons. The term is political for “rouge nations” are rational as
pointed out by even the CIA who maintained that the term cannot be
coined with a valid position as for the reasons why NMD is needed.
The CIA cited North Korea and the term “rouge nation” as an example.
Such a term maintains that the state is irrational. On the contrary
North Korea is very much rational. Thus why the term has been
dropped among our community (the foreign policy community) for quite
some time now..
Beckq: BA Public Affairs University at Albany. Concentration
National Security Policy MSFS: Georgetown University
New York Times on the Web Forums Science