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?

blackknight5 - 01:49pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7870 of 7905)

Now if there really was such a threat from a supposed rogue nation about us being hit by a nuclear missile I would probably think about my stance on this. However the defense departments list of rogue nations is not exactly impressive:

1.) North Korea - people are eating tree bark to avoid starvation. Last I recalled North Korea's nuclear weapons program was dependent upon Soviet engineers who left years ago. Not mention Soviet technology was not exactly known for being supreme in working correctly. Finally any missle threat to us from North Korea would be a missile to China and Russia, believe me they are not going to let North Korea build any real dangerous missiles.

2.) Iraq: Israel set Saddam's nuclear program back a decade when they bombed a facility in Baghdad back before Desert Storm. Iran who has the most to lose from a nuclear weaponed Iraq most definitely isn't going to allow that. Until the Israelis, who have a pretty damn good spy network, and Iran are concerned I'm not going to be. Besides Israel has the military power to handle on that.

3.) Iran: see comments from Iraq only substitute Jordan and Syria for Iran in those concerned.

4.) Afghanistan: Bin Laden isn't dumb. Nuclear weapons end up in me getting sent to allah by retaliation. Why go there when you can demoralize them with bombings?

Any rogue nation in South America and Africa have too many conflicts in their backyard to even think about building a nuclear weapon. India and Pakistan are going to be balanced by China. Who does that leave?

So we have it wouldn't work and we have it wouldn't haveany purpose since all the Great Nuclears Powers are already balance by nuclear deterrance.

rshowalter - 01:57pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7871 of 7905)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The arguments for the need for missile defense are substantial, and have been discussed at length, and in detail, on this thread.

MD6978 rshowalter 7/12/01 1:22pm ... MD6979 rshowalter 7/12/01 1:23pm

discuss Pentagon to Begin Missile Defense Construction in April by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/politics/12wire-missile.html

where the issue of "irrational" or "rogue" states is raised, and also cites Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html where issues of deterrance are eloquently discussed, in ways that I believe remain unanswered.

MD6980 rshowalter 7/12/01 1:25pm starts with

"The "misconception" that "states like North Korea and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing they would pay a terrible price in response." ....... has been extensively discussed on this thread, and has included many able people - including a representative of the administration, gisterme , who has worked hard. If you search "deter*" -- this thread, there are 5 search pages, including many more links than these.

alas, for now, the search function has been removed, but rshowalter 7/12/01 1:25pm includes 40 links, only a few of my own on the issue of deterrance.

I believe that MANY of these links are worth reading, and represent careful, well grounded views. rshowalter 7/12/01 1:25pm ends as follows:

" There has been little argument at all in support of the idea that there are "undeterrable rogues" out there to motivate the administration's missile defense proposals. Of that small amount of fragmentary argument for "undeterrable rogues" - none has made any sense to me. Except as a pretext for supporting a program motivated for other reasons -- reasons other than any valid defense of the US - since the proposals are so technically (and diplomatically) flawed.

benjamin420a - 02:04pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7872 of 7905)

A missile sheild is moot when someone can just sneak a nuclear warhead or biological warhead in to the U.S. in a suitcase.

rshowalter - 02:23pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7873 of 7905)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Worse than moot -- because it wastes resources, and because the defense of such a corrupt position corrupts, and weakens, all the institutions and people involved -- both because credibility is lost, and because after organizations start engaging in persistent, conspiratorial deception and avoidance of fundamentals, they become MUCH less capable of doing jobs which require honest checking -- as essentially all real engineering and defense jobs do.

So the cost of this fiasco is FAR above the "sticker price" -- high as that "sticker price" is.

The question starts being raised - outside the US, and inside, too -- how do we trust either the judgement, the competence, of the good faith of the US "military industrial complex?"

The efforts to push missile defense, including many arguments by gisterme on this thread, make the question a just one.

People who defend missile "defense" with the deceptive patterns now being used should be too ashamed to get through the Pledge of Allegiance.

lunarchick - 03:51pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7874 of 7905)
lunarchick@www.com

An officer of the German based 'Transparency International' is asked to explain why Germany has slipped from 13th to 20th on this list of people's perception of how each country does business.

He replied that Germany has a lot of money to re-distribute.

That people redistributing lots of other peoples' money may get greedy and do use nepotism as a criteria for appointments to positions.

Wonder if there are parallels here to MD.

(31 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense