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?
(7869 previous messages)
- 01:49pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7870
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
- 01:57pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7871
The arguments for the need for missile defense are substantial,
and have been discussed at length, and in detail, on this thread.
7/12/01 1:22pm ... MD6979 rshowalter
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.
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
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.
- 02:04pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7872
A missile sheild is moot when someone can just sneak a nuclear
warhead or biological warhead in to the U.S. in a suitcase.
- 02:23pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7873
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
- 03:51pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7874
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
Wonder if there are parallels here to MD.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science