Here is my (arguably limited) understanding on the topic:
The US wishes to implement a defense system which will concentrically orbit over North America and will have the capability to (presubably) destroy hostile ICBM’s headed for the US (and Canada I hope!).
My understanding is that this will be a defense system and not an offensive weapon (let’s assume that much is true).
This being the case, why does the president need to get permission or even a world opinion on implementing this kind of defensive strategy? Surely, no rogue nation that has it in for the US will give their approval while some of the friendly nations can well benefit from this technology, thus why would they disagree (though they seem to be disagreeing in quite large numbers). Given that the US needs no permission from the rest of the world to build whatever new and improved warhead delivery system they want, why the wide international objection to a defensive shield of this type?
First of all, my understanding of the ABM defenses Clinton is currently trying to get Russia to agree with differs from the one you talk about. The one currently in question is a ground based system of about a hundred interceptor missiles that will defend the skies over Alaska. Ostensibly this is protection from “rogue nations” like Iran, N. Korea, and others hostile to the US who are working on the bomb.
The reason Clinton wants permission is because of our 1972 arms reduction agreement with Russia expressly forbids building such a system. If we break the treaty, Russia is free to rebuild their arsenal.
Russia’s concern is that they don’t want to spend a lot of money on their nuke forces. They want to keep reducing because they simply can’t afford to keep maintaining the weapons and facilities. But if we have enough ABM’s to nullify their threat while they have no defenses, then the balance of power shifts. Even though we are no longer mired in the cold war, we aren’t exactly all smiles and roses with Russia these days, and after some of the US’s “help” with economic reforms, they trust us about as much now as they did in the Reagan era.
There’s just a feeling out there that we shouldn’t be the only nation with a large nuclear arsenal that is also protected from nuclear retaliation. I can’t say as I blame them either.
So the chief argument against the anti-ICBM defense initiative (ground or space based) is that in case the US ever stops being the proverbial “good guy”. The world at large is not comfortable with just the US being able to defend itself effectively against long range nuclear weapon attacks? How strange. If it was the (former) Soviet Union proposing to establish that kind of umbrella over it’s territory, you can be sure they would not ask for the world’s permission to do so. In other words, while the US is the presumed the good guy, it may not do so. The minute the US becomes tyrranical, they can throw up as many satellites and ground based defense systems they like in order to protect themselves. How ironic.
But in being the occasional “good guy” and largely protecting it’s own self interest, the US has made not a few enemies. Couldn’t the US successfully argue that in light of these facts, they need a new and improved self defense system while still being largely good guys… with many self interest? Or is this simply a matter of a good defense being perceived by many as a potential offense?
So far as I know, it’s only Russia that we are worried about regarding this issue, and only because of the fact that we have a treaty with them stating that we won’t build any ABM’s. The idea that the US is one of the “good guys” might fly in some circles, but not all of them. Plenty of folks even in this country are extremely skeptical of Uncle Sam staking out the moral high ground, especially when we are getting ready to break our ABM treaty.
It’s not so much that we are “asking permission” to do this, because Clinton’s going to try and get the thing done regardless of what Putin has to say about it and has said as much, as that we are trying to keep the arms limitation treaties alive even though we intend to violate the ABM prohibition.
I’m under the impression that other not only Russia, but some other countries are opposed too. I think I heard on the radio that Germany also opposes the development of ballistic missile defenses, on the grounds that it would encourage the Russians to increase rather than decrease the size of their arsenal.
It is an arguable point, but many feel the safest and most effective course is if the weapons are destroyed through diplomacy rather than a defensive system.
My understanding of this subject is also limited, but one of the concerns I’ve heard is that it wouldn’t take much tweaking to turn such a system from a defensive to an offensive capability. Not much other countries could do about it, if the hardware was already up in space.
Haven’t the Kings of Saber-Rattling, China, gone on record as saying implementation of a Star-Wars system by the U.S. would be characterized as an act of aggression and be met with a military response?
The answer here is YES. ABM systems and Star Wars are treated as OFFENSIVE systems when it comes to nuclear weapons. This is because it gives us hte ability to make a first strike. Our nuclear relations with Russia have generally been based on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) - I won’t fire on you because if I do, you’ll fire right back and kill me. With a system such as Star Wars in place, this removes any threat to the US. Therefore, we could commit a first strike and have NO fear of retaliation. (Hope this makes sense - it’s been a couple of years since my International Nuclear Policy class…)
So that’s why foreign countries see it as a threat to their power. Now, do I think the US should have to ask the other countries for permission to build it? No. A superpower asking other countries for permission to do something for its own defense is bad policy, IMO. However, I don’t think they should build Star Wars anyway - don’t think it’ll work, and the possible destabilizing effects are too great.
Can’t happen. The problem is close to this: a Russian standing about half-mile way, fires a high-powered rifle at about a 75 degree angle. You fire a .22 in such a way that the paths of both bullets exactly. No way, Jozef.
Lasers are not much help. You would have to be able to focus a laser on a moving target long enough to burn a hole into the warhead and disable it. If you had computer chips capable of running fast enough to do the tracking/aiming/focusing job (which we don’t), a laser powerful enough to produce a beam that will burn through metal at a range of X miles (which we don’t) it would have to be powered by atomic power(at the very least) and may even require thermonuclear level of power. (THAT we’ve got!) Many countries might be uneasy at a plan to park H-bombs over their air space so we can relax. Except Canada, of course, they don’t like it we just raise the rent.
Outside of the practical problems, I must admit confusion. Since it is clearly God’s will that we should rule the world, it is difficult to understand thier objections. Atheists and EuroTrash, mostly. Our new motto shall be “Speak softly…we’ve got the Big Stick.”
http://www.economist.com/ has a pretty detailed article this week on the pros and cons (military and diplomatic) of the NMD (National Missile Defense) currently being debated. I subscribe to economist.com, and am not sure if the article is in the free or paid part of the site. If you can’t get to it, you can buy this week’s paper version of the magazine for the same article.
As for the good guy/bad guy business, that’s just silly. It’s really two issues of concern (FWIW, I haven’t decided where I fall - just putting out the arguments):
If we unilaterally break the ABM, will Russia respond by rebuilding its arsenal, which would be a bad thing for us? In a related vein, China has unlaterally kept its arsenal relatively small, expressly because its arsenal is big enough to survive a first strike by the U.S. and hit us back (traditional mutual assured destruction). Will China respond to our breaking the ABM by also building up its arsenal.
As a simple matter, if we break agreements we make cause we don’t like them anymore, what will stop other countries from breaking treaties they make with us that they don’t like anymore. The “good guy” argument could be recast as the U.S. being a trustworthy partner, one which other countries will bargain with in good faith, thus resulting in agreements the U.S. wants or can live with.
We only ‘need world approval’ while Clinton is in office. Once Geo W. is seated in the big chair, this country will rebuild it’s military capabilities.
The only people who think of the USA as the “good guys” is the USA. The french, germans, japaniese, russians all think they are the “good guys.”
The USA has a long history of violating any treaty as soon as we feel like it. Just ask any native american.
Also this missle defense system will never work anyway. Atomic bombs could still be carried into the cities of the US in a suitcase. If people can get in tons of cocaine, a few small bombs shouldn’t be a problem. The US foreign policy of economic domination through NAFTA/GATT/IMF/World Bank is going to get us in trouble some day.
If you were to start rasing a defense how would I respond?
I would have 3 choices:
1: Disarm myself clearly I’m wasting my time trying to challenge you.
2: Try to make a defense of my own. Which would cost more money that option 3.
3: Get more, bigger, better nukes and point them at you knowing that you can’t knock all of my birds out of the sky.
I don’t think that Russia/China/Europe are going to go for one. Europe is economically strong so the might try option 2. But Russia and China are more cash strapped and already have the bomb so option 3 looks best for them.
Do you want another 50 years of cold war… again.
As to the technical problems with the ABM program currently being proposed, they are still there but seen as minor. Nobody yet is proposing that there will be a 100% success rate missile to missile. They are hoping to get a 75% or better hit rate to consider the program a success from a technical standpoint, and use multiple missiles targeting incoming ICBM’s. Many people that are critical to the program favor a boost-phase defense on a naval delivery platform. Supposedly such a system would have a higher success rate because it takes out the ICBM as it’s heading up and out of the atmosphere instead of when it is reentering at a much higher velocity. As far as the fanciful Star Wars satellites with particle beam cannons, we might as well be asking for actual X-wing fighters. We’d have about the same likelihood of getting them.
It is true that Germany and Denmark and probably a lot of others have raised concerns over our actions with this, primarily because they want Russia to keep reducing their arsenal. If we make nice with Russia and disarmament continues, they don’t really have a serious beef with it. If we just go ahead and do it without settling with Russia and they rebuild their arsenal, then Europe will be very unhappy with us.
Russia is in a bad spot right now. They can’t really afford to properly maintain the nukes they have let alone build their arsenal back up. They know it, and they know that we know it. They also were somewhat burned by this kind of thing before. Reagan’s Star Wars plan turned out to be a big fizzle technically, but it put enormous pressure on the Soviets at the end of the cold war. They really believed we were building the thing and that it was going to work. Now we’re starting the process all over again, and it remains to be seen how effective the ABM’s are in practice. So Putin has got to be asking himself whether it is a real system or more smoke and mirrors.
I think this is the heart of it. The United States has had a long history of being trustworthy or “moral” in its foreign and domestic policy only when convenient. Which isn’t necessarily a problem, except that we paint ourselves to be the paragon of morality…and we expect other countries to live up to the high standards we set for them or suffer the consequences. If good faith is absent from our policy considerations, then we’re more likely to resort to threats of physical or economic sanctions in order to achieve our goals.
I’d have a less of a problem with our foreign policy if we admitted that it’s driven by self-interest, rather than some overarching humanitarianism. That way the decisions about which dictators to back (Guatemala and Indonesia, yes; Cuba and Nicaragua, no) or which oppressive regimes to combat (Serbia and Iraq, yes; Rwanda and Turkey, no) wouldn’t seem so unbelieveably hypocritical and arbitrary.
I guess this should be another thread. On-topic, however, is this observation: The revitalization of Star Wars not only promises to be a technological boondoggle and a tremendous waste of money (pork barrel, anyone?), but will further damage our credibility to the rest of the world and likely result in increased nuclear proliferation. Yeah, it’s a real good idea.
Sure you can. We do it all the time now and you’ve probably seen it. The Patriot missile during the gulf war shot down SCUD missiles that I believe is similar to a Nuclear missile (it fly’s REALLY high then drops down unpowered to its target). Also, the Phalanx defense system on naval ships uses a high rate of fire gatling gun to shoot down incoming antiship missiles (and don’t bring up the USS Stark as a place it didn’t work…the Phalanx system was shutoff).
As for the ABM being a meaningful defense it isn’t except against countries that can only field a few nukes in the first place. Russia has MORE than enough missiles to easily swamp the proposed defense system. They wouldn’t really have to build anymore. China would probably have to add a bunch more so they’d feel safe. The US has no illusions about a missile-proof umbrella.
Basically the ABM is trying to defend against the Sadam’s of the world who’d probably quite happily lob a nuke our way if he could (does anyone here seriously doubt Sadam wouldn’t throw one our way of he could?). That said an intercontinental missile is quite expensive so a Sadam type probably couldn’t get his hands on more than 2 or 3. ABM could defend against this and for that I think it’s worthwhile.
However, I agree with Gadarene and SuaSponte in that I do not believe treaties should be so easily tossed because they become inconvenient. What’s the point of signing them in the first place if they’re trashed whenever someone feels like it?
It takes an act of congress to make a treaty. Doesn't it also take an act of congress to invalidate a treaty? There's nothing immoral about breaking a treaty so long as the people we signed it with are aware of what we're doing. If an agreement is no longer to our benefit then why should we hold on to it?
Don’t know how to break this to you. Our Noble Warriors in the Pentagon occasionally fib. After this bit of practice, they work their way through white lies to whoppers. After they warm up this way, they hold press conferences. Then they really work out!! Check your background reports and you will find there is considerable question as to whether the Patriot missiles scored even one hit! The math involved in this kind of intercept is enough to make Steven Hawkings cringe!
Twas indeed good ol’ Jimmy Carter who started the whole “star wars” malarkey. Best guess: he meant it as a bargaining ploy, he knew we couldn’t do it. He also knew that the Russians couldn’t be sure that we couldn’t do it. So we could toss that in the pot without losing anything and move the Russians toward disarmament.
Imagine his surprise when Loveable Doofus R.R. started to take it seriously!
And if we could hit a missile in its rising phase, where might it fall? France? Oh, well, never mind. The French havent done anybody any good since they invented oral sex.
Don’t know how to break this to you. Our Noble Warriors in the Pentagon occasionally fib. After this bit of practice, they work their way through white lies to whoppers. After they warm up this way, they hold press conferences. Then they really work out!! Check your background reports and you will find there is considerable question as to whether the Patriot missiles scored even one hit! The math involved in this kind of intercept is enough to make Steven Hawkings cringe!
Twas indeed good ol’ Jimmy Carter who started the whole “star wars” malarkey. Best guess: he meant it as a bargaining ploy, he knew we couldn’t do it. He also knew that the Russians couldn’t be sure that we couldn’t do it. So we could toss that in the pot without losing anything and move the Russians toward disarmament.
Imagine his surprise when Loveable Doofus R.R. started to take it seriously!
And if we could hit a missile in its rising phase, where might it fall? France? Oh, well, never mind. The French havent done anybody any good since they invented oral sex.