Does the US need world approval to implement the Star Wars Defense shield?

[Whack-a-Mole]

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?

I hear what you’re saying but I still maintain agreements aren’t worth diddly if they can be broken at the drop of a hat…even if it is congress doing the breaking. Why should any country in the future give a treaty with the US much weight if they know the US will break said treaty when it’s in its interest to do so?

What would seem more useful to me would be time-limits on any given treaty. I.E. The ABM treaty is good for 25 years from time of signing at which point both countries will revisit the issue to see if it needs amending/renewing. Certainly a treaty signed in 1800 may be totally irrelevant today and I’d find it difficult to see how a nation should be held to such an out-of-date document. Situations change and countries should have an ‘out’ at some point if they wish without looking as if their word isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

[Crusoe]

MGibson said:

There’s nothing immoral about breaking a treaty so long as the people we signed it with are aware of what we’re doing.

It’s not about immorality. Clinton wants to build the system whilst persuading Russia to stick to the ABM Treaty that he’s breaking; he wants to have his cake and eat it.

(1) As mentioned by Jeff_42, this may give other nations cause to doubt the value of any treaties entered into by the US. It doesn’t matter who’s “wrong” or “right”; if other nations perceive the US as willing to drop treaties they may prove a lot harder to negotiate in future (or, indeed, to retain in the case of older treaties). A cynic might wonder how many politically-decided arms contracts (e.g. Britain’s recent purchase of air-to-air missiles) would switch away from the US supplier as a “hint”.

(2) Russia might not be able to re-enter an arms race now, but the system would certainly be a welcome mat to future nuclear rearmament. Putin’s no fool, but he knows the electoral appeal in Russia of “strong politics”.

(3) It may fuel the less US-friendly elements in Russian and Chinese politics. Vladimir Zhirinovsky would certainly have a field day with this.

Jeff_42 said:

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).

Sorry, no. Try this report or this one for serious questions on Patriot’s effectiveness. In summary…

The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements.

Sorry, Jeff, I don’t mean to sound like I’m picking on you, but:

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.

So why would he build one? Building ICBMs, or even IRBMs, would involve massive amounts of time and money, along with the development of reliable propulsion and guidance technologies, and would surely be more open to observation by reconnaissance aircraft or satellites. In my humble opinion, Saddam Hussein would stick to producing a few suitcase-sized charges with simpler timers, smuggle them into the US and leave them in city centres…not something an ABM system can guard against.

Blimey. My longest post yet.

[Ptahlis]

**
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!

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.
**

I’d like to see the source of the info suggesting the patriots missed. Are you suggesting that all the SCUDs just happened to miss or not explode? Or that they never existed in the first place?

Destroying missiles in their boost phase isn’t too problematic with regards to the debris. Nuclear explosions have to be triggered very carefully, so it’s not like shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin, and the detonators used, even for a surface impact weapon, don’t arm themselves until they reach their arcing point. Nobody wants to shoot a missile that arms itself right out of the silo because that invites a mushroom cloud popping up over one’s own country in the case of an engine malfunction. Certainly the debris will come down, and some of it may kill. That’s still better than a nuke going off any way you slice it.

[egkelly]

I think you really have ask why this issue is coming up-it isn’t the Russians (they are effectively bankrupt and unable to build any more missiles at this point). It is really about keeping the US Defense industry alive-as of now, Raytheon is almost bankrupt-they are in debt to the tune of $10.5 billion, and have no orders.
I really see this issue as rescueing a firm who has a proven record of financial incompetence - of course, if it (raytheon) is allowed to die, there might be some dire consequences a few tears doen the road (when Saddam Hussein rearms and allies himself with Iran)!

[Crusoe]

egkelly - are you suggesting that US security depends on Raytheon’s fortunes? Having questioned that, though, I agree with you that there may be an element of supporting US business in this project.

Re: Iraq and Iran - given their bloody recent history (well, early 1980s), I don’t think either would be quick to suggest an alliance. Didn’t Iran refuse to hand back the MiG-29s that landed there during the Gulf War too?

[labdude]

**
egkelly - are you suggesting that US security depends on Raytheon’s fortunes? Having questioned that, though, I agree with you that there may be an element of supporting US business in this project.
**

US security has little to do with “star wars.” The “star wars” system is a thinly disguised business subsidy. Now if we want to give massive federal subsidies to businesses many americans feel we should pick a company in anothre line of business.

[elucidator]

**
[/QUOTE]

Certainly the debris will come down, and some of it may kill. That’s still better than a nuke going off any way you slice it.
**
[/QUOTE]

Well, that rather depends on where the messy ol’ debris falls, doesn’t it? An H-bomb is initiated by an atomic explosion, plain old dirty plutonium. Scattered about. Plutonium is rather toxic. Plutonium is to “toxic” as Janet Reno is to “unappealing”. Superlatives fail me. Very toxic.

Our allies may find it disconcerting that we regard a rain of plutonium on a bystander to be a lesser evil than America (presumably, one of the belligerants in the hypothetical situation) getting smacked by a nuke. (Make no mistake, thats exactly how this American does feel about it.)

But they are a selfish lot, can’t see the big picture.

[capacitor]

If USA builds SDI, the next war they will engage in will involve the other side resorting to extensive guerilla/terroristic tactics. No nation will make the folly of trying to drop a nuke on US soil, testing our defenses. We are having an extremely hard time establishng a coherent anti-terrorism policy that does not trample on our rights. Paradoxically, with the building of the shield, it may trigger events that drastically reduce our rights in the name of fighting terroristic attacks.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

First, our treaty with the USSR is no longer valid, there being no more USSR. And I will point out that the USSR made just this arguement when we asked them to repay loans made to the Czar(and other treatys).

2: My Dad was a missle techn on the old Nike Hercules SAM. He had a film of one of those old, pre microchip missles, hitting an ICBM missle dead on. True, that was with a crack crew (my dad’s was the best, truth), but they had info that with the nuke warhead on some of the Hercs (sub or 1kt), they could get an ICBM almost every time, by airbursting it near the ICBM, just as it began its descent. Now, true, setting off nukes in the stratosphere is NOT a GOOD thing, but better than them hitting their target. And note, this was with tehnology that is completely obsolete now. ICBMs and IRBMs are no real prob,now, but sub-based are real hard to hit, as they DO come in like Eluc was talking about. But you see, they minor nuke powers HAVE no nuke subs, only Russia & US, mainly.

I can see one real use for Starwars. China begins to invade Taiwan. We mobilize the fleet. China threatens to send over some of their ICBMs. Sure, we could nuke China into a crater, but would we be willing to give up a few cities for Taiwan? No. But if we thought we could shoot down 90%+ of CHINA’s ICBMs (they are way behind us & the russkies, much easier targets, longer path), we might be able to say “Try it, we will launch 1 for 1 and 90% of YOURS won’t get here, but ALL of ours will”. Another use is a Rogue general in Russia or one of the smaller federation states, getting ahold of 1 silo, and blackmailing us. With just 1 silo of missles, and plenty of warning, satelite tracking, etc, plus the ability to fire multiple ABMs for every ICBM, we could pretty well ignore it.

That said, i beleive we need to disarm 2 nukes for every ABM we build, and for a laser, etc, disarm a reasonable %.

[Erik_Raven]

(groan… so much misinformation…)

First, the ABM treaty (which does not have a 25 year duration, it is of unlimited duration) itself does not have anything specifically to do with nuclear weapons. Rather, the fact that national ABM systems are now for the most part prohibited under the treaty, as others have mentioned, allowed the USSR and the US to move on to SALT I (signed just after the ABM treaty), as well as the START treaties of the '90s which have actually reduced the stockpiles of nukes in each country. Build a national ABM system and talks on SALT III will be dead INSTANTLY. Why is that imporant?

Because the SALT treaties (like most others, inc. ABM) allow countries to opt out if “extraordinary events” have jeopardized the supreme interests of the states parties. Since a US violation of the ABM treaty would unquestionably be an “extraordinary event,” Russia would have no further incentive to continue with arms reduction.

Why is that a problem? Because aside from the principle of maintaining parity with Russia, there is no conceivable reason for the US to maintain 2,500 plus strategic nukes… except maybe if that comet starts heading towards earth. Maintaining that huge force has a load of problems associated with it as well. To maintain this stockpile, the US spends somewhere around $4 billion a year… that’s not building new weapons, that’s just making sure the ones we have work.

Furthermore, states would likely start withdrawing from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which is a fantastic idea for several reasons. First, nuke tests are terribly damaging to the environment. Second, there is NO FORESEEABLE CHANCE that the US will need to do full nuclear tests. The US conducts subcritical nuclear tests (where the nuclear material comes very close to explosion, but doesn’t), and the building of the National Ignition Facility virtually eliminates any scientific need for real testing. Testing now is only a political maneuver.

Second, contrary to Danielinthewolvesden’s comment, the treaties signed with the USSR are legally recognized to be binding in our relations with Russia.

Third, I’m sorry to those who think the Patriot worked, but it did not. Similarly, the trials done on theater missile defense have shown that we are nowhere near getting even a 25% reliablilty out of intercepting missiles. And whoever mentioned the interception of anti-ship missiles should know that ballistic missiles travel at about 15,000 mph, as opposed to 600 mph for an anti-ship missile. Not even close to the same thing.

Fourth, the issue isn’t just a national ABM system, but also the potential deployment of TMD systems (which are not prohibited by the ABM treaty). These are two separate issues. However, TMD, if it ever works, will be deployed to Japan, and likely South Korea and Taiwan. Result: China and North Korea get pissed off.

Finally, is there the ability to deal with ballistic missile threats by other means? YES. People talk a lot about “rogue states” and irrational actors which might launch an attack on the US, but if you get down to it, the US has been very capable of dealing with such threats through negotiation. Guess what – if you look into it, the states the US fears as “rogue states” are actually far more rational than they are portrayed, and US policy makers KNOW IT. The example I know best, North Korea, is outwardly portrayed as a maniacal regime capable of anything, but the negotiators dealing with the DPRK understand that they deal in real politik to a degree Kissinger would be pround of. Kim Jong Il may be an odd fellow, but his foreign policy has astoundingly simple logic to it.

Conclusion? ABM is tremendously expensive. It won’t work for at least ten years, if ever. It undermines any hope of continued arms control unless the technology is shared, which I believe ABM proponents would fight tooth and nail against. It violates our treaty obligations. It’s a bad idea.

[Odesio]

[QUOTE]
**
I hear what you’re saying but I still maintain agreements aren’t worth diddly if they can be broken at the drop of a hat…even if it is congress doing the breaking. Why should any country in the future give a treaty with the US much weight if they know the US will break said treaty when it’s in its interest to do so?

[quote]
**

Treaties last only so long as they're good for the parties involved. And since most treaties aren't just broken at the drop of a hat I'm not convinced this will become a serious problem. Why would the US hold on to a treaty that compromises their security?

Marc

[Crusoe]

MGibson said:

Treaties last only so long as they’re good for the parties involved. And since most treaties aren’t just broken at the drop of a hat I’m not convinced this will become a serious problem. Why would the US hold on to a treaty that compromises their security?

(1) If it compromised US security, why was it signed in the first place?

(2) How exactly does retaining it compromise security? What threat is being faced that leaving the treaty would address?

(3) How exactly does leaving it increase security? As other posters have said, an ABM defence is unproven and unlikely to stop many warheads; and the countries who don’t have many warheads are unlikely to waste them in missiles anyway. And the political implications of such a move hardly encourage nuclear restraint in developing countries with no axe to grind with the US.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

I think a missile defense system would be a good idea. I just don’t see how, given our current technology, it would be feasible.

And I don’t think that any of the ideas talked about would address sub-launched missiles.

They have a MUCH shorter flight, since subs can be parked virtually offshore from almost every major American city.

[Odesio]

**

(1) If it compromised US security, why was it signed in the first place?

(2) How exactly does retaining it compromise security? What threat is being faced that leaving the treaty would address?

(3) How exactly does leaving it increase security? As other posters have said, an ABM defence is unproven and unlikely to stop many warheads; and the countries who don’t have many warheads are unlikely to waste them in missiles anyway. And the political implications of such a move hardly encourage nuclear restraint in developing countries with no axe to grind with the US.

**

(1). It is possible that it didn't compromise security when it was signed. The world does change.

(2). I don't know if retaining the treaty is a bad thing. Nor am I sure that we're better off without it.

(3). I'm don't think leaving would necessarily increase security. As to your last point I think it is inevitable that many developing nations will produce nuclear arms. It is only a matter of time.

 I'm not argueing the specifics about the Star Wars program or breaking the treaty. But as to the question "Does the US need world approval to implement the Star Wars program" I'll have to answer no.

Marc

[Crusoe]

I’ll conceded that point, certainly - the US doesn’t need anyone’s permission. But no country can act in total isolation, and the US must be prepared for the political, economic and possibly military consequences of any decision. I just don’t think it’s worth it in any of those areas.

[QuickSilver]

Wednesday June 7 11:56 AM ET
Laser Shoots Down Rocket for First Time
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A laser-based system has shot down a rocket in a successful test of breakthrough technology designed by TRW Corp. (NYSE:TRW - news), the U.S. Army said Wednesday.

The test was the first in a series before the high-energy laser is handed over to Israel in the coming months to help protect its northern border with Lebanon against short-range rocket threats.

``We’ve just turned science fiction into reality,’’ Lt. Gen. John Costello, head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement released by his headquarters in Huntsville, Ala.

He said the successful shoot-down, which occurred Tuesday at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, showed directed energy'' weapons systems like lasers have the potential to play a significant role in defending U.S. national security interests worldwide.’’

A laser – short for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation – is an intense, highly-directed beam of energy. The one developed for Israel converts the energy of a carefully-controlled chemical reaction into a powerful beam.

Moving at the speed of light, the highly-focused energy can reach across great distances with minimal spreading out or loss of intensity.

Theoretically, such a beam could knock out targets at distances ranging from tens of miles to thousands of miles, the idea behind a space-based missile defense shield like the ``Star Wars’’ idea first suggested by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983.

The system is formally known as the Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD).

Maj. Gen. Isaac Ben-Israel of the Israeli Ministry of Defense said in a statement released by TRW, the prime contractor, that the successful test was ``an exciting and very important development for the people of Israel.’’

``With this success, THEL/ACTD has taken the crucial first step to help protect the communities along our northern border against the kind of devastating rocket attacks we’ve suffered recently,’’ he said.

Tim Hannemann, executive vice president and general manager of TRW Space & Electronics Group, said the test Tuesday provided an opportunity ``for our customers to consider developing more mobile versions’’ of the system.

THEL is a ``transportable’’ system contained in several semi-trailer-sized containers. It stems in part from a commitment President Clinton made in April 1996 to then-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to aid Israel in developing a security system against Katyusha rockets fired by Hizbollah guerrillas from southern Lebanon.

It remains to be seen if this technology will be better than the arguably poor results of the Patriot missiles. Still the US military/defense contractors are making fiction into fact as we speak. I thought Clinton raised the SDI issue to the forefront with very good cause. This seems to be it.