Actually, I prefer the improved designs, since a drone can be recalled at any time (i.e. if a last-minute diplomatic solution is reached) whereas once an ICBM is launched, it’s gone and it ain’t coming back. Given the popular WarGames scenario in science fiction of technology running amuck, I’d feel safer if human control could be maintained as long as possible.
Grey, I stand corrected re Bush Senior, Somalia etc.
Let’s hope you’re right.
Peace 
That’s not true. You can call an ICBM back. All you need is some guy to act as the circuit bridge and a hairpin. Although a gorgeous Russian girl can’t hurt either. 
Oooh! Oooh! Movie reference!
…and I don’t know what it is. Damn. The Spy Who Loved Me?
** Grey** & ** Zenster ** -
First off - the “preventative” actions you mention are a puerile attempt to rename “attack”.
Secondly, all you are saying is that America already has the power to destroy whoever it wants, so what harm if there are new and better ways to deliver such death.
This is a seriously flawed arguement. Although ** trabi ** shouldn’t get his knickers in a twist to such an extent, he has a point.
- Reductio ad Absurdum:
A psychpath has a knife, and he can argue that he already has the power to kill whoever comes near him. Fine.
Does this mean that said psychpath is no more dangerous with a 9mm and a load of bullets ? No.
The fact that you can do something dangerous already, is not a reason to be unconcerned about increasing the efficiency with which these things can be done.
Regards,
Tarantula
Let’s say that my definition of preemptive is admittedly muddy. I am considering the first use of conventional weapons against a target that has been the object of deterrence first. Take the PCR/Taiwan example. I am not considering them surprise attack weapons, though they could equally fill that role.
Secondly, the scale of damage the current US and Russian stockpiles of weapons makes the knife/gun argument pointless. A better example would be a machine gun with 1000 rounds vs. a machine gun with 1000 rounds that can be emptied faster.
Finally the idea that a military force would unilaterally stop development of evolutionary weapons is naive. I am not saying that we should be unconcerned about weapon development. You can be suspicious, fearful, antagonistic or paranoid about the Americans having these. In my opinion they are a better holder of such weapons than the majority of nations.
Spies Like Us. Stupid movie, but it comes in handy in a pinch.
You said preventative - you didn’t mention pre-emptive.
The fact that the US will be able to bomb the shite out of “targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours” makes the knife / gun reductio ad absurdum example perfectly valid.
Why because the US is the only country to have detonated nuclear weapons during a war? Because the US routinely engages in wars that have nothing to do with it’s own national security?
Don’t make me laugh.
I have to side with Grey on this issue.
Spies Like Us was indeed a stupid movie.
quote:
Originally posted by Grey
Let’s say that my definition of preemptive is admittedly muddy. I am considering the first use of conventional weapons against a target that has been the object of deterrence first. Take the PCR/Taiwan example. I am not considering them surprise attack weapons, though they could equally fill that role.
Ah well, I’ve been wrestling with the fine line between preventative and preemptive. Thanks for pointing out the slip. I was addressing the preventative confusion, I have caused.
quote:
Originally posted by Grey
Secondly, the scale of damage the current US and Russian stockpiles of weapons makes the knife/gun argument pointless. A better example would be a machine gun with 1000 rounds vs. a machine gun with 1000 rounds that can be emptied faster.
It does not as the US can already do this. So can the Russians. Feel a deep and abiding fear of them right now?
ICBM Range ~6,000 miles with a launch/hit time line of 40 minutesLink
B-2 Stealth Bomber ~ 10,000 nautical miles but sub sonic. I think some Gulf War sorties took 70 hrs Link
B-1B Lancer ~ 3,400 miles with weapons. Link
B-52 ~ 8,800 unrefueled Link
Aside from speed to target there is no difference between what is proposed and what they currently have.
quote:
Originally posted by Grey
…In my opinion they are a better holder of such weapons than the majority of nations.
Sigh. Look I am not going to get into the equivalency of mass firebombing of cities and the atomic bomb. Go start a new thread.
If such weapons are developed, by whom would you prefer it be by? If we’re going to go with assigning benefit of the doubt to counties, shall we select the Russians with their gulags, Cossacks and forced famines? Perhaps the Chinese with their cultural revolutions and cultural destruction of Tibet? Maybe we should look to the South American’s with their disappearings and Shining Paths. Maybe Germany with their taste for Parisian wines?
Or maybe Greenland - that’s never attacked anyone.
Or Iceland
Or Monaco
Or Sweden
Or Norway
Or Finland
Or Japan
Or South Africa
Or any fucking country that doesn’t keep on invading other countries and pissing everyone else off…
So you’re analogy doesn’t work, and now you’re looking for what exactly?
As for some of you suggestions, we are talking about major powers here. Let’s keep Senegal and the Vatican out of our choices. That being said…
Chinese are still pissed at the Japanese and that whole Nanking thing.
The South African’s had that nasty bit of trouble with skin colour.
The Danes were mighty nasty back in the 16th century and then they trick the Native Americans with that beads for Manhattan bit.
Sweden’s Gustav made war pay for war by despoiling the minor German states.
I don’t think there are any Parisian wines. Most of the vineyards are in the country.
And while we’re on the subject: What about America with its slavery and segregation?
Perhaps you meant Vichy water?
And while we’re on the subject: What about America with its slavery and segregation?
…and genocide of the native population, Wacko Jacko, Spies like us…
What about French colonialism in sub-Sahara Africa?
What about slavery in the Ottoman Empire?
The point I’m making is the major powers are large, expansive and get in people’s way. The fact that tyrannies, not democracies (The Master Speaks), tend to wipe millions out at a time provides me with some reassurance that the US is not about to become all bloody fanged and rabid.
1 - My analogy is perfect - the fact that the principle of Reductio ad Absurum escapes you is not a flaw in the arguement.
2 - You vainly attempted to use the same principle of Reductio ad Absurum by naming Senegal & the Vatican as possible nations for these weapons. These nations would not be logical choices. Senegal - for very obvious reasons of instability, and the Vatican as a Nation that has no Army of its own(being as it is donated from Switzerland).
3 - American Idiots living in 16th Century Glasshouses, should not throw musket-balls.
4 - Unless you have some coherent arguements as to why the rest of the world should be unconcerned, I think that trabi has made a very valid point.
Regards,
My point really was that no one, especially major powers, have clean hands.
I thought Trabi and I had done ok. The weapon is evolutionary and falls easily with current abilities of the US and other nations.
The biggest objection is that the US is developing these weapons and not someone else.
I’ve attempted to address this by pointing out that,
1.The US has participated in multilateral interventions prior to the current “coalition of the willing” foreign policy movement.
2.Over the past ~55 years (15 of them with no USSR) of American leaders holding half of the worlds nuclear stockpile has yet to use a nuclear first strike.
3.Tyrannies tend to kill people rather more indiscriminately than democracies,
a.And by definition lack the mechanism for their populous to assert control of their military.
Blind acceptance of good faith is pointless in geo-politics but of the current crop of major powers the Americans are no worse, and certainly better than, some of the alternative.
That is your opinion, please provide some sort of cite to establish it as a fact.
Again, this is your own interpretation, and not factually based. Personally, the ability for America to project lethal force around the globe in a few hour’s time should provide a profound deterrent. I like this idea a lot. I believe that America (at least until recently) has one of the best track records of any superpower in history.
We may be in agreement about trabi’s histrionics but I’d still like to see the “serious flaws” you posit without proof.
Your example serves little purpose. A better one might be a firearm that shoots around corners and keeps a soldier out of harm’s way. Your immediate presumption that such weaponry will be in the hands of a psychopath is a straw man. Please try again.
By the same exact merits, the fact that America can currently project military force in a way that profoundly deters aggressor nations (PRC vs ROC is a sterling example) does not represent any reason not to improve the efficacy with which we might do so in the future. You are entirely unconvincing.
This is one of the most incredibly lame arguments posted in this entire thread. America’s use of nuclear weapons was entirely justified against an aggressor nation that repeatedly defied and brutally violated wartime conventions.
In addition, I will ask you to please provide certifiable examples of America’s “routine” instigation of “wars that have nothing to do with national security.”
Naughty, naughty there Grey. Please do not conflate the Dutch with the Danish. Two different countries, two different cultures and two very different languages. Holland born Peter Minuit was the one who swindled the Manhattanites. In fact, the Amerinds were the ones who gave Vikings the bum’s rush from Vinland. Otherwise, you’ve been doing extremely well. It’s rather gratifying to see a neighborly Canadian give the USA a little credit where credit is due. So far, I don’t see where the elephant has developed any sort of appetite for mice.