I, too would prefer something to MAD. A shield would be infinitely better (as Robert Heinlein pointed out in a visceral foreword to Danial Graham’s book “High Frontier”). But I don’t think the strategists of the late fifties and early sixties “chose” MAD. The logic of the situation forced it upon them – since you can’t have a perfect shield, the only thing keeping our fragile peace is the readiness and willingness of both sides to pursue a nuclear war if necessary. This has never been a desirable strategy – having one’s cities totally destroyed and bringing untold death and misery upon the world is never a desirable thing, and what we have learned about nuclear winter only makes it even less attractive. To be effective, however, you have to make the other side think you’re crazy enough to do it. As I say, it’s not a desirable strategy. But it’s the only game in town. No one wants to capitulate or unilaterally disarm, so what else is there? I think this is why people sincerely and even desperately WANT an SDI shield. It gives another option, one that’s not MAD or mad. The only hitch is that it will not work. If you think it will, go back and re-read the debates of the 1980s. Tell me what’s changed since then. Even with the dissolution of the Soviet Union there are still states out there with multiple nuclear capability.
Try the point of view of an organization, or country, which wants to terrorize the citizens of the US, or even take out a significant number of them. How would you go about it? Would a multi-year, hugely-expensive program to build a reasonably powerful nuclear warhead, complete with an intercontinental missile system, be attractive? Or would you smuggle in a suitcase bomb (still not easy), or try something simpler, cheaper, and faster?
Look at the borders - getting something through on the ground is child’s play, so there’s no need to bother with the missile. There are enough places right in the US to build whatever you want, if you’re worried about being caught at Customs, for that matter. You might recall how a single Cessna 172 could make it from Germany all the way into Red Square at the height of the USSR’s military strength - there could easily have been a worthwhile bomb on board.
You couldn’t help noticing the effect that single Ryder vans packed with simple dynamite, or even fuel oil and nitrate fertilizer, had on the World Trade Center (1 tower nearly toppled) and on the Oklahoma City federal building. Looking farther afield, you’d know about simple rice-based nerve gas and the Tokyo subway. For sheer terror effect, it would take much less than that, even.
Isn’t it clear what you’d do, and that Star Wars would be irrelevant?
We have enough trouble with real problems without chasing after imaginary ones. But that still hasn’t let do things like shut down the DEW Line, still providing early warning against fleets of Soviet bombers coming over the North Pole, for instance. Government-sponsored projects are notoriously hard to kill, worthy or not.
Match these government programs with the proper responses!
“Star Wars Missile Defense System”
“Environmental Protection Law”
A. “It may not work, but we must deploy it now anyway, for it could save lives in the future.”
B. “We should do nothing until we are absolutely sure it will be effective.”
-fh
i’m not worried about a missle attack.
look at the human genome project. look at the computing power available to anyone now. how long will it be b4 anyone with a significant amount of brains can design custom biological viruses. if you had an airborne virus that had a time delay like AIDS but killed people like ebola once it took effect, how easy would it be to smuggle into the country? BIO WARS coming to a theater near you. we ain’t in kansas anymore, silos are irrelevant.
Dal Timgar
**This might be a little naive, but what about sharing the technology? This wouldn’t diminish the defensive capabilities of the system, and wouldn’t give other nations the right to complain since they would have the same technology. **
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, Reagan promised that we’d do that. For some reason, that element seems to be lacking in the Rumsfeld plan. But since W promised to bring dignity back into the White House, I trust that this oversight will be rectified. 
Problems:
- SDI technology remains expensive and ineffective.
- Your proposal won’t mollify the Chinese, or prevent an Asian arms race and a concomitant rise in the number of nuclear powers. A system that claims to protect the US against a small number of nukes won’t protect China against the thousands of warheads that the US currently possesses.
If we make a shield, then perhaps Russia or China will make a shield. Then guess what? MAD no longer exists.
Even though MAD sucks, it is sure as hell is better than nothing. All it takes in one country to decide that its shield is good enough, and then it might launch an attack.
A missile defense shield doesn’t replace MAD, it simply removes it.
I have trouble looking at major projects like this at face value as there is always so much more going on under the surface.
-
It’s sound strategic planning for 4 years time when another close election will be fought - Bush is getting in early on the vote winning ‘strong defence’ ticket……probably looking at a “I’m building an impregnable defence: Fortress USA” kind of deal. Wave the flag a little. Was Star Wars during Reagan’s first term ? Hmm, possible coincidence.
-
It’s also sound economically (on one measurement) as a turn down is a comin’ and there’s nothing like a sharp J.M. Keynsian style injection of Federal money into the system to give the economy a kick. Ye olde ‘J curve’ effect.
-
New technologies always spin off from major national projects. You never know what they might be (the Internet came from the military communication development, lots and lots from NASA, etc) but something always crops up. It’ll be nice for George to have the commercial world kick in somewhere down the road with some free market applications borne of military research related to this project.
-
It’s very important to the US that it retains a technological edge. New Tech is the engine of so much of a first world economy and perhaps more so in the US than elsewhere. Scientific progress means world dominance, patents, licensing….not just from the project itself but also all the spin offs. Kind of like computers.
-
At face value, I find it hard to see any justification for the project – hell, we’re all running out of enemies, even China is about as Capitalistic as any Western country, N. Korea can’t feed itself, Saddam can’t piss straight let alone fire a missile – and, in any event, the suitcase bomb is going to be the weapon of choice for any aspiring lunatics. Not nuclear but chemical.
Truth is: grand National projects like this have been the traditional way to forge new tech and also to get the economy moving again. George is just applying those age old rules in a context that makes him look good i.e. as a tough leader patriotically protecting the US, creating jobs and, BTW, don’t forget to vote for me next time.
Yes, but as great as the benefits of Star Wars may be, Star Wars still violates an international treaty.
We are honour-bound to follow it, seeing as we signed it.
Then again, try telling that to the American Indians…
My two cents:
1.) I think pursuing missile defence technology is a worthwhile effort.
2.) As of this writing (and, I think, for quite a while into the future) a completely, or even mostly impregnable missile shield cannot be built. An attack by a moderately-armed state such as Russia or China will result in the loss of one or more American cities. This isn’t simple pessimism – I’ve read the reports. One city is too damned high a price to pay.
3.) Limited defence against states with very few nuclear missiles is probably achievable. But if I were one o those states I would try to bypass defences against missiles. There are a lot of way to do this. You don’t have to imagine an improbably compact “suitcase bomb”.
4.) There is no way that we will be ready to deploy a believable missile defence within the next four or eight years.
Too true.
There are any number of ways the government can spend money to stimulate the economy. Defense spending is typically capital-intensive, which gives it less bang for the buck, as it were. Also, let’s not forget that this is a mutiple-year program, which will stay with us far beyond the next downturn.
J Curve: The J curve phenomenon occurs when a currency depreciation leads to a short run worsening of the trade balance, followed by an improvement. Maybe you are thinking of the multiplier effect.
Hm. I’ve always thought that the Apollo space program was a cool idea, but a rather inefficient way to invent Teflon and Tang. Perhaps greater funding for the NSF or CDC might be better.
Calling CalM: We heard a lot about possible Star Wars spinoffs during the 1980s. After 15 or so years, what are they?
Yes but it’s the best combination of bangs and votes that matters, IMHO.
I reckon !
Yeah, but it also gave Tom Hanks something to do for a few months. And velcro. And then all those satellite thangs…space stations…outmanouvering the Soviets…a new lease of life for Star Trek.
Hear, hear and aside from the domestic agenda, if there is negligible chance of these missile systems doing their publicly stated defensive purpose, aren’t other nations entitled to be concerned about what they definitely can do … i.e. launch missiles?
[hijack] **Ye olde ‘J curve’ effect **Gazzooks LC, haven’t heard that one for a while. Can you cite me an example of it ever actually occuring. In Oz, we copped it by the bucketload in the PM Hawke days. Just never seemed to get around to happening. 
[/hijack]
Of course there is absolutely no chance that other countries might see US dominion as a concern. As a specious example, who was it on SDMB proposing the annexation of Siberia? Hegemony and paranoia were the prime fuels of the Cold War.
Was thinking that this scheme is a global extension of the gun lobby argument. “I’m going to make myself real safe, and if that makes it more dangerous for everybody else, tough”
BTW London_Calling, are you going to start that thread on the really good things about the USA from a foreign perspective soon? Would be really good so I take the opportunity to get some balance in my posts!
Soup – You’re right – we have wandered away from you’re OP. Apologies.
Is the Treaty still valid ? Yes of course, but the goal of this programme isn’t necessarily to have the system actually deployed IMHO. The value of it (from the only standpoints that matters to Bush) lye, firstly, in investing in the ‘open sky’s’ research/development, secondly, in being seen by the electorate to be strong on defence and, thirdly, securing the backing for his next Presidential campaign. The world’s politicians pretty well understand this, one imagines.
IMHO, Putin and co are just making noise for their own domestic audience.
My guess is that to bring the programme to fruition would involve at least a ten-year project. However, on this issue, Bush is primarily concerned with wrapping up the vote winning ‘strong defence’ debate and (also) addressing the domestic economic dimension up to re-election in 4 years time.
Also, remember who funded George’s campaign this last time ? – he’ll be going back for more money in a couple of years so he has to keep big business on side.
Expect all manner of spooky, evil enemies (no matter how absurd) to become manifest in the Republican press about three years from now.
woolly – I thinking, I’m thinking……
flowbark:
quote:
Calling CalM: We heard a lot about possible Star Wars spinoffs during the 1980s. After 15 or so years, what are they?
I’m afraid I don’t know. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t know of a single example of a completed technology with non-military applications you can point to and say: “That’s one.” I know that some of the work on laser propulsion was SDI funded (I worked on some of this), but that’s not by any means a completed item.
I find it funny that when we’re debating gun control, everybody argues that it’s a trivial matter to eliminate the possibility of having guns smuggled illegally past our borders.
But then the same group of people are terrified of the idea of Iraq or Syria smuggling a nuclear explosive with nobody having a clue??
Which is it, guys? How come Customs and the Border Patrol are as tough as Miami Vice when it works in your favor, but they’re as tough as Keystone Kops when it doesn’t?
Nuclear weapons contain significantly more metal and are significantly larger than handguns, but they can be smuggled in and we’ll be none the wiser, and handguns can be put to an end?
Where’s the logic in that?
And the argument that we shouldn’t have a missile defense system simply because they’ll find another way in doesn’t wash. That’s like saying you shouldn’t learn how to box because you might get kicked. So we sacrifice our ability to deter the mass-delivery of hundreds or thousands of ICBMs because MAYBE one small device might get smuggled in instead…
Hmmmm, which is the better option?
As to the OP, is the treaty still valid?
I don’t see why it would be. Suppose the United States dissolved into independent states. After seceding from the Union, would Texas or California still be bound by the former Union’s treaties? Why? I say no. The treaties were signed with the USSR, which is no more. Have we renewed the treaties with the former member states? If not, then the treaties are invalid.
I’m still pondering this issue, and the best place to ponder is from the middle of the fence.
But the best argument for this that I’ve heard, and have yet to see refuted, is “If we don’t build it, and someone nukes New York, well, New York is gonna be pretty damned expensive to replace.”
It may not work all the time. It may not even work once. But if it works when it’s supposed to, then the money was well spent.
(Of course, if we DO build it, then it may force someone’s hand, and end up backfiring. Hey, I never said I had all the answers.)
No, not a stupid idea. An incredibly stupid idea. Even if it worked, which it won’t. (See CAlMeacham, above)
But let’s bypass that argument for the moment. Let us just consider our position as regards our allies and enemies, declared and otherwise. (In case you haven’t noticed, seems most everybody hates our guts. It’s either Britteny Spears or Eminem.)
We got a hammer. They got a hammer. We have agreed that the situation is troublesome, but we agree with Them not to either (a) get bigger hammers or (b) buy helmets. The purpose of this agreement is to try to scale down the tension and threat between us.
And then we say, “We’re going to build the super-helmet. When we do, it will be impossible for you to hit us. We will, of course, still be able to hit you. But we won’t. 'cause we are the Americans, champions of peace and justice. Tell you what, once we build it, we’ll show you how. Until that time, of course, you are entirely at our mercy. But, we are the Americans. Our record of purity and non-violence is unsullied. Well, recently. Trust us.”
Simply because a weapon is defensive does not mean it is inoffensive. If I can hit you, but you can’t hit me, you’re my bitch. Or not. Whichever I choose.
But what are you worried about? Truth, justice, and the American way. Our way. Got a problem with that? Didn’t think so.
Here I agree.
Here we diverge. One city is a serious loss, but so is “laying utter waste”, which is what would happen if the same exchange were to take place now, with no defense. On the whole, losing a single city is preferable to losing the capability of sustaining life for the next few hundred years.
Those states would have to do the same anyway, were they to attack now. They (making gross assumptions on which states you mean here) simply don’t have the same delivery systems as Russia, the U.K., Germany, or the U.S., and their purposes would be better served by delivering a bomb without giving away their country of origin. So once again, it can’t hurt to build a defense. Some is better than none.
Great. So we should get started on it. The sooner the better. IMO, it should have been in R&D for the last 20 years.
Joe Cool:
So which system do you propose building?
Edward Teller’s “Excaliber” nclear-pumped X-ray laser? (violate all sorts of treaties if you put it in orbit, imit it to practically ueless f sub-based, and inherit all the uncertainties and problems of it even working)
Lowell Wood’s “Brilliant Pebbles”? (Need lots, and a brilliant algorithm to go with them.)
MIRACL (MidInfra-Red Advanced Chemical Laser) or other chmical lasers? (Big and robus steering mirors, possible laser tanks of chemicals in space)
Rail guns?(Still not practical)
charged particle beams or neutral particle beams? (ditto)
A variation on Graham’s “High Frontier” system? (won’t protect you cities at all)
Any of these would be grotesquely expensive, and a cobination multiply so. They would have to interface cleanly and meet not only their own operation problems , but also problems of argeting and discrmination.
This isn’t trivia question – I dn’t see any of these as a workable system, and I don’t see the point of pouring money into putting one in place if it won’t do the job and will probably be abandoned later. Thats just a colossal waste of money, time, and effort.