Missile defense: Is the U.S. safer with China (and others) able to nuke us?

[Milossarian]

If you want to use this thread as an opportunity to Bush-bash or Republican-rail, I suppose that’s your right, but I would prefer you take it elsewhere instead.

The missile defense shield idea is obviously something that’s going to be around well into this and future generations. As our technological capability advances, it will become a more and more viable option, and a more and more prevalent topic of debate. In that sense, it transcends partisan politics, regardless of who is bringing it up now.

To those of you who might think the idea of a missile defense shield is pure fantasy or folly (you may recall that Reagan’s proposal was dubbed “Star Wars” out of derision), I think you eventually will be shown to be like those who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground. Historically, we seem to have proven that if something isn’t impossible by the laws of science and physics, we can eventually find a way to do it, or something close to it.

And if it is so fantastic, why are China and other nations so concerned about it?

As noted in this article:

China has accused George W Bush of threatening global peace with his missile defence plans.

The country’s state-run press says the President’s plans would ignite an arms race and destroy disarmament efforts. China fears that missile defences could blunt the deterrent effect of its small nuclear arsenal.
<snip>
The China Daily newspaper said: “The United States is taking a dangerous course. The United States … is apparently attempting to seek absolute military supremacy and even greater global hegemony.”
<snip>
The plan “will trigger a new arms race and destroy what has been achieved so far with international disarmament efforts,” the China Daily said.
<snip>
Britain and Canada have stopped short of endorsing the plan. Sweden, Germany and others have expressed deep concern, fearing the plan could jeopardise global security. Australia has said it would let Washington use its communications facilities for such a defence if requested.

This brings up an interesting point: the effectiveness and necessity for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

As those of us old enough to remember can recall, The Cold War era always had an underlying uneasiness to it, with the reality that nuclear missiles could fly at any time, and if one nation attacked another with them, it would likely spark a global nuclear conflict that could end life on earth.

But it can be argued that that frightening reality is what kept the world’s powers at relative peace for 55 years.

Today, China is essentially saying in its concerns about the U.S. missile defense sheild, “If we lose the ability to kill you, it will be a national security dilemma for us, in terms of then having to be afraid of you.” There has even been some talk out of China that they would act in a preemptive way miltarily before they let it happen.

One point in favor of a missile defense shield is the increasing capabilities for rogue nations and terrorists when it comes to missiles. It seems like a matter of when, not if, a missile attack comes from one of these sources against us or a close ally.

My first thought was - why not work on developing a worldwide shield, under the authority of, say, the UN Security Council? But the U.S. would never go for that, because of China and even Russia’s ability to then have full knowledge of the system’s operation and how to thwart it.

So, what should we do? Would the world and U.S. be safer or less safe places with America having a missile defense shield? Should we stick to Mutually Assured Destruction? Is there ever a way we can get out of the MAD system? How?

(I know, I know. When we all join hands and sing and dance among the flowers as brothers and sisters. Besides that.)

[hawthorne]

Well, yeah, as far as MAD goes, any defensive or first strike capabilty is bad (destabilising) Retaliatory firepower is good (stabilising). Anything that allows or is suspected to allow a country to undertake (or think it can undertake) a nuclear attack without getting crapped on as a consequence heightens tensions. And if (say) China believes that the US believes it has some chance of making a strike on China without facing catastophic consequences, then this is going to make China very uncomfortable.

Today, China is essentially saying in its concerns about the U.S. missile defense sheild, “If we lose the ability to kill you, it will be a national security dilemma for us, in terms of then having to be afraid of you.”

It’s nastier than that since China will factor this into its reading of US behavior.

If I were a rogue nation I would not attack the US with a missile now (ie without a shield, even if it were presumed to work) because I would face retaliation. I’d bring a nuke or a chemical weapon in in a suitcase, by boat, or spray it by commercial light aircraft.

I wouldn’t want a UN shield because we’d all be dust before they agreed to use it.

The world is a less safe place with the missile defence shield. It addresses a non-problem (since that’s not the way they’d attack) and it destabilises the situation with established powers (since it undermines their security).

In a world with nuclear weapons, MAD is the safest bet we have. This programme suggests policy makers do not understand this and/or are confident enough of the US’ situation to be willing to line the pockets of defence contractors on developing this dubious technology nonetheless.

[xenophon41]

Good thread idea.

Though I may not be as qualified as some on this board to discuss the strategic implications, I’m invoking my right to a strong opinion as an ex Cold Warrior. I was on a US missile submarine crew between 1978 and 1982 (USS Casimir Pulaski SSBN 633), and I can tell you I felt at the time, and still do, that the ability of both sides to deliver a crushing nuclear blow to the other side was a major stabilizing factor in world politics. Whatever chronic uneasiness it brought with it, the concept of MAD was accepted by all parties as the major check on military aggression among the superpowers. Having said that, I’ll now reveal that the idea of a “Star Wars” type missile defense system being taken seriously by this administration fills me with misgivings:[list=1][]Building (or attempting to build) such a system sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that we’re either fearful of a massive missile attack from other nations, or that we want to preemptively defend against a reaction to planned aggression on our part. Can anyone tell me why the Chinese pose such a larger threat of initial aggression than the Soviets did? If not, then what the hell are we planning?[]Having such a system (assuming it could work at all — and I think you’re much too optimistic about that, Milo) would be a major enabling condition for future administrations to engage in that “capatilist imperialism” we heard about so often in Soviet rhetoric. -By which I mean major commitments of US military force around the world to force a “democratic” agenda in economically strategic areas.[]Having such a system would also increase the likelihood that other nations would shift their focus toward building up massive conventional forces, and toward biological agents.[]Such a system is useless against “rogue nation” or terrorist attacks. You don’t need an operating missile to nuke an American city; all you need is an operating warhead. I won’t spell it out for you, but I’m sure you can think of some very obvious ways to get a warhead within a few miles of any American coastal city.Such a system would discourage American participation in global disarmament and diplomatic solutions. (I can just picture the Jesse Helms type of politician forgetting the “walk softly” part of Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick approach.)[/list=1]No, Milo, I don’t see any protection for the US in developing such a system, and I certainly see no advantage for the rest of world. The only sure way out of the MAD system is global nuclear disarmament.

[Milossarian]

Some interesting (and opposing) opinions on the subject today in the Wall Street Journal, and in Michael Kinsley’s column in the Washington Post.

(Incidentally, guess which one of the two columns has a more snipe-y, more vitriolic tone, and characterizes the opposing side in a negative light? Some people who always harp on Rush Limbaugh for being like that really need to take a look in the mirror.)

But I digress. Good points are made in both.

Notes the WSJ:

there are people in defense ministries all over the world who are … committed to buying, or stealing, the latest American upgrades in missile production, guidance and propulsion. The FBI yesterday arrested three Lucent workers, charged with transferring technology to China.
<snip>
Bear in mind that the clear implication of the ABM status quo is that if a San Francisco or Denver is attacked, our defense is that we will retaliate in kind against someone else’s civilian populations. This is a morally ambiguous status quo, at the least.

Interesting, I thought. Would not a position of defense, of swatting away like Shaquille O’Neal parked in the lane, be more acceptible from a moral, human standpoint than resolving to destroy millions of innocent people if millions of our innocent people are killed?

Kinsley points out many of the same arguments regarding the necessity of preserving MAD that are presented here.

Specifically, it is important to be vulnerable to a “second strike” – that is, a retaliatory strike by an arsenal crippled by your potential “first strike.” Why? Because you don’t want anybody with nukes pointed at you to think they have to use’em or lose’em. As long as they can rain cataclysmic damage on us by striking second, they have no more incentive than we do to strike first.
<snip>
It would be nice to have a strategic defense system just good enough to snare an incoming nuke from an Iraq or Afghanistan – and no better. But even that dream defense would work only if the bomb is delivered via ICBM, which may be less likely than BMW or UPS.

xeno: First off, thank you for your service. I appreciate it.

An effective missile defense system may indeed still be somewhat farfetched, but ask yourself this: Is it more realistic now than when Reagan proposed it in 1983? Unquestionably. And it will be even more realistic in another 17 years?, and so on.

Another thought - What’s to stop other nations from developing and implementing similar missile defense shield systems? If the U.S. sees such a system as eventually inevitable, even if a century off into the future, wouldn’t they want to be the ones who had it, instead of the ones subject to it?

Parallels can be drawn to the race to develop the A-bomb during WW II. We couldn’t afford to have the attitude that it was just too terrible of a thing and refuse to make it.

(I know that argument is “Dr. Strangelove”-ian)

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
(Incidentally, guess which one of the two columns has a more snipe-y, more vitriolic tone, and characterizes the opposing side in a negative light? Some people who always harp on Rush Limbaugh for being like that really need to take a look in the mirror.)

Rush lies. repeatedly. In fact, MOSTLY. Kinseley so far does not.

Bear in mind that the clear implication of the ABM status quo is that if a San Francisco or Denver is attacked, our defense is that we will retaliate in kind against someone else’s civilian populations. This is a morally ambiguous status quo, at the least.

Interesting, I thought. Would not a position of defense, of swatting away like Shaquille O’Neal parked in the lane, be more acceptible from a moral, human standpoint than resolving to destroy millions of innocent people if millions of our innocent people are killed?

[/quote]

Sure it would, but that’s pure fantasy.

1. There is no credible threat of an ICBM attack that we need to defend against.

2. No current or forseeable technology that we have/will have can be an effective shield. Even if we can stop 80% of the incoming missiles, Denver is still a wasteland. The only missile shield that is an improvement over deterrence is a perfect one. Otherwise we are still relying on deterrence AND we’ve wasted the money.

A defensive position would be better. IF we could convince the world that we won’t use our safety from retaliation as a platform to harm them from. (which we can’t, especially not with Bush doing the unilateral dance). AND we can actually be safe (which we can’t).

there are people in defense ministries all over the world who are … committed to buying, or stealing, the latest American upgrades in missile production, guidance and propulsion. The FBI yesterday arrested three Lucent workers, charged with transferring technology to China.

Which is one of the primary reasons why we can’t build a shield that our rivals can’t defeat.

An effective missile defense system may indeed still be somewhat farfetched, but ask yourself this: Is it more realistic now than when Reagan proposed it in 1983? Unquestionably. And it will be even more realistic in another 17 years?, and so on.

It will never be realistic. Regan style was fantasy, and so is today’s. The only reason that Bush style is less fantastic is because he isn’t even pretending to try and build a perfect defense.

Our technology will continue to improve, 17 years from now we will be able to build a much better system than today. BUT it will still be a fantasy to actually build one and think it makes a safer.

The problem here isn’t whether or not we can create better missiles that we had before. Of course we can. Just as the Wright brothers were able to fly.

What we can’t do is create a defense better than the rest of the worlds ability to counter it. The Wright brothers would never have gotten off the ground if the universe were able to change the rules of the game after each successful trial flight. But that is PRECISELY the situation that missile defense puts us in.

It will always be easier to counter a missile defense than to counter the countermeasures. Missile defense only works against an adversary that isn’t trying.

Another thought - What’s to stop other nations from developing and implementing similar missile defense shield systems? If the U.S. sees such a system as eventually inevitable, even if a century off into the future, wouldn’t they want to be the ones who had it, instead of the ones subject to it?

The same physical laws that make it impossible for us to create an effective one. The same laws that make it impossible to create a tank with armor that can’t be pierced by next years anti-tank missile. Because we can’t count on them to stop innovating. Because the guy on the other side has a brain too.

A missile-shield-fantasy can’t make us (or anyone else) safe, but it CAN start a new arms race.

Actually, there is one possibility. Still very much in the realm of fantasy, but if you could use lasers or particle beams to shoot down missiles, then you could concievably create a world where ICBM’s are obsolete once and for all.

But that still wouldn’t make us safe, because the bad guys would have gigawatt lasers too, and if they aim them at us, then our fancy missile shield is useless, because the bad guys aren’t using missiles.

Parallels can be drawn to the race to develop the A-bomb during WW II. We couldn’t afford to have the attitude that it was just too terrible of a thing and refuse to make it.

Draw your parallels then. I’ll tear them apart for you. Although I really can’t see you can calling a missile shield terrible. That’s my word for the idea, not yours.

tj

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Originally posted by Milossarian:

I think you eventually will be shown to be like those who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground.

I feel the need to point out the obvious: many primitive aircraft fell apart or crashed before that first “success”. How many incoming ICBMs do we fail to shoot down before we get the shield “fine tuned” to the point where it is reliably efficient?

You’re probably right about the inevitable evolution of technology. If not the government, then some research lab at MIT or somewhere will figure out how to do it. Eventually it’ll become feasible to put a defense shield of some kind into place, the only question is when. Also keep in mind that we will be planning to put into force a defense shield ten years from now that will only be capable of shooting at today’s missles.

I have a question for those more in the know: Why are we even publicizing this? Why isn’t it a government “blank check” project that gets developed secretly, and then deployed around our continental borders. The existance of our new defense capabilities would only become public knowledge when we successfully began shooting down incoming missles.

[Gadarene]

An effective missile defense system may indeed still be somewhat farfetched, but ask yourself this: Is it more realistic now than when Reagan proposed it in 1983? Unquestionably. And it will be even more realistic in another 17 years?, and so on.

Until you show me ABM tests that actually, y’know, work, I see no reason to believe this statement to be true. I think you’re overstating the potential efficacy of a missile defense system by assuming that our capacity in that area must necessarily continue to improve.

Due to advances in medical technology, we now live longer than ever before. Logically, then, lifespans will continue to lengthen in the future until we eradicate natural death entirely. Right?

[Kimstu]

OP: *To those of you who might think the idea of a missile defense shield is pure fantasy or folly (you may recall that Reagan’s proposal was dubbed “Star Wars” out of derision), I think you eventually will be shown to be like those who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground. Historically, we seem to have proven that if something isn’t impossible by the laws of science and physics, we can eventually find a way to do it, or something close to it. *

(I must say, I like that “laws of science and physics” bit! What, physics is chopped liver or something? :))

Just pinch-hitting for jshore who just went to a scientists’ training session about NMD and who will, I hope, soon show up with more details about the science than I know. But in the meantime, here’s a summary of a 2000 joint report by the Union of Concerned Scientists and MIT on the feasibility and desirability of NMD. Some of their conclusions (focusing only on the technical practicality issues and not on the global policy implications):

(1) The planned NMD system could be defeated by technically simple countermeasures. Such countermeasures would be available to any emerging missile state that deploys a long-range ballistic missile. […]

(2) Many operational and technical factors make the job of the defense more difficult than that of the attacker.

First, the defense must commit to a specific technology and architecture before the attacker does. This permits the attacker to tailor its countermeasures to the specific defense system. Second, the job of the defense is technically much more complex and difficult than that of the offense. This is especially true for defenses using hit-to-kill interceptors, for which there is little margin for error. Third, the defense must work the first time it is used. Fourth, the requirements on defense effectiveness are very high for a system intended to defend against nuclear and biological weapons – much higher than the requirements on offense effectiveness. […]

(7) The planned testing program for the NMD system is inadequate to assess the operational effectiveness of the system.

Read the full summary or the report itself available via the above link for more details. The OP is right that technical progress seems to go on marching right along, and it is reasonable to expect that not all of the above objections will be valid forever (though it seems to me that point (2), about defense being intrinsically more difficult than offense, is a problem built into the missile-defense concept, so that MAD will always have at least this advantage over NMD). But Attrayant is correct that not all technical problems, even the theoretically solvable ones, follow some kind of Moore’s Law that enables us to count on solving them within a given time frame. This is why, while I can certainly see the advantages to continuing research on NMD, Bush’s proposal of committing to actual deployment of a full defense system within the next decade or so is a completely crazy idea, IMHO. Certainly, committing to spending several billion dollars on such a project over the next five years seems extravagantly foolish.

[Milossarian]

FWIW, it might be helpful to some of you to note that I have not expressed support for a missile defense system.

I stated I believe it isn’t an impossible notion, or at least won’t be forever. The Chinese and several other nations apparently agree. How do you account for that, Gadarene?

Tejota -

quote:

Parallels can be drawn to the race to develop the A-bomb during WW II. We couldn’t afford to have the attitude that it was just too terrible of a thing and refuse to make it.

---

Draw your parallels then. I’ll tear them apart for you.

OK; go ahead. You haven’t yet. My point is, like with the A-bomb in the 1940s, different nations were working to develop it, knowing the one that did first would have a decided advantage. That would seem to be the case with a working missile defense system.

I agree with you, that if a system is not adaptable, it wouldn’t be effective for very long.

Attrayant: Good point. I have no idea.

Gadarene:

**Due to advances in medical technology, we now live longer than ever before. Logically, then, lifespans will continue to lengthen in the future until we eradicate natural death entirely. Right?

**
Bad analogy. Because despite the extent of medical advances, the human body has its limitations and thresholds. With missiles and missile defenses, it’s a technology-technology equation.

Kimstu - I meant the laws of science and, more specifically, physics. I didn’t mean to assign physics to the ghetto. I always thought of it as the high-rent district.

I will be sure to read your link. (Your post snuck in while I was previewing.)

[edwino]

Originally by Milosarrian
Would not a position of defense, of swatting away like Shaquille O’Neal parked in the lane, be more acceptible from a moral, human standpoint than resolving to destroy millions of innocent people if millions of our innocent people are killed?

To make your example more realistic: The US is the basketball hoop, Shaquille O’Neal is NMD. One guy with the ball is driving – the ICBM. In the real world, Mr. ICBM would have 200 of his best friends also driving the lane. Shaq would have to defend against all of them, as he can’t see the ball. And they are driving the lane at Mach 25.

For the purpose of “safety” and “security” NMD is quite like the alchemists’ stone or the fountain of youth. It is an appealing idea, but it isn’t worth spending your life pursuing. OTOH, if you are a defense contractor, you look at the $120 billion put into missile defense over the last 40 years, you look at the combined aspects of fancy new technology and prospects of American Invulnerability, and you see something that you can sell to Americans to put your kids through college and get that Porsche Boxster.

Bush has been sold down the river on the advice of Rumsfeld, who IMHO is designing our whole defense policy to make NMD look more appealing. More money for defense, more money for defense contractors first, world stability second. NMD looks to be the most promising example of government wastefulness ever. Forget pork barrel: this is the entire meat processing industry barrel.

People will argue that NMD will give us all types of new types of technology that can be used in everyday life. My answer is that there are much more efficient ways to design Tang than sending a man to the moon. Invest the NMD money into science education for kids. Put it into physics research. Maybe some dude will come up with a gigawatt laser that can fit in a shoebox, and then we can start the debate up for real.

Unfortunately, the last 50 years has showed us that MAD works now. It is not the best forseeable strategy, nor the most moral. The world has adopted a MAD equilibrium, though, and shifting this equilibrium based on unproved and currently unfeasable technology is a crappy idea.

[Gadarene]

Milo:

I stated I believe it isn’t an impossible notion, or at least won’t be forever. The Chinese and several other nations apparently agree. How do you account for that, Gadarene?

I’d like to see the evidence upon which their beliefs are supported, especially in light of the objections raised in Kimstu’s link. Forever is a long, long time, Milo. Is there anything specific about recent NMD test results or scientific advances that gives you and these myriad nations reason to believe that this is an issue which demands attention in the immediate future? I ask this honestly.

Bad analogy. Because despite the extent of medical advances, the human body has its limitations and thresholds. With missiles and missile defenses, it’s a technology-technology equation.

Then your faith in ever-advancing science falls a little short too, doesn’t it? Because it’s a technology versus technology equation, and if Kimstu’s link is accurate, the technology needed to construct a working ABM system is far greater than that needed to breach it.

I’d conjecture, by the way, that edwino is on point: the other countries believe it can be done in part because we tell them so, and we believe it can be done in part because we are told so by the defense contractors who stand to make millions of dollars trying.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
To those of you who might think the idea of a missile defense shield is pure fantasy or folly (you may recall that Reagan’s proposal was dubbed “Star Wars” out of derision), I think you eventually will be shown to be like those who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground. Historically, we seem to have proven that if something isn’t impossible by the laws of science and physics, we can eventually find a way to do it, or something close to it.

Eventually, yes.

At our current (and near-future) levels of technology? Fat chance.

As a former aerospace engineer who’s worked on several major weapons systems myself, I find the last public SDI test results to be very telling – to summarize quickly, the test interceptor missile missed the dummy target warhead by over thirty thousand feet. And this was even after all of the parameters of the target (altitude, velocity, weight, flight path) were known in advance to the crew preparing the interceptor – a luxury they would not have under combat conditions.

Of course, the Pentagon called this fiasco a “success” – after all, an admission of failure would jepoardize the whole scheme. But hey, what’s another hundred million dollars anyway?

And if it is so fantastic, why are China and other nations so concerned about it?

Because if we actually did get a working SDI system in place, what’s to stop us Americans from being even bigger jerks than we already are?

(I know, I know. When we all join hands and sing and dance among the flowers as brothers and sisters. Besides that.)

Yeah, screw diplomacy – just get the shield working, then nuke all our enemies until they glow in the dark. Being nice to people is just too much of a hassle…

(By the way, Milo, thanks. When I first saw the topic title, I was able to predict your viewpoint down to the last Republican bullet point even before reading the OP. I’m glad I wasn’t disappointed.)

[Blackclaw]

My problem with the NMD idea is that it doesn’t stop me from driving a Ford pickup truck with a nuke strapped to it into the country. Okay, more realistically, it won’t stop a freighter with a nuke in its cargo hold from entering New York Harbor. It seems we are designing a defense against the least likely of possible attacks. Most rogue states that are close to becoming a nuclear power still have much work to do before they perfect an ICBM to put that nuke on. It is unlikely that they will bother. Why launch an attack that will be easily tracked and assure retaliation?

[Milossarian]

News flash, rjung: I don’t have a position on the U.S. implementing a missile defense system. I’d like to get more information. If pushed to give a position, I would say I’m opposed to it.

I’ve also presented information and asked questions from both sides.

I bring the topic up for debate because it’s an interesting topic to debate, if people can take their partisan blinders off and look at the issue in a more general sense.

But if that doesn’t fit well with the little fantasy construct you’ve created for yourself, feel free to tune out and Needs2Know away. Lord knows I’ve seen you do it in other recent threads.

[Measure_for_Measure]

More Information

Still More Information

Even More Information

Re: The China Question:
China has many problems the Nuclear Missile Defense.

1. Being an emerging third world country, they’d rather not have to triple (or whatever) their ICBM cache. They would rather not run the risk, however small, of losing 2nd strike capability.

2. They really would like to avoid having Taiwan supplied with a Nuclear Missile Defense/ Theater Missile Defense system (NMD/TMD) which could insulate Taiwan from Chinese threats, thereby encouraging Taiwan to unilaterally declare independence.
   From the article:

What Chinese officials of all stripes cannot understand is why the United States is willing to jeopardize secure relations with China not only by deploying NMD but even by considering supplying TMD to Taiwan. They have great difficulty believing that Washington sincerely believes that North Korea endangers American security and that it cannot be deterred. “A huge superpower and you say you’re afraid of tiny little North Korea?” exclaimed Sha Zukang in a recent interview. “We think that’s ridiculous.” Still, Beijing, along with Moscow, continues to urge Pyongyang to drop its ICBM program entirely in order to undercut U.S. voices favoring NMD.

[Pushkin]

Isn’t the world safer without the US shield? I’m no expert on these matters but in the last century didn’t the US twice come close to getting trigger happy with China, threatening openly about any possible Chinese aggression towards Taiwan and getting twitchy when it came to the Korean war.
Besides, if other “rogue” nations can’t get a nuke through the shield won’t they just try for biological or chemical weapons instead. Just as deadly and perhaps more indiscriminate.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
News flash, rjung: I don’t have a position on the U.S. implementing a missile defense system.

I’d give this my Eyebrow-Raiser of the Week™ award, except Bush already took it for insisting that his hand-picked social security reform panel hasn’t already decided in favor of privatizing Social Security.

**But if that doesn’t fit well with the little fantasy construct you’ve created for yourself, feel free to tune out and Needs2Know away. **

Nah, I’ll just sit here and watch you. I’m sure you won’t disappoint me.

[ITR_champion]

Milo, China and other opponents have provided a simple and clear explanation for why they oppose the missile defense shield: it would trigger a new international arms race. You seem to automatically dismiss this explanation as false, and to assume that the Chinese have some more sinister motivation for their stance. Could you explain why? Furthermore, why would contries like Britain, which as an ally of the U.S., will be protected by the missile defnse shield if the Bush administration does follow its plan to protect our allies, be opposed as well? Are Britain, Germany, and Sweden all secretly planning to launch missiles against us?

**Some interesting (and opposing) opinions on the subject today in the Wall Street Journal, and in Michael Kinsley’s column in the Washington Post.

(Incidentally, guess which one of the two columns has a more snipe-y, more vitriolic tone, and characterizes the opposing side in a negative light? Some people who always harp on Rush Limbaugh for being like that really need to take a look in the mirror.)
**

Your link to the WSJ sent me to some of their standard democrat-bashing. Is the editorial that you were refering to still around, or has it been moved to the pay-archives?

(Incidentally, the editorial that I found at that link could be the definition of snipe-y and vitriolic, and its sole purpose was to characterize the opposing side in a negative light.)

**
Notes the WSJ:

there are people in defense ministries all over the world who are … committed to buying, or stealing, the latest American upgrades in missile production, guidance and propulsion. The FBI yesterday arrested three Lucent workers, charged with transferring technology to China.

**

Yeah, funny that the WSJ doesn’t mention that the stolen software technology only deals with voice communication, not with military technology. Uh oh, those wacky Chinese have call waiting, we’d better build a NMD system. Here’s an article that covers it in detail: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010504/tc/crime_lucent_dc_5.html

Several posters have already pointed out that the proposed missile defnse shield completly misses the point in terms of protecting us from rogue states, and that it would actually distract our security forces from the more serious threat of nuclear terrorism. Thus, proponents of missile defense want us to believe that their’s a powerful nation with strong military capability that’s currently out to get us, and China has been the obvious target. Politicians have released quite a bit of anti-Chinese propaganda, and the media has pretty much just played along.

**
Bear in mind that the clear implication of the ABM status quo is that if a San Francisco or Denver is attacked, our defense is that we will retaliate in kind against someone else’s civilian populations. This is a morally ambiguous status quo, at the least.
**

The clear implication of the ABM status quo is that nobody else will attack us, because we are capable of striking back.

To cite the Wright brothers analogy, look at it this way. It’s 1895, and some guys are asking you for the equivalent of sixty billion dollars because they think that they might be able to build an engine-powered airplane at some point in the future. Would you promise them the money?

[Testy]

Like you, I spent some time being a deterrent. (SSBN620 Gold 1976-1980) but I have a different take on this.

I vividly remember my first ComConEx as an E4 when I thought the US had just been nuked out of existance. It never crossed my mind that we would launch on a pre-emptive basis.

I was also in Dhahran Saudi Arabia when the Iraqis were firing scuds. The last one that killed those Army guys was 400 meters from my back door. The Patriot battalions had a bad time but got at least a few before they landed.

When you and I were deterring the Soviets, they were far from nice guys but they were rational. They weren’t religious fanatics and they wouldn’t launch out of national pride. They would have gotten hurt at LEAST as badly in a nuclear exchange; they knew that and it deterred them.

With other leaders, I’m not so sure that logic and reason rule them. More to the point, I don’t think they place the same value on the lives of their citizens. North Korea in particular has just starved quite a few of their citizens, some Middle Eastern people believe they will immediately get into heaven if they’re killed in a holy war.

Taken as a whole, I’d rather have an NMD than not. While it certainly doesn’t work now, it can be made to work.

Regards.

Testy.

[woolly]

Just playing a hypothetical.

Beijing announces tomorrow morning that they have developed and deployed a “purely defensive” weapons shield capable of protecting their own air-space using lasers powered by rice wine vinegar reactors and exploiting an obscure Doaist theory of particle physics. Further they publicise trial results performed to external scrutineers showing the system has worked effectively in three of the four attempts. The initial reaction of Western scientists is “hmm, they might be onto something”. Beijing also announces that they will offer the technology to nations in the “Red Axis” as a counterbalance capitalist expansionism and hegemony.

** Question: ** On hearing this announcement would the U.S. collectively break out the champagne in celebration of a fundamental step in the promotion global peace and harmony? Or would they be more inclined to crank up the miliary machine to restore the offensive/defensive balance?

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of geniuus – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction” Albert Einstein

Kind Regards,
Woolly