I may regret asking this, but here goes:
Milo, you’ve stated before in this thread that you’re inclined to think NMD/Star Wars/whatever is a bad idea, but frankly, every word you’ve said so far looks like you’re in favor, with your knee jerking at blinding speed.
Could you please explain why you’re coming to think it’s a bad idea? What arguments against it are you finding most convincing?
Sounded like you were, when you wrote in the OP, “And if it is so fantastic, why are China and other nations so concerned about it?” – as a way of implying “China and other nations are concerned, so we know we’re on the right track.”
Considering the system at best is still missing targets by over thirty thousand feet, I think it’s safe to say it’s not currently designed to do anything. 
Other than wasting taxpayer dollars, at least. 
(Yeah, yeah, I know, we don’t have the Soviet Union to be the Designated Bad Guys[super]TM[/super] any more, so we’ll need to get the Chinese to do the job instead. How can we justify a new Cold War without an enemy to play against?)
**
Sure, Elvis. As soon as you explain where and how my knee was jerking at blinding speed. And how every word I’ve said so far looks like I’m in favor.
If you only feel safe and comfortable as you fruggate with your ideology, good for you. I’m not afraid to ask questions or present arguments that I’m reading in the media, and see what the Teeming Millions have to say about them, however.
I haven’t seen Milossarian’s knee jerking at any speed, and apart from the lack of “sage remark, picmr” comments, I’m enjoying this thread.
Quite perspicacious of you, picmr.
Carry on.
Where are they, then? You were invited to explain why you think NMD is a “bad idea”, and what arguments most swayed you.
I refer you to your own OP.
Now, I’ll ask again: Show us all your ability and willingness to understand views you don’t already hold prior to entering a discussion. Explain to us all why you’ve concluded NMD is a bad idea.
Well, if your “anyone” includes the current Administration and about half of Congress, the answer seems to be “yes.” Senator Durbin (D-Illinois) sponsored an amendment last year that NMD not be deployed until it had passed rigorous and realistic testing. It was narrowly defeated.
The “why” is an intriguing question. In the case of the current Administration, I think they have decided that they want to get the U.S. out of the ABM treaty and are using NMD deployment as a pretext to do so. I guess their view is that somewhere down the road, it can be made to work (which is debatable, but not completely inconceivable) and thus it is best to trash the ABM treaty now while they have the power to do so. But, the larger subtext seems to be that treaties are for the weak and what the U.S. should be doing is using its muscle as the only remaining superpower to pursue its own interests, basically dictating to the world what should be done on any particular issue.
There’s also probably some domestic political issues wrapped up and it…and some influence from the defense /aerospace industry…and some very wishful thinking thrown in for good measure.
One thing for sure is that the decision to rush toward deployment of NMD and abandonment of the ABM treaty is not based in any way on sound science. It is completely a political decision. Thus, it is being opposed even by people such as Phil Coyle, former head of the Pentagon’s operational testing office during much of the Clinton Administration and himself a proponent of “theater missile defenses” to defend U.S. troops, etc. (like the Patriot system). In fact, one of the things that bothers him is that the emphasis on NMD is taking emphasis away from these systems which one can make a clearer justification for.
[So far, they have not proven to be very effective in real operational situations (the Patriots performed great in testing and abysmally during the Gulf War)…But, he believes that the technical obstacles to be overcome here are considerably less severe than will face NMD.]
As kimstu noted, I was down in D.C. for a couple of days last week with Union of Concerned Scientists learning about the whole NMD issue and then educating our senators and congresspeople about it (well, mainly their staffs). As part of the New York delegation, all with liberal Democratic representatives, we were essentially preaching to the choir. I may try to add some more points from that whole event later, but I see that most of the relevant points have already been made here…and besides I am way behind on the rest of my life!
You didn’t do a good enough job there, Elvis.
Your knee-jerking comment was completely off-base. You’ve been called on it by me and others.
Admit it and move on. Or don’t.
So I take it you’re not going to answer his question?
Milo,
You have already been directed to this report by MIT and the UCS. You have not responded to any of its points.
Just to summarise the points raised so far though:
[list=1]
[li] There’s no guarantee NMD will ever work[/li][li] Even if it should work, anyone who wants to nuke the US can look at ways of circumventing it or overwhelming its capabilities.[/li][li] Even if that is difficult, these “enemies” of the US can look to other methods of getting a nuke, biological or other MD device into the US.[/li][li] It will cost many billions of dollars[/li][li] It involves breaking a treaty the USA signed in good faith[/li][li] It may well kick off another arms race[/li][/list=1]And that’s just off the top of my head.
Here’s an idea. If you really want to protect American lives, how about spending a fraction of this budget on research into cancer, heart disease and obesity.
**
I know you’ve shown a propensity for ignoring everything I say and just inserting whatever fits well with your ideology, Tejota, but I’ve stated when Elvis’ specific question(s) would be answered.
Gary and jshore - Is the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose linked points all seem to make sense to me) privy to classified DoD technology and testing? Or are they guessing as to where we’re at and what our capabilities are, as we are?
“guessing”?
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
We’re not guessing that they can’t do it, we know they can’t do it! When they tout even the merest hint of success, are we then to assume that they are hiding something even more favorable to thier cause?
You want hard-headed and pragmatic? OK, try this on.
World peace. Or doom.
Take your time. Think it over. Choose.
Milo, you’ve been invited to actually engage in debate, by actually offering your own thoughts as to how you came to a conclusion you’ve mentioned several times. You continue to have the opportunity to enlighten all of us, by showing us all your thought process. Simply asserting a conclusion, while not explaining the facts and reasoning that led to it, convinces no one.
Or you can maintain your existing reputation on this board. Your choice, but you can change it at any time.
Elvis, you’ve got an incredible amount of nerve.
You accused me of having my knee-jerking all over the place in this thread. I wasn’t the only one who noticed that the comment had no basis in fact.
You were asked where and how my comments were knee-jerk. You couldn’t come up with an answer. Rather than retract or apologize, however, you hold yourself out as some model debater, tsk-tsking me?
A direct reflection upon your character. Thanks.
This was an interesting, engaging, informative discussion.
P.S. - Virtually everyone in this thread has listed the same reasons for opposing NMD - cost, effectiveness, the arms production increase and military instability that would ensue, that it wouldn’t be helpful against non-missile nuclear or biological attacks, and the proven effectiveness of MAD.
Why would you presume that I have different, special answers?
What my political ideology allows me to do that your’s apparently doesn’t, however, is inquire as to whether there are reasons the Bush administration believes such a system can be deployed by 2004 or 2006, other than Bush is an idiot and Rumsfeld is a big meanie who just wants to help his defense contractor friends. Your level of inquiry and interest stops there. Not a very SDMB way to be, in my opinion.
Goodness, Milo, where could anybody possibly have gotten the idea that you were in favor of some flavor of NMD?
Not to mention a few statements about how those wacky Russians, Chinese, and Islamic fanatics might just decide to lob a missile or two our way.
Yes, I have read your statements that you tend to oppose NMD. But would you please personally explain why you are not so keen on the idea, despite what looks to me like a whole lot of pro-Star Wars arguments? You are not usually one for posting arguments you do not believe in.
QUOTES 1 and 2: My assertion that a missile defense will eventually be possible, if not a good idea. I stand by that.
That’s a listed reason one often reads in support of NMD, is it not? I think Democrats and Republicans alike are in agreement on not wanting terrorist missiles raining down on us.
Right. Because as I said (in a quote that you omitted for some reason) I haven’t formed an ultimate, steadfast opinion against a missile shield. I am inclined to oppose it for the same reasons everyone else in this thread says they oppose it, the reasons I stated in my last post.
The operative phrase in the quote above is “work on developing.” Surely you recognize that this missile defense shield idea that some of you think is so ludicrous has been in continual development for years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations? And I believe the second part of that quote was that I realized my initial thought along those lines wouldn’t ultimately fly.
Exploring the concept generally because I am intrigued by it. Because I find the moral implications of buying into MAD interesting, however effective the concept may be. (Although I can’t imagine how to fully get out from under that threat now that it is in place. No country seems willing to do it unilaterally.)
Again, exploring the issue. This is really a difficult concept to understand? Has Great Debates become “have an entrenched position and don’t even consider wavering from it or even exploring other ideas?”
Quote from you:
**
Is that inaccurate? I sense an implication that you feel it is. And how does that position indicate support or opposition for NMD? Again, I think we’re all in agreement that that terrible possibility could occur, and none of us want it to. Aren’t we?
**
I find the idea intriguing. The subject and its larger implications regarding MAD and world peace rather fascinating. The idea that some think it can be put in place in a few years and others think it’s an absolute impossibility interesting.
And I find back-slapping, “me too” Great Debate threads to suck, particularly when it involves political bashing.
Hope my explanation is sufficient and makes some sense to you.
Thank you for the clarification, Milo. In the future, when you’re really not sure which position to take in a debate, you may wish to give equal energy to engaging both sides of the issue. The overall theme of your posts above seemed to be that we should give NMD a shot, despite the potential problems.
So do you then acknowledge that:
NMD would likely spark a nuclear buildup for countries like China, India, and Pakistan that currently have relatively small stockpiles.
The technology to provide an even partially adequate missile shield certainly isn’t available now, nor will it be in the near future.
NMD technology could be countered relatively easily.
Even if NMD worked perfectly, it would not prevent “rogue nations” or Osama Bin Laden from forever eliminating the New York Yankees from World Series contention via a nuke in a cargo container.
If 1-4 are true, why on earth should we waste the taxpayers’ money on what looks like a fundamentally flawed idea?
minty - You’re welcome.
**
The “against” side was coming through loud, clear, and repeatedly. There are a lot of interesting larger issues as you look at the concepts involved with this, and I was merely trying to ask questions and poke around some of them.
I seem to recall expressing support for concepts I cited in a column by liberal Michael Kinsley. But people will see what they want to see when they want to see it, I s’pose.
**
I view the overall theme of my posts as, “There are some very credible people who think a large-scale missile defense system is not only possible, it can be put in place in a relatively short time. What does that mean? What are the ramifications? If they don’t think they can do it, why are they acting as though they do?” etc.
I also note that the idea of missile/laser defense systems, and research toward developing them, ain’t goin’ away. It will be around as an issue for the next thousand years at least. That would seem to make it a debatable matter.
**
Yes, it likely would. Particularly if they were under the impression that whatever shield was penetrable by overwhelming it.
**
Well, not so fast there. As far as we know, you are correct. I imagine the most cutting-edge aspects of where we are at on this technology are highly classified.
**
I wouldn’t presume to know.
**
True. You would only want to develop a missile defense to stop flown-in weapons of mass destruction. We need to address other types of threat along those lines differently. I presume that we are (thinking about the terrorists who were stopped at the Canadian border prior to New Year’s, 2000).
Here is an indication that the Bush administration sees other kinds of domestic terrorism threats as needing attention as well.
**
If 1-4 are true, you are right.
But shoot, even if only my #4 is correct, I hardly see the point of deploying any system that isn’t darned near 100% effective against a large-scale missile attack. If Kim Jong Il gets a bee in his bonnet about firing a nuclear shot across the bow of the great imperialist U.S.A. running-dog (or whatever), preventing him from doing so via one delivery method is utterly meaningless when he can still blow up the city of his choice without any missiles at all.
Supposedly, Rumsfeld and his compadres want to develop and deploy a system capable of handling the handful of nuclear weapons that exist in places like N. Korea, Iraq, China, etc. That seems ridiculously short-sighted and meaningless to me–like guarding nothing but the airports and claiming you’ve protected somebody in the witness protection program from mafia hitmen.
To all you accusers, I believe absolutely that Milo was merely trying to stimulate debate on this issue with his pro-NMD arguments. There certainly weren’t many posters falling over each other to argue in favor of the concept, something I’m sure Milo found disappointing, and if he hadn’t done so it would’ve been a pretty one-sided debate.
However, I think this equine is about ready to head to that big ol’ corral up above… unless of course we can set up a NDHAS* in time to blow it out of the sky in transit.
*[sub]National Dead Horse Assault System[/sub]