Which says a lot about the sheer folly of a NMD/SDI system, doesn’t it? 
Milo, the best answer that I can give you to this question is from the intro to their report:
So there you have it. From what I understand, noone in the defense establishment has challenged their findings on the basis of “If they knew what we know, they wouldn’t have said that.” Response has apparently ranged from more-or-less agreement to questioning such things as whether a country like North Korea could really develop and deploy a Mylar balloon technology!
As I noted, while I think a certain amount of idiocy / wishful thinking and influence of defense contractors plays a role in pushing NMD, I think the more important motivation is the view of Rumsfeld and others of the role of the U.S. in the post-Cold War world and a desire to take irreversible steps to push the nation in the direction that they think we ought to go. This is probably why, for example, they are trotting out the argument that even a very leaky shield would be worth deploying.
When I see people suggesting that countries such as Iraq can handle nuclear weapons resposibly, I just have to laugh.
Can you honestly claim that Saddham Hussein would not have used nukes in the Gulf War if they had been available?
Fortunately, the Israelis were not blinded by political correctness in 1981 when they decided to bomb the Osirak reactor (and Iraq’s nuclear program) out of existence.
While I have a hard time seeing how this relates to the NMD, I still can’t help commenting on it.
What is “responsible” handling of nuclear weapons ? You can bet that your archetypical bad guy, like Saddam Hussein, will know how to handle whatever nukes he has rationally, i.e. to ensure that he stays in power.
In the first place, I very much doubt that any Coalition would have gone against an Iraq armed with nukes - and that, in itself, is a very high motivation for getting one.
Even so, it would never have been to Iraq’s advantage to use a nuke against the US proper. It would have been way more effective to use it (or threaten to use it) tactically against the coalition land forces. If Saddam were to bomb a US city, he’d have a seriously pissed off Coalition in his back yard, run the risk of an immediate strategic counterstrike and be left alone by any potential ally.
If, OTOH, he decided to trigger an airburst over the Coalition land forces, he’d stand way better: The tactical threat would be reduced, the Coalition would probably not be able to agree on the reply, and allies would rally around him for two reasons: He would’ve stood up against the US, and he would be able to nuke those neighbours that failed to be appreciative.
So the likes of Saddam Hussein are not going to mount their nukes on ICBMs and target New York, NMD or not.
They’re going to deploy them tactically to prevent conventional intervention from the outside the next time they’re up for a little war. And any 21st century Maginot Line is sure as all hell not going to help there.
S. Norman
Two questions:
- Who has claimed such a thing
- How would NMD have stopped Iraq using nuclear weapons in the gulf war, when his likely target would have been forces deployed there, or Israel.
Yup, that’s about as good an analogy for NMD as we’re likely to see.
To add to what others have commented on this question, didn’t Saddam already have chemical weapons at the time? A recent BBC documentary on the Gulf War stated that he did, and that he refrained from using them for fear of repercussions.
We are fortunate indeed that not everyone in the world is blinded by “political correctendness”, or even diplomacy, and thank goodness there are still some trigger-happy people in this world of thumb-sucking pacifists!
As I am certainly far from being the expert on NMD, maybe someone can explain why it seems that we are emphasizing the least effective anti-missile weapons.
There is an article at the Federation of American Scientists’ website that compares the weapons being tested for ballistic missile defense. The article is by John Pike, one of the more vocal critics of the NMD; the conclusion of the article leaves no doubt as to his opposition to the program.
I was quite surprised to find that several of the anti-ballistic missile weapons have been tested successfully. To wit, the HAWK missile (which is based on '60s technology!) has been modified for an anti-ballistic missile role: “The upgraded system was successfully tested against two Lance target missiles at White Sands Missile Range, NM, in September 1994.”
Further, the Patriot missile, which performed telegenically but poorly in the Gulf War, has had two separate improvements building on that bad experience, one called the GEM (Guidance-Enhanced Missile) and the. “The GEM configuration was successfully tested against a ballistic missile defense target at Kwajalein Missile Range on February 7, 1997.” Then the ERINT missile, the basis for the Patriot PAC-3, has had three successful tests in November 1993, February 1994 and July 1994.
What I find particularly remarkable is that Pike does not mention any failed intercepts for any of the above systems, though given his position I would have expected him to do so.
There is also mention of the space-based laser program, which Pike says “has at last reached the end of its technological tether, having exhausted the possibilities of ground-based testing.” Whether this means they have perfected the weapon as far as it is possible to perfect it on the ground, or that ground-based testing has already conclusively proven the idea impossible, is not clear to me.
The THAAD missile, of course, has been a miserable failure, without a single successful test, as Pike documents at some length. The GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) had not been tested at the time the article was written; my understanding is that tests since then have proven every bit as disastrous as THAAD.
All this raises the question: given that the U.S. government has made such mighty efforts thorughout the 90’s and into the new century to build this thing, why does it appear that the most effort is being poured into systems like THAAD and GBI, which appear to have produced the worst results?