At 09:47 3-3-01 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
>As for missile defense - many rational people believe that the threat is
>very real. For example, let's say that ten years from now, Pakistan -
>which has perfected a single nuclear ICBM - has its government overthrown
>(*again*) and a despotic leader ala Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeinei takes
>over.
That still doesn't justify such an enormous expense on a shield. With all
those surveillance satellites in orbit, the US will notice any missile
launch in a few seconds. The US military already has the means necessary to
take out a single missile by conventional means.
A shield will also be useless in case of an attack with large numbers of
missiles. It may be able to take out several missiles, but many will still
break through the shield and destroy their intended targets.
And who would want to launch an attack against the US? A country with only
one (or just a few) nuclear missiles will probably use them against their
neighbours. Countries in the Middle East will most likely target Israel;
Pakistan will probably use it against India. They simply have nothing to
gain from sending a single nuke to the US.
This leaves us with a few large countries with a large number of nuclear
weapons. But which one would attack the US? Russia? Russia has so many
internal problems, attacking the US is the last thing they need. China?
Nah. They are slowly opening up to the West, and can use hard Western
currency. It wouldn't make sense for them to attack the US -- they wouldn't
gain anything from it. Western Europe then? Not likely; last time I checked
we were still friends with the US.
> So, let's say that said despot lobs a nuclear weapon at
>Norfolk, VA. Will the American people *really* tolerate a retaliatory
>nuclear attack that serve only to wipe out hundres of thousands of
>Pakistani civilians? After all, said despot is hardly in power based on
>the popular support of his citizens. Indeed, such a retaliatory strike
>would likely only harden the Pakistani people (and the Muslim world) in
>opposition against us.
The prospect of hardened opposition never stopped the US before. Military
operations, support for Israel in their oppression of the Palestines, and
the sanctions against Iraq didn't exactly boost the popularity of the US in
the Middle East.
>SO, if the United States isn't going to retaliate with nuclear destruction
>on a minor nuclear power - then the whole logic of Mutually Assured
>Destruction breaks down. Suddenly, a petty dictator with the weapon can
>*logically* choose to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon in order
>to get what he wants.
What exactly would he get (assuming that the US with all its military might
fails to destroy the weapon in time)? He may become quite popular in his
own country for his bravery, but that's it. He does have a lot to loose
from it, though: most of the world would turn against him, and the US will
certainly retaliate with brute force (either conventional or nuclear).
>Yes, Jeroen, all weapons become outdated eventually - but that has never
>been a good reason to not develop them. Once the USA deploys a Missile
>Defence, somebody somewhere will begin working on a way to thwart the
>defence - but we'll keep working to keep our defences ahead of the game.
That's exactly what worries me; Bush's plans are a recipe for another Cold War.
Assume that country X has a large number of nukes aimed at the US. With the
shield in place, several missiles will not reach their intended targets.
So, in order to be able to hit all intended targets, country X will build
even more missiles so they can launch several of them against any specific
target (hey, one of them should be able to get trough!). The US doesn't
like the idea of a country having more nukes than the US, so it will
respond by increasing their number of nuclear weapons. Country X will find
this threatening, and build more weapons. And bang, there you have it:
another nuclear arms race.
I don't think very highly of GWB's intelligence (but that shouldn't come as
a surprise), but I doubt even he is so stupid that he wants to be
remembered as the president who started the Second Cold War. For the sake
of the world, I *hope* he isn't that stupid.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
Brin-L Party Page: http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/party.html
