----- Original Message -----
From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: US Isolationism RE: US at war in 1940?1942? L3
> At 11:30 PM 6/13/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >5% of the worlds people using 25% of the world's energy. Pretty obvious
who
> >should cut back the most.
>
> Pretty obvious to me that the rest of the world has been impoverished by
> corrupt governments, and is not nearly using their fair share of energy.
>
> >Not my desire for a system who's $100 million tests (which consist of
trying
> >to hit the lamest excuse for a target that they could get away with,
> including
> >a "decoy" that actually aided detection) have all been miserable
failures.
>
> This is simply a lie. I don't know if you are lieing, or just repeating
> someone else's lie, but the above is simply not true. Almost all
previous
> tests of the missile defense system have been successes, save for the most
> recent test (or possibly the most recent two, if a test occurred that I am
> not remembering right now.)
Well, yes and no. From what I've obtained from the news the first tests
were "successful" because the targets were steered into the path of the
anti-missile missile as much as that missile being steered to hit the
target. Even in my last company, I've had to counter propaganda for rigged
successes. John, it certainly feels like that to me.
> Moreover, your above paragraph suggests a profound illiteracy regarding
the
> scientific method. Care to identify a single new technology that was
> developed by skipping all the simple tests and going directly to the most
> difficult test? Care to identify a single new technology that was
> developed without ever failing a test?
>
Would you grant that I have passing familiarity with the scientific method?
I've also have a lot of experience with the development of technology. I've
had more experience than I want with people who sell smoke and mirrors as
technology: often dominating valuable resources in the process.
I have no objection to tests. I think that the system that is being tested
now is virtually worthless: the counter measures phenomenally cheap and easy
compared to the real measures. What we have now is a system that is
supposed to hit targets in space. The obvious counter measure is to deploy
a number of balloons in space, all identical looking, one having the warhead
in it. We haven't begun to develop a system that can overcome such an easy
counter measure.
The only real hope that I see for an anti-missile system is a space based
laser system that can knock out missiles boost. There are even problems
with cheaper counter measures for that system (see that Scientific American
article), but at least those counter measures require a bit of
sophistication in rocket technology.
In short, what Bush is proposing is a deployment plan for a system that
doesn't even have the capability, even on paper, of overcoming simple
counter measures. (OK, there is probably a paper somewhere that says it
does, but I mean a plan that someone reasonably skilled in the art can see
and say "yea, that might work."
> This suggests that you have a profound misunderstanding of the mechanics
of
> delivering nuclear weapons. First, how many of those drugs are coming
> from the Middle East and Asia? More importantly, if smuggling is such a
> cheap and efficient way of delivering a nuclear weapon, *WHY* are all the
> rogue states on the planet vigorously pursuing more and better missiles?
>
Well, that's a good question, because the EZ deployment is definitely not a
missile. My guess is to have a demonstrated repeat capacity against near
neighbors and the psychological boost of seeing oneself on a par with the
strongest countries in the world. Remember, the leaders of these rouge
nations do not always act in a manner we deem logical.
But, let us say that a rouge nation wants to threaten NYC. All one has to
do is put a bomb in an container on a ship that docks in NYC. Shield the
bomb with plastic, and it will not be detectable.
> This is, of course, as opposed to the current situation, where Iraq, Iran,
> Pakistan, the DPRK, etc. have absolutely no desire to pursue
nuclear-tipped
> ballistic missiles. Yeah, triggering an arms race is a real risk here.
>
It is possible that Russia will be persuaded that the US will not gain first
strike capabilities vs. it. China, however, will not. If they are to keep
their deterrent, they will have to increase their nuclear missiles from
roughly a score. It is quite possible, then, that India will feel the need
to upgrade, which will compel Pakistan to upgrade....
Dan M.
