John D. Giorgis wrote:
> At 10:01 PM 8/29/01 -0700 Doug wrote:
>
>>>If the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Pakistan, India,
>>>
>>ancient history
>>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! (ROFLH!)
>
> Five years ago, right? (giggle)
>
Pakistan was about 5 years ago, India more than 25? In any
case much too long to invoke as an extraordinary event that
compels withdrawal.
> I can just imagine the reaction of you liberals if Bush was President in
> '96 and decided immediately in the wake of the nuclear tests by India and
> Pakistan to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. OH boy.......
It would have made more sense then than now.
>
> Besides, I love how you've nicely made this a damned-if-you-do,
> damned-if-you-don't scenario. So Doug, do you think that we should have
> withdrawn from the ABM Treaty 5 years ago now? Or do you think we should
> wait to withdraw from the ABM Treaty until we have much greater confidence
> in the technology?
Or do I think we shouldn't withdraw from the treaty at all?
>
> If we're only allowed to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in the wake of a
> crisis by your standard now, I don't expect to hear any more comments from
> you about waiting for technological development.
>
An appropriate "extraordinary event" might be that some
other nation was developing the technology.
>
>>>and DPRK
>>>
>>They _have_ tested a bomb? We've confirmed that they have the tech?
>>
>
> It is the consensus of foreign policy experts that they have a bomb.
Can you cite? Not that I don't believe you, just that I
haven't read or heard of this as of yet.
>
> They also recently (1998 or 1999?) developed a missile (much to our
> surprise) that is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear
> payload.
Other than Alaska?
>
>
>>>(and the likely development of nuclear weapons by Iraq and Iran within 10
>>>
> years)
>
>>Something that might happen doesn't really count as an event of any
>>kind.
>>
>
> It most certainly does! Once someone like Saddam Hussein has multiple
> nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States, it may very well be
> too late for missile defense. If Hussein thinks that we can build
> defenses faster than he can build missiles, deciding to build a missile
> defense may well provide a perverse incentive for him to blow his wad.
>
>
>>One wonders, if deterrent was such a wonderful thing during
>>the cold war, why it is so inadequate now?
>>
>
> Actually, deterrant was a *terrible* thing during the Cold War. I am
> surprised to hear a liberal like you suggest otherwise. During the Cold
> War, we were preached incessantly to about the dangers of nuclear war, and
> the moral imperative for nuclear disarmament. Indeed, we darn near ended
> up with a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (or was that part of
> the "wonderful" aspect?)
>
> Finally, deterrant was our *chosen* (*not* "wonderful) option during the
> Cold War for no other reason than that adequate missile defense was not
> possible. IMHO, we got lucky that deterrance worked for as long as it
> did, and that no accident or mistake resulted in a nuclear exchange.
>
The bottom line is that deterrence worked. Not only did it
work to prevent nuclear war, it was instrumental in
preventing any of the kinds of Global conflicts that
occurred earlier in this century. And it forced us to carry
on a dialog with the Soviets, the kind of thing we can
choose not to do any more because our power has become so
pervasive.
> In a world where the likes of Iraq, Iran, and DPRK all have nuclear weapons
> - I'm not willing to bet the lives of millions on deterrance working again.
> Quite simply, missile defence is a moral imperative as soon as we can
> make the technology feasible.
But of course the question is if we can make the technology
feasible. There are a lot of smart people out there who
believe that the technology required to fool even the most
sophisticated ABM system can be developed easily, quickly
and inexpensively.
>
>
>>So why is Bush pushing Star Wars? My guesses:
>>
>
> Actually, Bush is not pushing for a space-based laser system at all......
Star Wars did not and does not refer solely to space based
lasers. It referred to Reagan's initiative to develop
defensive technologies. The name Son of Star Wars has been
used to describe the NMD (or whatever the new politically
correct name is.)
> but you haven't exactly won many points for accuracy in this message so
> far, so I'm not surprised.
>
>
>>1. Defense industry welfare/maintenance of a healthy defense
>>industry - If we don't maintain the flow of money to these
>>companies, they will wither as we have seen them do over the last
>>decade.
>>
>>2. Maintenance of forward progress in defense technology (closely
>>related to 1.) If we don't continue to innovate, we will lose our edge.
>>
>>3. A missile defense system would be ineffective as proposed, but
>>if tipped with nuke warheads they might well be very effective.
>>Just the EMF (?) from a nuclear explosion would probably knock out
>>the guidance systems of ballistic missiles within many km. Nobody
>>can talk about this of course because practically everyone on the
>>planet would throw a fit if that's what we said we were going to do.
>>
>>Please note that the above are only guesses based on speculation.
>>
>
> Yeah, and the sincere desire to protect millions of Americans and their
> cities from nuclear blackmail, nuclear annihiliation, or both had
> absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with his position in the
> very least. In fact, I betcha that it will be a cold day in hell before
> Bush, or anyother greedy, mud-grubbing, sanctimonious right-wing Republican
> ever cares at all that Americans might die from nuclear weapons in the
> hands of the sort of brutal, petty dictatorships that usually commit two
> human rights atrocities before eating breakfast each morning.
>
> I honestly don't know what is more disturbing, the arrogance of your
> cynical straw-man characerizations, or the fact that they keep getting
> reposted every other week.
>
> JDG
>
> P.S. Was this a flame? You betcha. But if people are going to accuse
> Bush, and by extension, people like me who agree with Bush, of having the
> above motivations for their beliefs - moreover including a secret plan to
> detonate nuclear bombs in the atmosphere so as to maximally spread
> radiation across the planet Earth - then I'm going to flame them. I
> personally can't imagine a greater insult than to suggest that Bush,
> myself, or anybody else would willfully design a system that would risk
> such extreme ecological damage for no greater purpose than to pay off
> buddy-buddy defense contractors. I'm willing to bet that nobody e-mailed
> Doug off-List about posting such dredge.
I see you've misunderstood me, mia culpa, let me go into
more depth.
My question has to be why would the President want to rush
to abrogate a long-standing treaty and possibly start a new
cold war in order to deploy a system that doesn't really
work yet and, according to many experts, never will have
much of a chance of working very well. One of the most
viable answers I came up with is that, given sufficient
firepower, the system _would_ work. So the reason such a
system would be considered is because it would work, not
because of any relationship between Bush and the military
industrial complex.
To address your point about extreme ecological damage let me
point out that the U.S. has developed "clean" weapons whose
impact on the environment would possibly be far less than
that of what I have to assume to be extremely "dirty"
weapons exploded over a population center by a "rogue
state." Furthermore, if they were successful in destroying
the incoming missile(s) the resulting fallout would be a
small price to pay for the death and destruction averted.
Now if it's such a viable idea, why not come clean? I
refer you to your own post on economics and the press for
the answer to that.
Finally, if I think that a viable system _can_ be
constructed using nuclear tipped defensive missiles, why am
I still against it? An ABM system would allow the U.S. to
better ignore the problems of the world rather than take an
active roll in solving them. We are high and mighty enough
as it is. We need to work to solve problems, not to find
ways to ignore them. Secondly, and I've made this argument
before, I think it more probable that if a "rogue state"
wanted to bomb the U.S., there are methods other than
launching an ICBM (from where we expect it) to do so.
Building an ABM system would make the possibility of a
nation using these alternative delivery schemes more likely.
As far as reasons 1 and 2 go, I truly believe that the
development of defense technology has suffered since the end
of the cold war. There has been a brain drain away from the
defense industry. I just think that there are more
constructive ways to perpetuate the kind of technologies we
need to stay strong. Put more money into the exploration of
space, for one.
In any case, I'm sorry you took my post in such a poor light.
--
Doug
new email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
