----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: ABM Treaty
> At 22:53 30-8-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
>
> > >> 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.
>
> It was also the consensus of the experts that the Soviet Union would not
> fall, and that Iraq would not invade Kuwait...
>
> I must agree with Doug here. If you want to use the possible possesion of
> nuclear arms by any country as a reason for backing out of the ABM Treaty,
> you must first supply proof that said country actually *does* have nuclear
> weapons. The "consensus of foreign policy experts" does not qualify as
> proof -- especially given their less-than-stellar track record (see
above).
>
>
> >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.
>
> Another reason why we should not put too much faith in what the "experts"
> say...
>
>
> > >>(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!
>
> It most certainly does not! If we allow this, the road is wide open for
> every country to use any possible future event as a reason to arm
> themselves to the teeth.
So, you are arguing that the US needs to wait until, say, New York is no
more before installing a missile defense. I've posted that I think that
deploying what we have now is not sensible, but I certainly think the US is
more than justified in doing the R&D needed to develop such a system in the
future. Why doesn't the US, as a sovereign nation, have the right to ensure
the safety of its citizens?
>The result: another arms race, another Cold War, more chances of some
idiot government getting >so pissed at their neighbors that they hit the
<Launch> button. Not something I look forward to.
The only possible way that this could be true is if the countries that, at
the present time, have a MAD balance with the US would lose that balance in
the future, and if these countries have the economic power to match the US
in an arms race.
The countries that presently have the ability for a second strike capacity
vs. the US are:
Russia
China
Great Britain
France
I think it is fair to say that Great Britain and France are not worried by a
US nuclear attack. The missile defense that Bush is talking about would
definitely not affect the Russian MAD deterrent. It would, however, guard
against the potential for attacks by small groups within Russia in the
eventuality that the government loses command and control of their missiles.
Russia has trouble paying its troops now. I cannot imagine them funding a
Cold War. China doesn't have the technology or the resources for a Cold
War. Maybe, maybe they would respond by building more missiles, but there
would be no reason for the US to respond by building more of their own.
Indeed, in talks with Russia on decreasing the number of missiles held by
the US and Russia, the need for a counter threat to China is virtually
ignored.
Also, if you recall, after the cold war ended, two countries exploded
nuclear bombs and demonstrated the ability to hit each other with nuclear
weapons. How would a US missile defense affect that?
> >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.
>
> Ah yes, first you force him to spend huge amounts of money on weapons, and
> then you can accuse him of letting his people starve because he spends his
> money on weapons. Nice tactic...
>
How did the US force Hussein to spend the money on weapons? Did we force
him to invade Kuwait? A logical person would know that the US has had,
since the Gulf War, to invade Iraq, as well as North Korea, virtually at
will. There is no way in the world that either country could stop a US
invasion. But, a logical person would also recall that the US decided
against continuing on into Iraq to overthrow Hussein immediately after it
virtually destroyed his armed forces in the Gulf War. If the US were bent
on overtaking Iraq, why didn't it do so when its armies were poised to do
so?
Look at the situation at that time. As Gautam had pointed out, the US won
every major battle of that war. When it was outnumbered 10-1, it still won.
Why would Bush Sr. have ordered a halt if he wanted to take over Iraq.
A reasonable person would have to conclude that it wasn't the strength of
the army. A reasonable person would also conclude that the only risk to
Iraq was convincing the US that not invading Iraq was a big mistake. Thus,
Iraq's security as a country would be enhanced by behaving in a manner that
would not antagonize the US. If the US wanted to or wants to invade Iraq,
there is no amount of spending within the capacity of Iraq's leadership that
would allow it to repel such an invasion. Thus, one cannot logically
conclude that the US is forcing it to spend money on defense.
Lets look at another example of a government that is a thorn in the side of
the US: Cuba. How hard would it be for the US to overtake Cuba? But, we
tolerate its government, holding our end of an agreement made during the
Cuban missile crisis.
Again with North Korea. If the US wanted to, it could overtake N. Korea.
Not without losses, certainly, but the North Korean army is not up to
repulsing a US attack. Even if N. Korea were to spend 100% of its GDP on
its military, it would not be up to repelling a determined US.
So, given this, why let one's people starve while spending a tremendous
amount on armaments that will never be enough to stop an invasion by a
larger power? To me, the logical conclusion is that there is something else
that is being defended besides the nation.
IMHO, that something is the power the leaders have over the country.
Earlier, I relayed how North Korea refused free food from South Korea.
IIRC, you asked about the strings that were attached. There were no
explicit strings attached, no behavior change was required of the North
Korean government in exchange for the food...no inspections, no standdown of
military forces. But, there were indeed implicit strings.
Those implicit strings were the tacit acknowledgement that the other
government of Korea, which was allied with the stated enemy of North Korea
governed a state so prosperous that it could easily free gifts of food. It
was a tacit acknowledgement that they did a much better job of meeting the
needs of the citizens of South Korea than the North Korean government did
for the North Koreans. The GDP difference, BTW, is a factor of 10.
In that way, by being a loyal ally of South Korea, the US is definitely
threatening the government of North Korea. But, what right does that
unelected government have to hold power? Why shouldn't the citizens of
North Korea freely choose whether or not they want to unify with South Korea
and have a chance at the relative prosperity of the South. My guess is that
this is the real threat to the government of North Korea...that their people
would dump them in a heartbeat if they thought they could.
Historically, this has been the manner in which the US has "taken over"
other nations. IMHO, its the best weapon that the US has...it tends to help
its friends prosper. This isn't always true, and the US has done some
shameful things in the past. But, on the whole, the countries closely
allied with the US tend to become stronger as a result of their alliance.
In short, the US tends to do best with the carrot, instead of the stick.
> BTW, would it not be more cost-efficient to have the CIA eliminate Saddam
> Hussein, and replace the Iraqi government with some US-friendly puppet
> regime? I mean, that should cost considerably less than building a missile
> shield. And it is not that the US has no experience with it.
Sure it would be cost effective, but it is against the law in the US. Have
you ever thought what it means for a country to refrain from such actions
when it is in its capacity? Why the US is proposing to spend a great deal
of money on a missile shield instead of just overthrowing the governments of
Iraq and North Korea?
> Heck, for what that shield will cost, you may even be able to also take
> over Pakistan. Taking over India might be a problem though -- you know,
> India already being democratic and all that. Makes it kinda hard to topple
> their government and get away with it.
It depends on what "get away with it" means. From a standpoint of power
alone, it would be easy for the US to get away with it. Who would stop the
US military? From a standpoint of internal values, it would be impossible.
The US could not stay who it is and take over India.
The real restraint on US action is the belief structure of the US. The US
will not take such actions because it is counter to stated principals of
both the government and the people of the US. While the US is not the first
global power to have such constraints (Britain did far less to keep India
than the USSR or China would have), it has far stronger internal constraints
than other major powers have in the past.
