> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Saturday, September 01, 2001 10:27 PM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: ABM Treaty
> > > >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.
No, I am arguing that the US should not use something that *might* happen as
a reason to back out of the ABM Treaty, because it would create a very
dangerous precedent. As for building Bush's missile shield -- I think my
position on that is quite obvious from previous posts on the subject.
> Why doesn't the US, as a sovereign nation, have the right to ensure the
> safety of its citizens?
I never said the US does not have that right. I do believe, though, that the
US should seek ways to protect their people by means that will not lead to
another Cold War, and that will not require spending billions of dollars on
something that even the experts doubt is feasible.
Further, as other posters have pointed out, a rogue nation that wants to
blow up an American city is more likely to smuggle a bomb into the country
than launch an ICBM.
> >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.
It could also happen when nations that currently can not match the US in an
arms race decide to join forces. It is not impossible that sometime in the
future Russia and China decide to work together on defense matters, or that
several countries in the Middle East form a block to defend themselves
against the West.
> 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.
IOW, you believe that the US government should spend billions of the
taxpayers' money on something that is based on at least three events that
*might* happen: the Russian government losing control over their missiles,
some small group gaining control over the missiles, and that group being
radical enough to actually launch those missiles. If find that an awful lot
of if's to base a muti-billion project on.
> Russia has trouble paying its troops now. I cannot imagine them
> funding a Cold War.
The Soviet Union had trouble paying its troops too, but it did not stop them
from building up a huge arsenal of weapons.
> China doesn't have the technology or the resources for a Cold War.
Or maybe it does, but the "experts" missed it. But seriously, when necessary
the PRC might very well free resources from something else to fund a Cold
War. Or they might cooperate with other nations (say, a Russia that is again
taken over by the Communists).
> 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?
A missile shield might be able to take out several incoming missiles, but I
do not believe it will be 100% effective; some missiles will still reach
their targets. So, the enemy will probably reason that in order to destroy a
target, they only need to build and launch more missiles.
> > >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?
That is not what I said, Dan. If you reread the above, you will notice that
I pointed out a possible consequence of a possible future event.
> 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.
The reason I have heard for this is that with Saddam Hussein in place, at
least the world will know what to expect. If Hussein were replaced, it would
be impossible to tell beforehand what might happen. Maybe the new president
would be a wonderful guy who would bring democracy to Iraq -- or maybe he
would be even worse than his predecessor.
> 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.
Iraq might not be able to repel an US invasion, but it might very well
consider itself forced to increase spending on their military to be able to
at least put up a fight. ("We won't win, but we won't go down without a
fight").
Let's scale it down for a moment: you have a knife, and someone attacks you
while holding a gun. Will you just let yourself get killed, or will you put
up a fight, even though your attacker has superior weapons?
> 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.
No disagreement here. Other options include "we won't go down without a
fight" and the possible intention of such a country to invade a neighbouring
country. It is also a form of PR: by building up a large military force, a
dictator can show that he is not afraid of his enemies. Even though it will
never match the US's firepower, it will still impress those who believe he
is doing the right thing.
> > 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.
But how can you be sure that the CIA does not ignore that law and continues
to destabilize countries and assassinate US-unfriendly leaders? By its very
nature, the activities of any Intelligence Service are not disclosed to the
public. You can not even be sure that the CIA reports *everything* it does
to the government.
> Have you ever thought [..] 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?
I have given that a lot of thought, but I still cannot come up with a valid
reason to build a missile shield. So far, the reasons NOT to build one far
outweigh any possible benefits.
As for not overthrowing said governments, I refer you to what I mentioned
above about "at least we will know what to expect".
> > 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.
With "get away with it" I meant "the rest of the world will not do anything,
just notice the takeover and then return to whatever they where doing -- no
criticism, no outrage, no nothing".
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
