As the start of this post, I thought it worthwhile to point out that I do
not favor withdrawing from the ABM treaty now. I also don't think the
technology for an ABM system exists now. Thus, deployment and development
plans are premature. However, I do believe that research in this area is
warranted.
> 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,
First of all, I think the possibility of another Cold War is remote. No one
is in the position that the USSR was: a regime with the will and the power
to try to be a world dominating power. In particular, since the US has
found a way to be the most powerful country in the world within a system
that allows plenty of self determination for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. most
powerful country, it would take something like a totalitarian state to mount
a serious Cold War effort against the US.
Second, if the US does things correctly, there will be minimal risk for
China and Russia. At the very least, a minimal ABM system should have
little effect on the inability of the US to have a first strike capacity.
> 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.
>
I was one of those posters. :-) I think that argument is sufficient to
>
> > >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.
>
And so? There is no way in the world that those combinations could match
the US in an arms race. Europe could, but that's not very likely to happen.
>
> > 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.
>
Well, the first two points are actually one point, if the government loses
control, some group will gain control.
Well, insurance is a matter of what ifs. We were very lucky for 50 years.
We can't
>
> > 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).
>
Ah, have you any idea what sort of resources it takes to maintain a Cold
War? The former SovUnion was spending about 40% of their GDP at the end to
do it. The US trains the Chinese military, I think they have some general
idea of what it would take. Hiding 5-10 missiles is one thing, hiding such
an overwhelming commitment is another.
>
> 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.
Actually, it is what you said. It may not be what you mean to say, but it
is what you said.
>If you reread the above, you will notice that
> I pointed out a possible consequence of a possible future event.
No, that's not what you did. You used the wrong tense for that. The proper
way to talks about some hypothetical future event is:
"Ah, first you would force him to spend money on weapons and then you would
be able to accuse him...."
The issue is complicated because the evidence is that Hussein is using the
money from the "humanitarian" sale of oil for weapons instead of food and
medicine for his people "right now."
I'll be happy to chalk it up to another language misuse/misunderstanding.
While we're on that subject...force usually means give no other choice.
Technically, it means absolutely no other choice, which is patently false.
In its looser construction, it means "no other rational choice." That is
also false, since it would be rational for him to focus on governing Iraq
properly and taking care of its citizens. So no one is forcing him to build
missiles to attack the US.
Again, I'm sure that was just a misunderstanding of the meaning of "force",
right? I am trying to cut you slack on the English language, but I will
need clarification as to your actual meaning.
But getting to the topic, So, if the US has a missile defense, say at the
90% level, Hussein will need to spend even more money on ICBMs so he can
have 50 to be sure that 5 go through? That is probably outside of his
capabilities and will be for some time.
>
>
> 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.
Or, just maybe, the US wanted to set a precedent that it wasn't much
interested in overthrowing Arab governments.
>
> > 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?
>
But, that is not what happened. A better metaphor would be what would
happen if someone threatened a neighbor with a knife and stole something
from him. A posse was rounded up and lead by the richest person in the
neighborhood came by, took the knife at gun point. The guy was warned, but
he was not killed.
Do you think that it is sensible for that guy to try to find a way to break
into the rich man's house?Would it be reasonable for the rich man to get
some sort of protection system? Would that start an arms race? Or would the
person with the knife just figure
> 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
neighboring
> 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.
But, none of these have any relationship to whether or not the US builds an
ABM system. It could only relate to the ability of a country such as North
Korea or Iraq to threaten US cities. If Iraq had that ability about 10
years ago, I don't think there would have been a Desert Storm. I would
suspect there may not have been a Desert Shield.
MAD worked because there were two side. The likelihood of it working in a
world where scores of nations can threaten scores of other nations is much
lower.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
No I cannot know that for certain. But, which US unfriendly leader do you
think might have been killed by the CIA over the last 10 years? Also, how
do you know that your Government didn't have operatives in the US trying to
ensure Bush's victory? It doesn't sound likely, but as you pointed out,
intelligence agencies are sooper-doooper seeecret. :-)
I can't be sure that there are not Dutch agents in the US
>
> 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.
>
OK, but postulate that it will actually work. It would allow the US to
defend a country, like Saudi Arabia from a country like Iraq. Honestly,
would you prefer to live in a world where the US was unable to do that for
fear of losing New York, Chicago, and LA?
> As for not overthrowing said governments, I refer you to what I mentioned
> above about "at least we will know what to expect".
>
But, maybe the US has principals it doesn't want to violate. I realize that
doesn't sound plausible to me, but there are good reasons for the US to have
those principals.
>
> 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".
>
Well, criticism and outrage and $1.00 can buy you a cup of coffee. The
unfortunate thing about diplomacy is that there is little that can be done
that's stronger than a stern note and weaker than a bombing raid. Economic
boycotts really don't work as well as we might wish. I cannot imagine
Europe boycotting the US, no matter what. Goodness, we might pull our
troops out of Europe in retaliation. :-)
Dan M.
