"Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see the while think is moot anyway...
if the ABM is good enough, they'll just smuggle a bomb into the US
and assemble it there, then detonate it in the middle of a city
anyway...
You can keep track of missiles more easily than "terrorists"..
The problem is that nations will not
just smuggle a bomb into the US
although a sufficiently rich `non-state organization' might.
The reason has to do with command and control.
Men who gain the degree of power that enables them to order a nuclear
program get that power by putting their lives, their families, and
their clan at risk. They will assume that anyone in charge of a bomb
smuggling endeavor will be as ruthless, as ambitious, and as disloyal
as they.
As soon as a bomb smuggler gains control of a nuclear weapon, that
bomb smuggler becomes an equal to the government. The dictator has to
ask himself, `what if a bunch of mutineers gained possession of one of
my bombs?'
It does not matter whether the bomb is built with `permissive action
links' that prevent detonation without a government supplied code.
Such technological constraints mean is that the smuggler controls a
radiological weapon rather than a blast weapon.
Remember your science fiction! Radiological weapons were at the
center of Heinlein's famous story, `Solution Unsatisfactory', which he
in 1942 before any atomic bombs were detonated.
Indeed, during the Cold War, I personally was more concerned with
fallout than with blast, since I lived away from likely targets. For
me, the flash of a distant explosion would be the signal that war had
started. The fallout would come "blowin' in the wind".
A dictator can control a weapon on a missile by policing and
threatening the people who manage it. He can discourage mutiny. But
he cannot threaten a smuggler in the same way, since the smuggler must
be given independent control over the weapon in order to smuggle it.
The question a dictator must ask himself:
Do I want to give a radiological dusting device to a fellow who is
likely to be as selfish, brutal, ruthless, and ambitious as I?
Or do I prefer to force the people I control to spend their time
and riches creating a weapon delivery mechanism that I can
continue to control through the methods of torture and murder that
I already use?
>From a dictator's point of view, the latter method is preferable.
Hence, a dictator is more likely to embark on a ballistic missile
program than a bomb smuggling program.
--
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com
