MadMax; I sympathize with you and if I really believed that a practical missile defense system could be build I would support it. I just don't see that as happening. Building the missile defense as it is now envisioned is to repeat the French mistake of building the Maginot Line. For non history buffs this was a giant fortified wall that the French built along the border with Germany after WWI to prevent the Germans from ever launching a large scale invasion into France. The problem was that in WWII the Germans totally bypassed the Maginot line and went through Holland and Belgium rapidly and caught the French unprepared since they were relying on the Maginot line. With the missile defense being proposed that only deals with one threat even if perfected, and as of now its still not very clear that it works on paper. We already know that its much more cost effective and practical to attack America through indirect means than to bother with the expense of developing an ICBM system. To rely on missile defense isn't just fighting the last war its about the same as relying on the Great Wall in an age of airplanes.
The space program Bush backed off of almost immediately. If he does try to start a space program it will be a barely disguised attempt to militarize outer space (think I'm full of it? do a search for "Rebuilding America's Defenses", authored by the neocons). And if they tell us it's cost 60 billion, it's actually cost far more, but has made many fat-cat campaign contributors veeery happy.
I don't give a rat's ass about the money, as long as it is something that works...If it will work, I will believe in it regardless of money. I think we do need it, because there are several countries like Pakistan, Syria, etc...that are populated by Islamic jihadists or something to that effect that don't care if they go, if we go...and would love to push the button with delight regardless of what happens to others...This is the terroristic ideology that must be addressed as part of the war on terror. We must protect ourselves...
...btw, lets say Musharraf is assasinated...what if a psycho-delic freak-out ruler takes power who appeals to the radical terroristic mindset and wants to do a Jonestown to the world? ...This is a warranted threat. Think not? The same people wouldn't have believed 9/11, some 10 years ago...
Come on, Max. We are FAR less likely to be attacked by ICBM now than we were during the cold war. And we STILL have MAD, which virtually guarantees that nobody will EVER attack us that way. If Saddam had nukes and fired them at us (or Israel), Iraq would have become the world's largest sheet of glass in a half hour. This program is absolutely useless, which is a good thing since it doesn't work.
Well, first, one thing would have to occur: Pakistan would have to develop ICBM's. Not impossible, but something they haven't done so far. Second, Pakistan's ruler/leader would have to be suicidal and be willing to risk the retaliatory consequences, which would translate to the obliteration of Pakistan as a state as we know it and the death of xxx hundred millions of pakistanis. BTW, if Pakistan launched a nuclear attack on anybody, we would be a distinct number 2 on the list behind India. Third, we'd have to develop a missile shield that actuallly works. The one we have now does not. It's not really a debatable issue, either, the thing is a first class p.o.s. So if all three of those conditions were fulfilled, you would have a point. But...
I think that those who oppose it because they believe that it is a provocation are total r****ds who need to grow a brain. How can defending yourself be a provocation? Idiocy. But my problem with missile defense lies in that maybe we need to spend more money on checking shipping containers and such rather than a national missile defense system. I think the new Aegis cued system that uses Navy cruisers and destroyers, since they are so mobile, would be enough for our needs along with this bad boy: Airborne Laser flying platform, the YA-1. But do we really need a huge land-based, immobile, inflexible system designed for only limited protection? Nah. Even I, as hawkish as anyone, can see this to be a major boondoogle.
While that may be the case if you are a suicidal regime or organization why spend billions trying to develop unwieldly and unreliable technology like ICBM's when Al Qaeda has already shown you can do significant damage spending around $200K.? See North Korea as a case in point. To develop an effective missile technology it takes years and billions of dollars plus lots of testing. Its impossible to do all of that in secret because once a test missile is launched everyone knows you have that technology and next thing you know you're being targetted for immediate reprisal incase you try something. Also unless you are a superpower the most you can hope for is a few missiles. While those will do significant damage to the US you will still be destroyed. Even if you are suicidal you're not going to sacrifice your whole people and cause when you will be totally destroyed while the US will still be standing. It makes more sense for suicidal regimes or groups to use stealthy terrorist agents to smuggle a nuke in that is difficult to trace back than rely on a missile. There's a lot of technical reasons too why missile defense can't work but I will save those. Suffice it to say as I said in my earlier posts. Relying on missile defense as it is now envisioned is like relying on the Great Wall in the age of airplanes.
The problem regarding provocation is why provoke someone when it isn't going to work? In the case of missile defense that is like waving a supersoaker at somebody who's pissed at you already and saying "Hey you better not try anything because you could drown from the soaking I'm going to give you." In regards to the airborne laser that IMO is possibly the most likely anti-ICBM technology that could work because it is flexible and targets the missile during launch phase when the missile is slowest and difficult to deploy counter measures. There are still severe problems with that because for even the airborne laser to work you still need to know when and where the ICBM is going to be launched to target it. The laser doesn't have unlimited range and when dealing with a country where we can't maintain constant flying patrols over the whole country mobile or undetected secret launch sites could easily loft an ICBM before we have a chance to deploy an airborne laser. ONce the ICBM reaches flight or final targetting phase its pretty much impossible to stop. You've already hit upon what we need to do stop a nuke threat which is to spend more money in securing our borders and also in intelligence. We need to know who has the nukes out there, where they are and what they are planning on doing with them. That is the only way we can have any hope of stopping a nuke targetted at us. Since we don't have unlimited resources we shouldn't be wasting them on trying to build an anti-ICBM system that is unpractical.
from an international point of view 1. the US has the most nuclear weapons, armed and ready. 2. the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons. Twice. 3. we are building the most advanced nukes in the world. 4. Now we are building a shoddy defense system, from another point of view, to defend against counterattacks against our own country. this either forces countries to lay down to the US or develop countermeasures. are we still so naive to believe that everyone will bow down to our long, huge, throbbing missiles? from an IR theorist perspective, this leads the US to eventual war, it creates a security dillemma and it breeds mistrust from other nations. Even from a realist perspective, although this strengthens our country, it provokes war.
One more thought for now. The only practical benefit I can see from an anti-ICBM technology right now is that we could use it to stop asteroids. IMO an asteroid threat now is about the same level as a surprise ICBM attack but at least with asteroids they will not be changing their launch positions or deploying countermeasures against us.
That is utterly preposterous and the height of liberal idiocy. If I have a handgun, it provocates criminals to break into my house and try to kill me? Ridiculous.
you read it wrong, an analogy would be a guy who has the most guns in your neighborhood, who has shot people in the past, and is continuing to build up their arsenal and is now investing in bullet proof armour. if you can't trust the guy, you buy armour piercing bullets just in case. and if that guy doesnt trust you, well, he goes after you. i dont even have any idea where you came up with that analogy, some people read things that are anti-theatre missile and their mind automatically shuts off and goes into hate mode.
Whose side are you on anyway? I certainly hope it ours, because you definitely don't sound like it. Being against us having any sort of missile defense of any sort is just ridiculous. You apparently must not think we merit any means to defend ourselves against missiles, which is just plain stupid. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Not in your eyes. If you read my earlier post, I think that the mobile part of it (the naval and airborne systems) will be good enough and relatively flexible to protect both our troops and friendly nations from the rogue ICBM threat from looney-land states like North Korea and Iran. But the inflexible land-based portion of it would be an inflexible boondoogle and a bit of corporate welfare I oppose.
ah yes, the "you're either on our side or on their side" mentality, the black and white point of view, there is only good and evil. Im saying, other countries can percieve us as evil, just as we percieve them as evil, any type of provocation will lead to a response. The problem with these defense mechanisms is that they are easily percieved as being offensive weapons as well as defensive. Either way, if we say that we will render any of these "loonies" weapons useless by a certain date, that leaves them with a "use it or lose it" dillemma. I certainly dont want to force people into that state. nuclear stalemate has worked in the past and ill stick with that until something more reliable comes up. I agree that the system we have getting set up is flawed and riddled with holes and it will only be good for provoking enemies and raising suspicion from "on the fence" nations.
I hope you think we are the good guys. We don't always do the right thing, but the right thing is not always in our national interest. Evil is anyone who opposes our nation. Period.
You really believe that, don't you? That the boundaries of good and bad are established by the United States of America. Not surprising...just a little sad.
Let me see here. Our enemies are bad. We are good. Not a difficult concept. You really are a moral relativist if you have no problem opposing our nation because you consider us to be in the wrong! We don't always do the right thing, but I'm not going to sit here and badmouth my entire nation that I served for over 15 years both as an active duty and later reserve Marine. Your relativism is a dangerous attitude.
ok, and if every other country believes in the same thing as you do, doesnt that entail missile defense will provoke an attack on us?
