Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Missile Defense emile and Andrew
Radioactive Man    12/5/2001 7:14:09 PM
Hum, exact same misspelling on missile (missle) not to mention the exact same introduction, similar styles of writing immediately following each other with names that if seen are rare, Anyone else suspect something here. By the way Andrew your last argument is really funny considering that you misspelled the following words. (missle) missile (proposterous) preposterous (weaknessess) weaknesses (faliure) failure (expernisve) expensive See I normally do not care about misspellings, because we all have off days, but when someone tries to belittle someone else, or use that as an argument then I do take notice and issue with it. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Oh and by the way for those of you keeping track this never going to work technology there was another successful test recently meaning 3/5 for the NMD and 9/11 for the TMD all while conforming to the constraints of the ABM treaty. I love how those that fall shall we say left of center cannot stand this program. Oh, “emile” if that is a real name, just in case you were not aware nations hostile to the US has been and will continue to build up missiles and weapons of mass destruction. These missiles are being built to ensure that they have a long enough range to reach the Continental US as well. Which by the way for your information North Korea can hit Alaska Hawaii, and potentially even portions of the north west already. China have also in recent months test two newer designs, while Russia even though they haven’t paid their teachers in months if not years are working on several designs. RE:Missle Defense System and a new arms race emile 12/5/2001 5:16:54 PM the missle defense system would not only take years to build (and suspicious countires during that time period aren't just going to sit by and watch), but it would also cost billions of dollars and in the hands of Bush, I wouldn't trust its effectiveness anyway. An even better way to prevent the deaths of innocent people is to promote peace in the first place. If that doesn't work, the billions of dollars in our more than adequate existing war defense technology will prevent "every innocent person in America" from being blasted off the continent overnight. Subject: Missle Defense: A faliure in every way Date: 05 Dec 2001 From: Andrew 5:24:14 PM the missle defense system is a proposterous idea. It will not only cost trillions of dollars, inherit weaknessess that makes it prone to faliure, but it would also take away precious money that would be far better off placed in educational programs and other domestic programs in the United States. In addition to the cost, & question of effectiveness, I wouldn't put such an expernisve piece of equipment in the hands of Bush who can't even pronounce the word "Subliminal"
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Jeff from Michigan    To Phoenix - My disagreement   12/6/2001 9:28:27 PM
Phoenix, I admire how you marshall your arguments. You summarize your position quite well. However I just disagree with your conclusions. Here is why. It is one thing to get a few missiles and warheads which is very expensive. It is prohibitly expensive to overwhelm a simple system no matter how much it costs the U.S. So they switch to another delivery method. That method is sure a lot slower than a missile. Also the chances for detection are a lot better. No matter what the naysayer proclaim we can always work out the technology issue. Finally a NMD shifts the arguement. It is a paradigm shifter. The MAD doctrine was immoral. It is equivilent to two men having pistols in the other man's mouth with the trigger cocked and saying don't shoot. It practically begs a response to a launch. For Dave and the other Aussies I remember the "Men at Work" video where a missile launch is started with a general putting out a cigarette by mistake on the launch button. I can see the president calling the other and tryng to argue that there was a terrible accident with the song "It's a mistake" playing in the background. The president has only 10-15 minutes to make up his mind before launching. A real moral choice eh? NMD gives the president other options. What is immoral about that? Finally I remember when the West was fortunate enough to have Reagan, Thachter, Mitterand and Kohl in office and the cruise missiles and Pershings were put back into Europe. I remember how the Soviets walked out of the INF negotiations in a huff in October. I remember Reagan's State of the Union address in the following January where he brought up the concept of SDI quickly dubbed "Star Wars". Gales of laughter from the intelligencia rang across the land. But one place there was no laughter and that was in the walls of the Kremlin. That speech and the research money FORCED the Soviets to the table and we negotiated the elimination of the INF missles from Europe (A moral outcome). Gorby tried to talk Reagan out of NMD by offering huge cuts in offensive missiles. Gorby accelerated his Peristroka (sic) program. All this from a paradigm shift from MAD. We can't all see the future with clarity. I support NMD because of what it has accomplished so far. I respect your opinion but I believe that you are operating in a paradigm that is out dated. Jeff
Quote    Reply

Phoenix Rising    RE:To Phoenix - My disagreement   12/7/2001 12:04:05 AM
You make many good points (some of which I'm surprised to see posted on this board), though there are a few that I'm having trouble understanding. When you say, "it is one thing to get a few missiles and nukes which is very expensive," do you mean that developing ballistic missile technology is expensive for other countries? I concur, but what of it? These states have already proven that they're willing to pay the price to obtain them, expensive as that may be. In addition, there are a great many nukes out there right now that are already developed, which, if placed in the wrong hands, could completely bypass the issue of R & D. You argue that it is "prohibitively expensive to overwhelm a simple system, no matter how much it costs the U.S." First, this could depend on your definition of the word "simple;" that's quite a relative term when you're talking about technology this revolutionary. Also, let's not forget that I was referring to total cost to the U.S.--which includes the cost in time as well as money. By the time that this "simple system" is operational, we can expect enemy capabilities to have progressed as well, especially if there is a perceived need for such development by those countries. I agree that the technology issue can be resolved. However, as in every form of combat from martial arts to nuclear war, for every defense there is a counter. Anything in the "high tech" world that was top-notch ten years ago can be bought at a flea market today. The world of military technology is not so different from the world of consumer technology in that regard. (Not literally, as the Mercedes dealer down the street doesn't exactly carry used Panzers with 0% APR financing now extended through the month of December ... but I digress, and you know what I mean.) Tomorrow's technology will be able to stop today's nukes ... but will it be able to stop tomorrow's nukes? That's what counts. Regarding your belief that the MAD paradigm is outdated, I stand by my previously stated belief that MAD is no more outdated than the business cycle. People were saying that we had passed beyond that, too. Those people aren't holding their heads very high at the moment. I'm not sure how you define MAD as an "immoral" paradigm; I look at it as kind of morally neutral. Political paradigms have no inherent moral character of their own. The people that fulfill or alter those paradigms can be moral or immoral, but I don't see how MAD in and of itself has any "morals" to argue about. You can argue that a NMD-tipped paradigm is more desirable, but you're arguing on the basis of national interests, not morality. MAD simply refers to a state of existence. I would argue that USING nuclear missiles is immoral. That is some person somewhere's conscious decision. MAD isn't anyone's conscious decision; it's just a state of affairs that happens. If the world were truly guided by morality, this whole debate would be a non-issue. Obviously, we can't all see the future with clarity. Heck, considering that it's after 2 am, I can't even see the screen with clarity. :-) I'm going to bed, so I'll be able to piece together a more coherent argue on this front on Saturday. I probably won't be on Strategypage on Friday because school just let out for Christmas and they're kicking me out of the dorm, so I'll have to get situated at home again. Talk to you then! --Phoenix Rising
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:To Phoenix - My disagreement   12/7/2001 9:02:29 PM
" The MAD doctrine was immoral. " The one point I would make is that Mutual Assured Destruction didn't arise intentionally. There was no multi-million dollar study from a think tank, no bi-partisan commission, no inter-agency group involved. MAD, as it's generally thought of, arose from the state of the world, and the technology, during the middle of the Cold War. Once the Soviets developed a relatively robust strategic nuclear capability, and, especially, when they developed ICBMs and SLBMs, we were faced with a world in which each side clearly had the capability to inflict on the other utter devestation, and neither side had any realistic hope of designing an effective defense against this ability for the foreseeable future. Pace BMD arguments. I support BMD, myself. I'm just retelling the story. This was how each side evaluated things. The Soviets, while not "officially" (i.e. by their own official plans and policy declarations for internal, professional use) accepting the idea that they couldn't win a strategic nuclear exchange did NOT believe they could construct an effective missile defense. MAD was an attempt to make strategic sense out of the world that was. It wasn't a favored policy. It was the way the best thinkers and planners read the correlation of forces, the balance of power and tried to make the best of it.
Quote    Reply

Radioactive Man    RE:To Phoenix - My disagreement   12/8/2001 12:15:16 AM
I alwasys thought NUT was an intresting idea. :)
Quote    Reply

pfd    RE:Missile Defense emile and Andrew   12/9/2001 5:47:03 AM
bmd is usefull if not only for the tech spinoffs. Starwars worked against the Russians due to their mistaken belief that 'the Americans can do ANYTHING'-techno.......well lets try again. Worst case is we might get a viable SAM. Best case we get BMD. Best Best case is we rethink diplomacy
Quote    Reply