ABM Treaty

[Towel]

Right move? Dumb move? Suspicious timing? Not worth the news it's been getting?

Here's an interesting tidbit, though. According to the Wash. Post, the Pentagon today canceled the Navy component of the ballistic missile defense program. It was a plan to modify Aegis ships to be able to shoot down theater ballistic missiles, and it was considered to be the most straightforward and furthest-along of the ballistic missile defense programs. (And was featured saving Washington, D.C. in Tom Clancy's last novel)

Anyone want to wager that when Jiang called Bush on Wednesday, this was the price he demanded for not raising hell about the ABM Treaty? China may not be too worried about a decades-off US homeland defense, but you can bet they'd be worried about the possibility of US Navy ships parked in the Strait of Taiwan being able to shoot down the hundreds of missiles China's stockpiled near their coast. In the event of war with Taiwan, China's plans rely heavily on a sustained bombardment forcing Taiwan to surrender, rather than an invasion that would be very vulnerable to US naval and air power.

[Sinewave]

This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then. The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then. The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The peace is based upon the principle of mutual neutralization. Each big power has a huge capacity of destruction able to neutralize the other, so no one have an interest to destroy the other; destroying the other will mean destroying him self in return. This system have working for year, because nobody wanted a nuclear war.
If a state will be able to stop all the balistic missiles (if such thing is possible : for the moment the results are very poor) it will destroy the balance of power;
This system does not prevent terrorist attack, because terrorist will not use ballistic Missilles (a balistic missile will show from where he came) but he will place the bomb in a big town to make the maximum number of victims.
the great powers have nothing to do against united states, their only ennemies who will sufficiently foolish to attack them are terrorism. I don't think that the star wars programm is able to prevent that.
For an european like me , even if France is the friend of America since the beggining of his history, the idear that america has the ability to destroy my country without letting me a chance to make even a reply is very unconfartable.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
The peace is based upon the principle of mutual neutralization. Each big power has a huge capacity of destruction able to neutralize the other, so no one have an interest to destroy the other; destroying the other will mean destroying him self in return. This system have working for year, because nobody wanted a nuclear war.
If a state will be able to stop all the balistic missiles (if such thing is possible : for the moment the results are very poor) it will destroy the balance of power;
This system does not prevent terrorist attack, because terrorist will not use ballistic Missilles (a balistic missile will show from where he came) but he will place the bomb in a big town to make the maximum number of victims.
the great powers have nothing to do against united states, their only ennemies who will sufficiently foolish to attack them are terrorism. I don't think that the star wars programm is able to prevent that.
For an european like me , even if France is the friend of America since the beggining of his history, the idear that america has the ability to destroy my country without letting me a chance to make even a reply is very unconfartable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah the US is going to bomb France.... :rolleyes:

Any treaty that stops a country from defending itself is a bad one.

[Towel]

[quote]Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.<hr></blockquote>

But every treaty does this to some extent or another, whether in an economic or military sense. Every arms control treaty has put limits on the U.S.'s ability to defend itself, by outlawing weapons in space, limiting nuclear testing, and putting limits on nuclear weapons themselves (including removing whole classes of weapons like IRBMs) - are they all bad? Free trade treaties limit your ability to defend your inefficient industries against competition - are they inherently bad? The EU treaties place enormous limitations on the freedom of action of its members, in every sphere - is the EU a REALLY bad deal for its members?

I don't think you can make an unequivocal statement like that. The question is whether the freedom of action you lose with a treaty is more important to your security than the restrictions that treaty places on your treaty-mates.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

But every treaty does this to some extent or another, whether in an economic or military sense. Every arms control treaty has put limits on the U.S.'s ability to defend itself, by outlawing weapons in space, limiting nuclear testing, and putting limits on nuclear weapons themselves (including removing whole classes of weapons like IRBMs) - are they all bad? Free trade treaties limit your ability to defend your inefficient industries against competition - are they inherently bad? The EU treaties place enormous limitations on the freedom of action of its members, in every sphere - is the EU a REALLY bad deal for its members?

I don't think you can make an unequivocal statement like that. The question is whether the freedom of action you lose with a treaty is more important to your security than the restrictions that treaty places on your treaty-mates.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When that treaty was wrote up (30 years ago) We didn't have a threat of 3rd world countries with nukes. These same countries do not follow such treaties. They only follow their rules. We now have a new problem. Therefore we need to take that into consideration. Times are a changing. Turning a blind eye to it will just lead to more problems.

[Ifok5]

3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Ifok5 ]</p>

[MacsKickAss]

[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Ifok5 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. If the world's largest military and economic power can withdraw from any treaty it feels is no longer convenient then any other country will now have precident to do so.

What this whole thing will cause now is another nuclear arms race. Its not even a question of if.

I even think the Bush admin knows this.

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

This ABM fiasco makes me feel there are some people in positions of power who want, need and require the world to become a more dangerous place, but not within our shores of course.

Military professionals are running our show, and the lifeblood of military professionals is human conflict. To institute global policies designed to maintain global unrest (whilst maintaining rigorous security here at home) is what keeps the status quo and the machine oiled and running.

Why we can't just come clean and tell the world openly and truthfully that this is the way, and the only we can maintain the upper hand in the world, as the world's sole superpower? Why do we pretend to be the world's peacemaker when the wealth of this nation is so dependent on its stakes in military might and all its spin-offs? Why the need to pretend otherwise? Is machismo militarism "wrong" or something?

We-the-people can handle the truth! Don't nanny us!

[Fran441]

The thing that scares me about this is that Bush can apparently just say "We're out of this treaty" and it's done.

Plus, considering that getting out of the treaty was on his agenda before the 9/11 tragedy, I think it's unbelievable that he can turn around and say that we have to get out of the treaty because of September 11 and to prevent terrorists and rogue nations from launching nukes at us.

The current missle defense tests have failed- what makes us think that it will get any better? This could be another Osprey type situation where everyone tries to add another component to it and it ends up not working.

Plus, the only way a bomb or missle is going to hit the US mainland is if it is brought into the country in the first place, and there is NO way to prevent a bomb or missle launched or set off in the US from dealing its damage.

This move by Dubya allows other nations to say that they need to get out of the treaty for 'defensive purposes' as well, and allows countries like India and Pakistan to build up their nuclear asenals in Asia. With the Chinese right on their borders, they aren't going to like it at all either.

This is definitely a stupid decision. The treaty could have been ammended (and this is what Putin reccommended to Bush) to include missle defense, but Dubya wanted to do it 'his way' and soon enough, we will see the consequences.

[ColorClassicG4]

I have not yet seen a good defense to the argument that we should not be bound by a treaty with a state that does not exist.

No doubt our obligations to the Ottoman Turks, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and to the Knights of Malta are also still binding. :rolleyes:

[ColorClassicG4]

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Plus, considering that getting out of the treaty was on his agenda before the 9/11 tragedy, I think it's unbelievable that he can turn around and say that we have to get out of the treaty because of September 11 and to prevent terrorists and rogue nations from launching nukes at us.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The reason why he said that is that it is now patently obvious what kind of devastation we would be in for if North Korea builds a Taepo Dong powerful enough to reach the continental United States, or if another rogue nation like Iraq does something likewise.

Of course it wouldn't stop much if the Russians launched a thousand warheads at us. That is why it has little to do with MAD. But it would stop the two or three missiles which is within the capabilities of a crazed regime like North Korea.

And of course it wouldn't stop someone bringing an atomic bomb in a boat. But we *can* and *should* stop the above scenario: Kim Jong Il finally losing it and launching a missile at us.

How likely is this? Do you want to find out?

[quote]<strong>
The current missle defense tests have failed- what makes us think that it will get any better?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The most recent test was a success.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html</a>

What makes one think they'll get any better? It's called "engineering" - technology tends to improve as they keep working on it.

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

Missiles! Why would they bother spending all that money to develop an ICBM when they could far more effectively and cheaply put one on a boat, truck, private jet or whatever, or even assemble all the parts here in the US and just take it to the exact target?

The whole Star Wars project is a gross misappropriation of funds, yet another boondoggle for defense contractors. The previous effort under Reagan was a sad joke; the science was bad, fraudulent test results were submitted wholesale to secure more funding, and droves of disillusioned engineers walked off the project in disgust.

[quote]The most recent test was a success<hr></blockquote>.

More like a "highly qualified" success. The launch was postponed from Vandenberg AFB the previous day because of "bad weather". (!!!!!) Makes you hope that, in the horrible event of a rogue nation attacking us, they are going to choose to do it on a calm and sunny day.

:rolleyes:

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

[groverat]

Let's see, SamJo, it's preliminary so we're testing. Testing. Do you test new aircraft designs by firing flak up at them on their first run?

Don't act stupid, it's disrespectful to yourself and those you attempt to discuss things with.

I'd like to just parrot the above point that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists. We are supposed to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist and a world that is vastly different than the one we were in when we signed the treaty.

North Korea has the capability to create ICBMs and they aren't under treaty. And they hate us.

Sorry, everyone, if you don't like our shield develop your own. We don't like dying.

There is no reason to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist!

[BuonRotto]

Much of what the administration is thinking seems off-target, except that this treaty is indeed obsolete.

The proposed missile defense system is currently useless against terrorist systems and tactics (Bush speaks as though we could have shot down the hijacked planes with this or something) at least for the next decade or so, but then again, things may change. I honestly think the administration sees a growing cold war with China coming. What other explanation is there? Besides, from the results so far, this system is going nowhere fast (and let's hope so for the sake of my pocketbook at least ;) ).

But the treaty itself means little to nothing these days since it limited itself to what were then the only nuclear powers. Hopefully, we can get some kind of UN-led treaty like this that applies to all the present and future nuclear powers to stave off legit nuclear nations like India and Pakistan from having their own arms race.

In the end, all of this stuff about missile defense seems pretty silly, eh?

[BRussell]

About this idea that since the USSR doesn't exist, the treaty died. Guess who said this in 1992: [quote]"the United States remains committed to the ABM treaty. The fact of the matter is, we've made the point that we expect the states of the Commonwealth to abide by all the international treaties and obligations that were entered into by the former Soviet Union, including the ABM treaty."<hr></blockquote>The USSR essentially became Russia. All other treaties apply to Russia. Russia hold the USSR's seat on the UN security council. Russia itself sees itself as a party to the treaty. Of course the treaty applies to Russia.

Why not renegotiate, as Colin Powell wanted, so that it allowed the kind of testing that they want to do? And even that testing can't possibly happen until after Hillary becomes president anyway. We are nowhere near, even under Bush's accelerated NMD plans, to breaking the treaty. So why bother to get out of it? It just seems ideological rather than rational.

And another thing about that successful test: The incoming missile had a homing beacon on it so the interceptor could track it. Make up your own jokes.

We've spent what - 150 billion? - on missile defense research. And even those Patriot missiles didn't work. It just doesn't seem to be possible. And even if they do get them to work in 10 years after a trillion dollars, it's cheap and easy for enemies to develop countermeasures. It's just not a good, rational, scientifically-supported idea. So lets put the money elsewhere.

[Ifok5]

By pulling out of the ABM Treaty, we give (rogue) nations an excuse not to make be part of any treaty that 'limits' it's defenses (nuke missile development,etc.), allowing them to make missiles that are faster and harder to stop. It also gives them an excuse to pull out of any treaty or organization, old or new.

[ColorClassicG4]

[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>By pulling out of the ABM Treaty, we give (rogue) nations an excuse not to make be part of any treaty that 'limits' it's defenses (nuke missile development,etc.), allowing them to make missiles that are faster and harder to stop. It also gives them an excuse to pull out of any treaty or organization, old or new.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I like this idea that "rogue nations" need excuses to avoid treaty obligations. Why do you suppose they're called "rogue nations"?
:rolleyes:

As to the "it won't stop truck bombs" argument: yes, and an automobile airbag won't stop you falling off a ladder and breaking your leg. What's your point? That only an omnipotent defense would be worthwhile?


As to the "but it doesn't work perfectly yet" argument: makes you wonder why they didn't cancel the Macintosh in 1985 - 128KB of RAM is nowhere near enough to get anything done.


I agree completely with Groverat on this one.

[Towel]

[quote]I like this idea that "rogue nations" need excuses to avoid treaty obligations<hr></blockquote>

Careful with this one...our record is arguably worse than North Korea's. They stuck to most of the provisions of the 1994 nuclear agreement, while we've dragged our feet holding up our side (building "safe" nuclear reactors and delivering enough fuel oil in the meantime). Add in ABM, Kyoto, CTBT, ICJ... Particularly considering that in the case of Kyoto the other parties caved to the US positions, and in the other cases the need to abrogate/not ratify the treaties at this time is less than clear, particularly to the rest of the world. We're obviously not a rougue nation, but be careful making your criteria "breaking treaties with no good reason".

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by MacsKickAss:
<strong>

Exactly. If the world's largest military and economic power can withdraw from any treaty it feels is no longer convenient then any other country will now have precident to do so.

What this whole thing will cause now is another nuclear arms race. Its not even a question of if.

I even think the Bush admin knows this.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Exactly wrong. We are not breaking the treaty we are exercising a clause of it. It was written so that we could pull out. We are doing just what is written in the treaty. Didn't know that huh?

[ColorClassicG4]

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

Careful with this one...our record is arguably worse than North Korea's. They stuck to most of the provisions of the 1994 nuclear agreement, while we've dragged our feet holding up our side (building "safe" nuclear reactors and delivering enough fuel oil in the meantime).</strong><hr></blockquote>


I would point out that you apparently consider partial performance only blameworthy on our side.

[quote]<strong>Add in ABM, Kyoto, CTBT, ICJ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is not joining the Kyoto and ICJ treaties the same thing as breaking them?

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

Groverat:

[quote]Let's see, SamJo, it's preliminary so we're testing. Testing. Do you test new aircraft designs by firing flak up at them on their first run?<hr></blockquote>

The weather on the intended day of launch had a cloud base at 1000 feet, light intermittent rain and a moderate breeze out of the southeast, which is nothing out of the unexpected on the exposed central California coast in winter. That was hardly a hurricane, or the meteorological equivalent of "firing flak at it". Jeez!

[quote]Don't act stupid, it's disrespectful to yourself and those you attempt to discuss things with.<hr></blockquote>

Yawn. Oh dear. Why go and ruin an otherwise half-sensible post?

[quote]I'd like to just parrot the above point that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists. We are supposed to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist and a world that is vastly different than the one we were in when we signed the treaty.<hr></blockquote>

Aside from the obvious 'rogue nations we keep harping on about, are you assuming that Russia is now more of an enemy than the Soviet Union ever was?

[quote]North Korea has the capability to create ICBMs and they aren't under treaty. And they hate us.<hr></blockquote>

Well, what are we waiting for? We have by far the world's most powerful and well-trained military. We-the-people pay $300 billion annually for the privilege, so let's make use of this asset; I don't think we are exactly reserved in this respect. If North Korea, a small, irrational, economically broke nation with a paranoid leader is truly hell-bent on having a shy at the USA, then lets go in there and fix the problem before the problem arrives in one or more of our cities. We've done it before many times (even to non threatening nations), we are doing it now in Afghanistan so lets get this N. Korea problem out of our hair once and for all if we are so gung-ho about fixing rogue nations. Or are we bothered we may offend our Communist big buddies and mega-trading partner and human-rights dwarves, Red China?

[quote]Sorry, everyone, if you don't like our shield develop your own. We don't like dying.<hr></blockquote>

I imagine that other nations don't have a few $$hundredbillion to throw away on something that might never even work at the critical moment.

[quote] There is no reason to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist!<hr></blockquote>

That treaty seemed to work pretty decently in keeping the peace between the USA and its bete noir, the USSR, as well as help reduce both nations' stockpile of nuclear warheads. Instead of trashing the whole deal, how about fixing and modifying it to map onto today's altered circumstances. Or are some special interests banking on making a fortune out of a new arms race? Just follow those $$....

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

[Towel]

[quote]I would point out that you apparently consider partial performance only blameworthy on our side.<hr></blockquote>

Not at all. The U.S. has verified that NK ceased plutonium production at the one facility they had. I say "mostly held up their end" instead of "absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt" simply because I have an aversion to absolute proofs of negatives. In contrast, the U.S. has demonstrably failed its end. Those non-plutonium producing reactors were supposed to be finished by 2000. Construction hasn't started yet. Meanwhile, certain members of key committees in Congress have made an annual sport of blocking the funds allocated to shipping the fuel oil.

As for Kyoto and ICJ, the point is that we negotiated and signed them. But we refuse to ratify them, and can't make any coherent arguments why we shouldn't. (We had such coherent arguments against Kyoto, but after the EU's kowtow to Japan met those demands, we were left with "just because".) The point is that all this uses up our moral capital in the world and, in the very long run, may help ensure that our impact on the globe lasts only as long as our power does. We should be taking advantage of these fleeting moments of superpowerdom to lock in, in writing, our vision of what the world should look like.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>As for Kyoto and ICJ, the point is that we negotiated and signed them. But we refuse to ratify them, and can't make any coherent arguments why we shouldn't. (We had such coherent arguments against Kyoto, but after the EU's kowtow to Japan met those demands, we were left with "just because".) </strong><hr></blockquote>


Huh?

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>The point is that all this uses up our moral capital in the world and, in the very long run, may help ensure that our impact on the globe lasts only as long as our power does.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh? Yea right. "uses up our moral capital" I'm sure of it. :confused:

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>We should be taking advantage of these fleeting moments of superpowerdom to lock in, in writing, our vision of what the world should look like.</strong><hr></blockquote>


"fleeting"? On what time scale? When will the US stop being a super power?

[Fran441]

I still haven't heard a valid point of why we had to pull out of this treaty.

Missle Defense? The treaty could have been ammended to allow the United States' missle defense program, but Bush decided to skip the legislative process and just get us completely out of the treaty, much to the dismay of many countries including Russia.

It would have taken the US less time to get the ammendment then it will to fully get out of the treaty (6 months left of observation).

I don't buy Dubya's reason for why we pulled out of the treaty; it just doesn't make sense.

[groverat]

[quote]I still haven't heard a valid point of why we had to pull out of this treaty.<hr></blockquote>

North Korea, perhaps?

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Yeah the US is going to bomb France.... :rolleyes:

.</strong><hr></blockquote>
perhaps it's my poor english that prevent you to be more subtile. I did'nt say if fear that us will Bomb France. I Say it's unconfartable to have a friend one hundred time more powerfull. I use to know a friend that was much more strong than my self, the idea that if he want he can make me K.O in one second was unpleasant. I think , he is my friend but you should not worry him too much ...

[groverat]

But powerdoc, we already are 100 times more powerful than France. Not to be too brash, but we could take France in fairly short order if that was our goal and intention, no nuclear weapons needed.

It seems to me that this doesn't open up any new issues, it just exposes more jealousy.

[The Toolboi]

The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.
Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.

[Powerdoc]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by groverat:
[qb]

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
you exagerate a little groverat, imagine we are in a parallelal word where USA is ruled by a fool and France too (like a parody of the serie " sliders") if USA attack France of course he will win but it wont be as easy as attacking serbia or afghanistan or irak, in a conventional way. France is the second or the third resailor of weapons in the world, (dont have to ask who is the first) , . I dont think you have 50 000 fighting air plane, 30 000 000 soldier, 60 000 tank ...so the one hundred time is fearly exagerated even for a texas men :p .
After you win this battle, imagine that (in the parallelal world of course) the french leader is crazy he will send his nuclear weapon from his nuclear submarine to nuke america, then america will nuke france and will turn it to a deep glass of one hundred meter thick :D . But there will be several millions of death in USA :( . So you can imagine that situation only in a parady of parallelal world and not in our world.
In the natural world USA is not our ennemy but your friend , France is member of the NATO (OTAN in french) even if he doesnt belong to the unified commandment, our ennemies was in the past essentially the soviet union, the arguing was the same, in case of attack french will lose the fight but will make too much damage to the ennemie. If there is a nuclear shield that will mean that our defense will becoming bullshit, and thus will be oblige to improve our balistic weapons, and will spend many money in pure loss.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[Powerdoc]

a last question groverat what do you prefer, to pay tax to have a nuclear shield or to save your money to buy the latest Apple's product(s) ?

[Scott_H]

So you all think the US and Russia will strike a "war head" deal?

[groverat]

[quote]Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.<hr></blockquote>

Did anyone else read this and just hear "*WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAH* *sniff* *sniff* *WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAH*" in their head?

Seriously, Toolboi, do your brain a favor and let it work the situation through a little.

Powerdoc:

The France v. U.S. thing is weak because we have essentially been allies since Square One.

The point is this:
The United States can beat the crap out of France if necessary, yes, and the missile defense shield won't change that. Your argument is that France won't be able to kill millions of our people in retaliation, and I ask why that's a bad thing. We dont begrudge your ability to defend yourself against our initial attack, what right do other nations have to castrate our defenses?

You can spend money if you like to beat our shield or you can just not try because it's hopeless anyway. Canada obviously doesn't feel the need to keep up with the weapons race, why should France?

If you're not hostile to the United States, why is nuclear attack something that you are concerned with?

Did we not learn from the Cold War that the U.S. isn't going to start lobbing nukes for no reason?

[Outsider]

Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.

Ooooooo, you canadians are all the same. Beady little eyes and flapping heads. :p

[The Toolboi]

This is why IE for windows is shit. I press delete and it takes me back, erasing my content.

Well Ill try to sum this up in a better manner (admitedly last time I was a little flustered and responded harshley).

Ok, topic: what is the point of dropping out of the missile treaty?
To build the missile sheild without intervention by other countries. Other than that no one cares about the ammount of missiles we (yes, I am an American citizen, I simply live in Canada) have. Why do they care? Or more importantly why should we care?
An increase in our missile loads will take US tax dollars which could be spent otherwize is one reason. It would also make many countrys very nervous, for why would one increase missile yeilds if not to do some large scale bombing, and the US already has enough missiles to wipe out all of Afghanistan. Of course theres the missile sheild. Since we dont see any wars with larger countries coming around the bend, the most obvious reason for increasing the US stockpiles of missiles is the missile sheild.
However why do we really need this? No country would directly confront the US because doing so would mean utter destruction (look at Afghanistan, and only Taliban targets, or so they say, are being bombed there. Note: Bush did directly admit that they were going to do secret attacks of which they would not tell any one, even after the attacks were made. 'Course this is off topic). So what good then would a missile sheild do if no one were to directly confront the US? How would it protect the "citizens of the USA"?

Well, the original starwars claimed that they could make it so that if the US launched a missile no one could shoot it down, theres some great conspiracy material. However as we like to steer away from conspiracies lets look at what good it would do?
a) It would make Bush feel good.
b) ... if Russia were to go to war with us again it would create a missile defence sheild gap?

Can any one perhaps give me reasoning to the contrary?

Oh, and this time without degenerating into "Oh thats so Canadian" or "Is any one else hearing WAAAAAAAAAAAA"
Seriously folks, my post was bad but this is pathetic.

"I dont know what World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein.

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Ok, topic: what is the point of dropping out of the missile treaty?
To build the missile sheild without intervention by other countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's even less logical than that. We could probably go on for years and years testing missile defense without breaking the ABM.

What is it that's really pulling us out of the treaty? Republican theology.

[groverat]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>An increase in our missile loads will take US tax dollars which could be spent otherwize is one reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That reason is specific to Americans, and even then to Americans who are against spending money on the military, et al.

Those outside the U.S. cannot use this as a logical excuse, especially those is socialistic democracies.

[quote]It would also make many countrys very nervous, for why would one increase missile yeilds if not to do some large scale bombing, and the US already has enough missiles to wipe out all of Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>

Increasing missile yields? What are you talking about?

We're talking about National Missile Defense.

Since you apparently haven't been keeping up with the news, we're cutting our nuclear weapon stock 2/3rds as per a treaty with Russia.

[quote]However why do we really need this? No country would directly confront the US because doing so would mean utter destruction<hr></blockquote>

North Korea can make nuclear ICBMs. They don't like us. Terrorists can theoretically get them. It's a remote possibility, but it's also a possibility that would take millions of American lives.

This isn't to protect us against Great Britain. :rolleyes:

[quote]So what good then would a missile sheild do if no one were to directly confront the US? How would it protect the "citizens of the USA"?<hr></blockquote>

By blowing up ICBMs that are coming in to kill us, fired by whomever.

[quote]a) It would make Bush feel good.<hr></blockquote>

Honestly, you're not even trying to feign objectivity are you?

That statement is a ****ing joke.

[quote]b) ... if Russia were to go to war with us again it would create a missile defence sheild gap?<hr></blockquote>

Again?

[quote]Can any one perhaps give me reasoning to the contrary?<hr></blockquote>

See above. Read the transcripts and/or listen to the president or others speak about it.

[Arty50]

Ugh. I've been posting in a <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001393" target="_blank">thread in the MacNN lounge about this same topic</a>. Hopefully I can answer enough of these points in a concise enough manner to present you with another view.

1)Why we need NMD (National Missile Defense).

At first glance, Bush’s statement connecting NMD to Sept. 11 looks ridiculous (quite a few things he says are). Any reasonable person realizes that NMD will not protect against that type of attack. It’s not meant to do that. But, Bush’s comment is actually right on the mark. Why? Because for the first time Americans realize that we have enemies out there who are willing to go to great lengths to hurt our country. The US isn’t a safe little place anymore. We haven’t had a foreign attacker kill thousands on our soil in almost 60 years (Pearl Harbor), and that was only for a couple of hours.

So a few questions arise. How are we vulnerable? How do we reduce our vulnerability? Well right now we’re very vulnerable from the inside. The planes used in the WTC attack were obtained from US airports. So we tighten airport security as a result (how is for another debate). This is easily attainable, since it’s really just a matter of manpower. Technically we could start hand-searching every single piece of baggage tomorrow. The protection measures we can take against suitcase nukes are similarly easy to implement. Bush could order the Army, National Guard, and/or Border Patrol (with a serious manpower increase) to stand hand in had across our borders, search all those who legitimately cross, and reject/detain those who don’t have a right to be here or are carrying harmful substance. This could be implemented in a matter of a couple days.

So now our borders and our airports are secure. So what avenue of attack is left for our enemies? Ah, the infamous ICBM. Why? Cause we can’t shoot them down right now with a great degree of success, nor will we be able to for maybe 10 years. Now some of you say, “Oh but ICBMs are so much more expensive than suitcase nukes and they’re so much harder to deliver.” Nope. The last few generations of ICBMs carry multiple warheads. So a country could launch one missile and take out a few cities. A suitcase will only take out part of one city since it’s only one bomb and it has a smaller yield than a tactile nuke. So what about cost? A foreign country can choose to either develop their own missile system or buy/steal the plans for an existing system. Depending on the option the cost of this program would run anywhere from $250-500M. We’re talking multiple missiles with multiple warheads. A suitcase nuke costs, say, 25-50M. ICBMs aren’t so expensive now are they. You get a lot more bang for your buck.

2)We need to start now.

If you know about the development and production cycles for any large-scale missile project, you’d understand that these systems take an incredibly long time to design and produce. There’s a reason for the phrase “It ain’t rocket science.” To get a rocket design to launch successfully on a consistent basis is an extraordinarily difficult task. Most missile programs (design, development, production, support) last well over 20 years. How long did we use Mercury rockets? Saturn 5? The Space Shuttle? Minuteman? MX? Trident II? Building missiles isn’t like building computers. It’s vastly more difficult, because there is so much more that can go wrong.

Additionally, accuracy is slow in coming. The first missiles couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn. Now we can land multiple warheads onto multiple independent targets. But it’s taken 40 years to get to that point. So now we’re asking an explosion to hit a bullet (think of the old game “Missile Command” ;) . It’s not impossible, but it’s going to take a few years to work the kinks out.

In the mean time, smaller countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iraq have been working on not just nuclear weapons, but also a means of delivery. Some of these countries are not about to sign an ABM-like treaty with the US. Also, missile technology has started to trickle down to the masses. It starts with things like SCUDs, and then that technology is advanced to larger platforms. So it’s entirely reasonable to assume that these countries and many others are going to start developing their own ICBMs.

As I mentioned before, NMD is going to take longer to develop than a standard ICBM. Those countries don’t care if an ICBM can hit the WTC; anywhere in or around NY is perfectly fine. After all we’re talking about nukes. NMD doesn’t work on the “horseshoes and hand grenades” principle. It’s more like darts. So we’re already behind the curve.

3) What political significance does the ABM Treaty have?

The ABM Treaty is really just symbolic right now, but maybe not how you think it is. Putin had to look like he wanted to keep ABM. Russia has become increasingly reliant on the US economically, much to the disdain of those who still hold pride in Mother Russia. So if Putin had rolled over on ABM, he would have committed political suicide. He had to come out in opposition to it to save face. But if he really cared about ABM, we’d be close to war right now. Instead, Putin has let ABM go and instead is concentrating on the reduction of current stockpiles. Both Bush and Putin have had extensive talks on this matter and have already agreed in principle to significantly reduce the number of nukes on both sides. Basically they’re just ironing out the details. From what I recall they’re talking about a reduction of 2,000-2,500 nukes each. That’s a very significant portion of both countries’ inventories. Also ABM really isn’t that big of a deal compared to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, SALT II, START, and START II. Those treaties are all designed to significantly reduce the design, production, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons (testing existing weapons is different). The US cannot and will not back out of these treaties for numerous reasons.

Others here have mentioned that we could test NMD without violating the treaty or that we could have amended the ABM treaty to allow for this. The fundamental principle of the ABM treaty is that no signee can field an ABM system. Well, if we’re not going to field a system then why bother testing one in the first place. Bush did the right thing. Basically he’s being honest with the world. He’s telling them that we feel we need this system, and that we aren’t going to be wishy-washy about it. The US has also offered to implement this system abroad to help protect our allies.

Based on all of this, I just don’t see how a person could reasonably be against NMD. Of course, you’re more than welcome to rebut my argument; as I am quite open minded on this issue. I hate nuclear weapons (and thus the need for NMD) as much as anyone, but the sad fact is that they’re here to stay.

[Fran441]

I still don't buy that argument.

The truth is that nukes are deterrent themselves. If anyone was dumb enough to launch a nuke at us, their country would be gone- obliterated before they could blink.

Countries don't attack us just for the hell of it. Terrorists- yes, Countries- no. The last time we were attacked by a nation (Pearl Harbor), the Japanese underestimated what our response would be, and truthfully, our military wasn't at 100%. That isn't true now. Any nation would know that we would retaliate without question and with worldwide support.

I don't have a problem with protecting ourselves and our interests; but I do have a problem with the way that Dubya has pulled us out of the treaty (almost out of nowhere) instead of looking at other alternatives, such as ammending the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do.

[groverat]

[quote]I still don't buy that argument.<hr></blockquote>

Allow me to translate for the others who may not have read that correctly:

"lalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalalala"

[quote]The truth is that nukes are deterrent themselves. If anyone was dumb enough to launch a nuke at us, their country would be gone- obliterated before they could blink.<hr></blockquote>

Hmm...
You know, of course, that suicide bombers aren't scared of death?
That's why they're suicide bombers.

I guess assured death is why people wouldn't crash big airplanes into buildings. . . oh wait.

Critical thinking skills, use 'em.

[quote]Countries don't attack us just for the hell of it. Terrorists- yes, Countries- no.<hr></blockquote>

Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).

And who says that in 15 years rich terrorists can't get their hands on ICBMs?

[quote]Any nation would know that we would retaliate without question and with worldwide support.<hr></blockquote>

That obviously didn't stop bin Laden.

You don't learn very fast, do you?

[quote]I don't have a problem with protecting ourselves and our interests; but I do have a problem with the way that Dubya has pulled us out of the treaty (almost out of nowhere) instead of looking at other alternatives, such as ammending the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do.<hr></blockquote>

The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD. We should amend the treaty to allow NMD? It's the goddam ANTI-Ballistic Missile treaty!

[Towel]

I haven't really thought this through but it is conceivable that Putin secretly OK'd Bush's withdrawal. There's the whole "standing up to America" thing, yeah, but he would have won a lot more points (and public vindication for his love-the-U.S. policy since 9/11) if he had gotten the U.S. to accept minor changes in the ABMT.

But Russia has offically acknowledged that their defense relies heavily on nuclear deterrance these days. They put out a policy paper a few years ago that stated they would react to any conventional attack with a nuclear response. I expect in a few weeks/months the other show will drop and Putin will announce that Russia will re-MIRV it's ICBMs, and Bush will say "fine". In reality, re-MIRV'ing their ICBMs will have a far more concrete positive impact on Russian security than allowing the U.S. to build NMD will have a negative impact. They simply can't maintain more than about 1,000 missiles anyway, so topping each with 4-24 warheads gives them a heck of a lot more bang on call.

Which will be another good reason for China (and India and Pakistan) to vastly increase their nuclear forces in number, capability, and diversity. So even if Putin & Bush both think it's a jolly idea, they haven't convinced me yet.

[quote]The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD.<hr></blockquote>

Well, not really. The point of the ABMT was to prevent the depolyment of a nationwide defense that might be capable against thousands of warheads. At the time, it was actually the U.S. that was concerned with a growing Soviet ABM system (based on nuclear-tipped interceptors) that might well have become substantially capable. The treaty expressly permits two ABM sites in each country, including one for the capital and one for the ICBM fields, with a max of 100 interceptors at each site. The assumption was that the interceptors would have a limited range, so most cities in each country would fall outside the umbrella. Tell me it would break anyone's back to change the terms to allow, say, 10-20 interceptors at one site with nationwide coverage. That would be entirely consistent with the purpose of the treaty. But Bush didn't want that, and it seems Putin may not have either.

[Arty50]

What I didn't get into in my post is how this system works. Most people don't understand that there are several layers to the 'umbrella.' You have PLV, THAAD, ABL, SBL, etc. Each is designed to take out targets in a respective theatre. Think of it as a multi-layered sifter. The top layer takes out the rocks, the next gets the pebbles, the next gets the dirt, the next the sand, etc. Hopefully at the end nothing gets through. Now how in the world do you fit that into a treaty that only allows for a couple of sites. A truly effective NMD system requires a lot of parts that work together. You can't limit yourself to just one or two methods, because then you're not filtering out all that you can. The ABM treaty had to go. Any limit on protecting human life is a bad limit in my book. If just one of those suckers gets through, Sept. 11 will look like a sunny walk through the park.

Also, neither the US or Russia is going to increase the number of warheads. Do some research and you'll see this plainly. The whole ABM debate was a minor issue in the larger talks over major reductions in warheads. Putin wants the reductions, so does Bush, and the rest of the world is obviously for it too. We're not going to blow each other up any more. In other words, we don't need enough missiles to blanket a country the size of the USSR five times over. Heck, I don't think we can do that now. You see, we haven't just de-targeted our missiles. We've vastly reduced the number of vehicles we have to deliver them. Check out SALT II and the START treaties. We used to churn out around 60 sub-launched missiles a year, now we only make 12. And that's only to replace aging stock. The entire MX program is being scrapped, and the Minuteman program is being greatly reduced. From what I recall, the reductions proposed in the recent talks will cut our already diminished stockpile in half.

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Powerdoc:

The France v. U.S. thing is weak because we have essentially been allies since Square One.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok groverat, France vs US is a stupid thing. But let's forgot France and USA and let's dealing generally of defense and peace in general.
First point . The goal of nuclear defense is to stop the ennemy from inviding you even if he has much more nuclear weapons than the other one, because the retialation will be too strong, the loss will be more important than the advantages. However it is work only if the leader of the state decide to make the retialation (what a difficult decision, serbia didn't trow missile against US : just suicide, but the alliance did not invade serbia too).
In a word that means that no country have any interest to attack an another country.
If one country can do a perfect nuclar shield, he can have an interest to invade an another country. Only is morality will prevent it to do that. For the other country you can just expect that the stronger country will do nothing against him.

Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.

Second point :

Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.,This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens). Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy. Jealousy is something that you can not always prevent, but something that you should better not make growth, because jealousy is the bed of terrorism : it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.
Security is an interesting point, but security has to do with defense but also with diplomatia. Diplomatia is the root of many wars or peace. I can had that diplomatia is dependant of your defense, the more good cards you have , the more your diplomates can do a good game.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>

[Fran441]

[quote]You know, of course, that suicide bombers aren't scared of death?
That's why they're suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>

Groverat you idiot, no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB. And if this "War on Terrorism" is as successful as it's billed to be, than no terrorist would get ICBMS now, or even '15 years from now'. They'd all be on the run or dead.

Did you even read my post? No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers. No, not even Afghanistan was made up entirely of suicide bombers, no matter what Fox News is telling you. :rolleyes:

So let's talk about the 'dangerous' countries out there. The main two are: North Korea and Iraq. The North Koreans are starving, have no economy at all, and their infrastructure is collapsing. They are no longer getting support from the Chinese, and the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?

Next is Iraq. Now maybe it's just me, but it seems that Daddy Bush did a real lousy job mopping up that war. Now we have to deal with Saddam &lt;again&gt;. It looks as if Britain is going to do a lot of the peacekeeping over in Afghanistan instead of our troops. The reason for this is because 'the war on terrorism' isn't over yet. Looks like the next stop is Iraq. "No weapons inspectors allowed? You're History." Literally float the troops over and take out Iraq. (Not saying it's the best idea, but you must obviously be for it, right groverat?)

So if Iraq and North Korea aren't an issue, let's talk about the terrorists.

Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.

My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says, and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country. If a terrorist organization can get a nuke into the US, then there is no way for us to stop them at all.

This missle defense shield idea is foolish because NO COUNTRY is going to launch a nuclear weapon at us. It's foolish to even think that a country would.

Even if we did need a Missle Defense program, there was NO reason we could not have ammended the ABM treaty. You're argument that says that the ABM treaty was to also prevent missle defense is weak. Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.

But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either. :rolleyes:

Oh and the one who really comes off as whining is you by saying "WAHHHHHHHH!" everytime someone disagrees with Dubya. "WAHHHHHHH! What do you mean you don't blindy follow Dubya like I do? WAHHHHHHH! I always have to be right! WAHHHHHHHH" :rolleyes:

[Outsider]

Groverat you idiot, no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB.

Now now. No need for names guys.
On september 10 I'm sure you could have said, "No suicide bomber is going to have access to an 767. That's absurd." And I would have liked to beleive you. But the people who fund the terrorists have deep pockets. The biggest mistake would be to underestimate them. And in 2-3 years we can't become complacent and think athe problems are gone, because then BAM we get hit again only worse and more devastating. I expect the country I live in to do the best to protect me and my family.

[Fran441]

[quote]"No suicide bomber is going to have access to an 767. That's absurd."<hr></blockquote>

Okay, first of all, you're right, there's no need for name calling, and I apologize for a cheap shot.

Next, if on September 10, you told me that a suicide bomber could've got on a plane and crashed into a major city when leaving from Logan Airport, I'd have thought it was a little out there, but it was a DEFINITE POSSIBILITY.

We're talking about Logan Airport here. The Boston Media (THE MEDIA!) was able to get GUNS, KNIVES (but that wasn't illegal), and GAS through Airport security. It was pitiful. No wonder the terrorists chose Logan as the starting point.

In Boston, there were actually MEDIA DISCUSSIONS and PRESS CONFERENCES discussing how easy it would be for a hijacker to take over a plane leaving Logan. All that came out of it was a planned date to increase security. That date was August 31, but it was pushed back to October 31, because the security companies 'weren't ready'.

It was pathetic.

An ICBM is completely different. To get at an ICBM, you either have to build one, or steal one from a military installation.

Military installations with ICBMs are locked down. No terrorists are getting those.

And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.

[Fran441]

More info on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/18/international/middleeast/18IRAQ.html" target="_blank">Iraq being next</a>.

[groverat]

powerdoc:

I believe the plan is to use NMD to protect our allies as well as our little continent. So when our missile shield is active it will most likely be protecting you guys as well.

Which is a good thing, in my opinion, the point of this thing is security, and not just for the U.S.

[quote]Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.<hr></blockquote>

Well of course.
Only rich countries can afford neat mag-lev trains and sub-channel train systems. I don't know what to say to that, because it doesn't matter.

[quote]This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens).<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps, but that's our concern, not the concern of the international community.

[quote]Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy.<hr></blockquote>

Unless, of course, you're covered by the shield.

[quote]it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.<hr></blockquote>

I agree. I don't see how NMD will create terrorists in any situations where there aren't already terrorists.

I don't think there will be any Frenchmen flying planes into towers because they don't like the big missile shield. There will be more Arabs, maybe, but they were trying to kill us anyway.

Fran:

[quote]no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB.<hr></blockquote>

You don't have to be a suicide bomber to use an ICBM. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. You fire it from your continent and it goes to another continent.

It's not someting you strap to your chest and run into a discotecque with.

So no, John Q. Jihad isn't going to have an ICBM, but there's no reason some upper-crust rich boys (like ObL) can't get one at some point in the future. The technology is out there.

[quote]No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>

Wow, I didn't know that terrorists worked under a democratic system. :rolleyes:

I guess that theory would have kept ObL from attacking the U.S.
I mean, he sure cares about the welfare of the poor downtrodden Afghans.

[quote]the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?<hr></blockquote>

Their best weapon is a 1960s MIG. . . hmmm. That's a complete load of horse shit.

Did we not just get through discussing their capability to build an ICBM?
It doesn't matter how hi-tech your jets are when you have nukes, that's the entire point.

You're not keeping up to speed.

[quote]Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.<hr></blockquote>

And there's no way they could get them in the future, eh?

Pull your head out of the sand. Wake up.

[quote]My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says,<hr></blockquote>

The NMD plan has been there since his campaign and he has had it out for the ABM since square one. You haven't been paying attention.

[quote]and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country.<hr></blockquote>

Really?
Nice call, sherlock, that's not what it's designed for.

My computer can't make my lunch for me or clean my toilets, either, but you don't hear me complaining because that's not its job.

[quote]Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>

Amending the ABM would have allowed development, not implementation. Do you know what the ABM or is it just some acronym to you?

This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).

By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.

[quote]But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either.<hr></blockquote>

You are weak, Fran, you are very weak.

Why are you so hung up on this jealousy thing with W? Is it because he's done more to reduce nuclear stockpiles in his first year than Clinton did in 8?

Seriously, grow up.

[quote]And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.<hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:

International affairs expert, eh?

[Fran441]

[quote]Amending the ABM would have allowed development, not implementation. Do you know what the ABM or is it just some acronym to you?

This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).

By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.
<hr></blockquote>

Hello? Do you speak English or just not read my posts.

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, so I'll explain it again.

One of the first points I made is that we don't know if a missle defense shield would even work because initial tests have failed.

Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.

Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.

We are putting the Cart WAY before the horse.

The US is now out of the treaty, and we are planning to DEVELOP a missle defense shield. It's not like we have one and can deploy it now, knowing it will work.

Plus, I still do not believe that there is any danger from these 'rogue nations' where ICBMs are concerned. If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.

Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.

[Outsider]

I know ONE way to get rid of a whole lot of nukes...

"We are getting rid of half our stock piles. In fact we're sending them to Iraq... "

[groverat]

[quote]One of the first points I made is that we don't know if a missle defense shield would even work because initial tests have failed.<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html" target="_blank">Not true at all</a>.

[quote]Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.<hr></blockquote>

Let's see.
What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?

[quote]Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>

Violate the treaty before we decide whether or not we want to withdraw from it?

[quote]If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>

That doesn't even make sense.

[quote]Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.<hr></blockquote>

ObL is a rogue nation?

Are you even trying?

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?</strong><hr></blockquote>You probably don't even realize how your utter ignorance of even the basic terms is showing through with this statement.

[groverat]

Educate me.

[Fran441]

[quote]ObL is a rogue nation?

Are you even trying? <hr></blockquote>

Groverat, you are hopeless. :rolleyes:

You were the one who said we need Missle Defense to protect ourselves from terrorists and rogue nations and that sometimes rogue nations are run by the terrorists. Then when I try and argue the point, you try and seperate them? Please.

Did you not post this:

[quote]Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).<hr></blockquote>

Try and keep some consistency when you post.

[groverat]

Please use my quotes in context, that was posted after you said, "Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did."

You attempt to draw every possible rogue nation/terrorist scenario into one day, one action.

------------
Kind of funny that this is all you're left with after all the idiocy you've spewed thus far in the thread.
Semantic nit-picking, bravo. :rolleyes:

You really shouldn't rely on your anti-Bush thinking to carry you through real discussions.)

[Fran441]

LOL! I make one joke about Dubya and you start talking about all of the 'lies' I've been spreading throughout this thread?

Listen, it's my belief that we were very premature in getting out of the ABM treaty. I didn't like the way that it happened, and I didn't like Bush's using the September 11th tragedy as an excuse to the American people on why we were getting out of the treaty. It was very poor, IMO, and I think that getting out of treaties we've been a part of for over 20 years deserves more than a little explanation than "It will benefit our fight in the war on terrorism".

Edit: Plus, no one proves that there is an immediate threat from any source involving ICBMs. The US government hasn't proven it, and no one has proven it in this thread either.

The only countries brought up are Iraq and North Korea, and no one can even prove that they have ICBMs to begin with, never mind nuclear warheads.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

[quote]LOL! I make one joke about Dubya and you start talking about all of the 'lies' I've been spreading throughout this thread?<hr></blockquote>

Fran, you should realize that to make a joke about President Bush is not politically correct.

[Fran441]

[quote]Fran, you should realize that to make a joke about President Bush is not politically correct.<hr></blockquote>

To an extent, you're absolutely right. I didn't like it when people were making jokes about Clinton either. Then I realized that people were still joking about Clinton and that joking about Dubya is fun.

BTW, who are you again? New to AI? New Name? :confused:

Edit: My smiley had issues. :(

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>

[Outsider]

That's because making fun of Clinton was fun. He was a horndog and didn't even care.

[Fran441]

The thing I don't get is that when Conservatives make a Clinton joke, they tell me to lighten up (fair enough).

But then when I make a Dubya joke, they tell me I'm being unpatriotic and disrespectful to the country. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[groverat]

[quote]LOL! I make one joke about Dubya and you start talking about all of the 'lies' I've been spreading throughout this thread?<hr></blockquote>

"lies"?
If you're going to put quotation marks around something at least be sure that I said it. I never said anything about you telling lies, I said you spewed idiocy.

[quote]I didn't like the way that it happened, and I didn't like Bush's using the September 11th tragedy as an excuse to the American people on why we were getting out of the treaty. It was very poor, IMO, and I think that getting out of treaties we've been a part of for over 20 years deserves more than a little explanation than "It will benefit our fight in the war on terrorism".<hr></blockquote>

Let's see, he's been talking about it since the campaign. I realize the people you are blindly loyal to politically enjoy moving at a snail's pace, but to assert that this is at all sudden is just to admit how little attention you have been paying.

[quote]Edit: Plus, no one proves that there is an immediate threat from any source involving ICBMs. The US government hasn't proven it, and no one has proven it in this thread either.<hr></blockquote>

There is no immediate ICBM threat, and NMD isn't an immediate solution to anything. We are (at least) 10-15 years from deployment.

An immediate threat is not needed to justify NMD.

[quote]The only countries brought up are Iraq and North Korea, and no one can even prove that they have ICBMs to begin with, never mind nuclear warheads.<hr></blockquote>

You brought up Iraq.
North Korea could be a huge problem, along with China, who has a nuclear program and ICBMs. Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons programs and many other nations are following suit. They are very hostile towards each other and possibly towards others.

Open your eyes.

I don't see any jokes about Dubya up there, only an idiotic accusation that I just blindly agree with anything he says. I didn't even vote for him!

Jokes about presidents are fine, they don't bother me at all. I know that it would make this easier for you if I were to get all offended at Dubya jokes, and I hate to disappoint you, but I don't give a shit.

[Outsider]

Don't look at me! I voted NADER!

http://www.feinstein.org/pix/nader_speech.jpg

[Towel]

[quote]along with China, who has a nuclear program and ICBMs<hr></blockquote>

A bunch of Congressional Republicans are as confused on this point as you. The proposed NDM isn't supposed to threaten China, nor will it in any way impinge on China's deterrent capability. Dubya said so, and keeps saying so. Which means that either the final system is going to have substantially less than 20 interceptors (China's present ICBM total), or we're going to encourage China to build its missile forces up by a few orders of magnitude.

As for the multi-layered aspect, the Navy program has been canceled. There hasn't been a single test yet of the airborne laser system, which suggests it's very, very far from deployment (or fully operation and highly secret, but I doubt that). Which leaves the high-altitude and low-altitude land-based systems. The high-altitude kill vehicle is coming along slowly (3/5 in very favorable conditions, and one of those had a homing beacon in the warhead - I wouldn't call that mid-season form), but the booster program is on the verge of cancelation after last week's spectacular failure. I haven't heard anything about the low-altitude system (the upgunned Patriot) being close to ready for testing yet.

The point, as Fran put it, is we're putting the cart way before the horse. If there's going to be any deployed NMD in the next eight years, it's going to be a single-system with probably 10 or less interceptors. The ABMT implicitly allows such a system, and could easily explicitly allow it with minor tweaking. So why did we make no effort to amend it?

Obviously Dubya (and maybe Putin) have unspoken reasons. I'll buy that Putin wants an excuse to MIRV his ICBMs. Maybe Dubya wants to be free to secretly develop and stockpile the technology for a real, robust NMD (one that would be a major threat to China), but doesn't want to provoke China. A real NMD (one that could defend Taiwan also) would only be REALLY useful if kept secret until the moment it's needed. The countermeasures to it would take far less time to deploy than the NMD itself. Maybe in five years Dubya is gonna let Taiwan declare it's independence, anchor the 6th fleet in the straits and have a couple dummy tridents publicly demonstrate our impenetrable NMD.

And maybe he'll send the reverse engineered UFOs from Area 51 to abduct OBL and subject him to anal probing.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Don't look at me! I voted NADER!

http://www.feinstein.org/pix/nader_speech.jpg</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's why we're looking at you.

[Outsider]

He wasn't someone you would likely find in a crackerjack box like the other candidates. He wasn't shaped by his party affiliation and someone you could almost trust (for a polititian) and dare I say respect? I liked him. But you could have said it was a pipe dream. Ah well.

[groverat]

[quote]Which means that either the final system is going to have substantially less than 20 interceptors (China's present ICBM total), or we're going to encourage China to build its missile forces up by a few orders of magnitude.<hr></blockquote>

That's off-topic, but worth discussion in a different arena.

Also, it's a tiny nit-pick.

[quote]The point, as Fran put it, is we're putting the cart way before the horse. If there's going to be any deployed NMD in the next eight years, it's going to be a single-system with probably 10 or less interceptors. The ABMT implicitly allows such a system, and could easily explicitly allow it with minor tweaking. So why did we make no effort to amend it?<hr></blockquote>

The reason for NMD and the reason for getting rid of ABM aren't one and the same (just so those reading all this don't get confused and stop making that distinction).

A lot of the reason for getting rid of it, in my opinion, was idealogical and forward-looking. The treaty not only stood in the way of NMD but was simply outdated and put an unecessary handcuff on both the U.S. and Russia.

[quote]And maybe he'll send the reverse engineered UFOs from Area 51 to abduct OBL and subject him to anal probing.<hr></blockquote>

Hopefully. :)

[finboy]

[quote]Originally posted by MacsKickAss:
<strong>

Exactly. If the world's largest military and economic power can withdraw from any treaty it feels is no longer convenient then any other country will now have precident to do so.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, the treaty was with a NONEXISTENT STATE. Can't have treaties with states that don't exist anymore, so, yeah, this is getting too much airtime.

As for the preventive power of treaties, look at how the Dreadnought Accords kept Japan from building the Yamato. It pushed them to carriers, and it pushed the Germans to the U-boat fleet. In the face of changing technology, the slow process of diplomatic treaty negotiation is dead. It's been snowballing for hundreds of years now.

As for "upsetting the balance of power," are you guys thinking about what's involved? We're talking about protecting ourselves from ballistic missiles. SO WHAT if something better comes along, at least we don't have to worry about 1930s German engineering falling into our lap (theatre ballistic missiles are all basically one step up from a V2, except there's no Trialen in the nosecone). Sooner or later, everyone and their cousin will be able to build a Scud, and then we'll need whatever it is that comes out of the initiative.

Stop buying the media claptrap and think for yourselves! The ABM treaty was ineffective at best and distracting at the worst. Obviously to comforting, from some of the replies here.

[Fran441]

[quote]Uh, the treaty was with a NONEXISTENT STATE. Can't have treaties with states that don't exist anymore, so, yeah, this is getting too much airtime. <hr></blockquote>

This has been covered before. It was switched over from the USSR to Russia without blinking. Plus, Russia wasn't the only country involved in the treaty.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
About this idea that since the USSR doesn't exist, the treaty died...</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not what people have been saying. What has been said is that the USSR doesn't exist so the treaty is obsolete. Even its author - Henry Kissinger - has said as much. It addresses the concerns of another era. The world has changed. It's time to address today's problems. Making a fetish out of the ABM treaty doesn't help.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>
(We had such coherent arguments against Kyoto, but after the EU's kowtow to Japan met those demands, we were left with "just because".) </strong><hr></blockquote>

They caved to the Japanese because we pulled out of Kyoto. :rolleyes:

[Towel]

[quote]They caved to the Japanese because we pulled out of Kyoto.<hr></blockquote>

Right, they caved to the Japanese because Bush announced thet he would never submit the treaty for ratification in its current form, and saw no hope for negotiations resolving the U.S.'s concerns (forests and credits). But there was no reason at all why U.S. observers couldn't have participated in the consultations that followed Bush's announcement. And also no reason why Bush couldn't have declared that, our demands having been met, he would consider submitting it. Or even that the U.S. would voluntarily participate under the reworked terms (which would fit nicely with his "flexible unilateralist" style).

That's diplomacy. Brinkmanship style, but still diplomacy. Instead it seems (correctly) that Bush simply didn't want the treaty, no way, no how. And (granted he's been a bit distracted) he never followed through on his promise to make an alternative, unilateral proposal for reducing CO2. So the rest of the world is left thinking we just don't care, even though the problem is largely our fault. Not a good example to be setting.

[Arty50]

Frankly, no one has contradicted my points yet. In fact many have continued to argue several points that I've clearly debunked.

For instance, Fran's statement that we're under no immediate threat. That's obvious. Luckily, even the greatest optimists don't expect ABM to be ready for at least a decade. It minimally takes that long just to build something like this. That's why we need to start now. Can you predict the future, I sure can't. But the fact remains that nuclear and missile technologies are rapidly disseminating to the masses.

As for the failures that have occurred, I'm sure the Steve's first motherboard didn't work perfectly either. And that was only a simple little box that stayed on the ground.

Onto another point. Everyone here is speculating that NMD won't work because the Navy's destroyer based ABM system was cancelled. And someone said that this was the best system in testing right now, and then made the leap of faith that since it was cancelled all of NMD will probably be scrapped. Well let me present you with another theory. The Navy is currently accepting proposals for the next generation of destroyer, <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/b11012001_bt559-01.html" target="_blank">DD(x)</a>. And one of it's mission capabilities is portable missile defense. The program everyone is talking about here was merely a testbed for the feasibility of implementing such a system. More than likely, they got enough info out of the trials and will use this in the next generation designs.

Not done yet.

Did/does OBL have access to a few hundred million dollars? Yes. That's all he'd need to field a system like this. But what are the chances of success. Not very good. We're talking about a lot of money over time, and a very high profile program.

However, a much easier scenario is possible. I recently watched a special on Russian missile silos. Currently they are protected by Russian Special Forces Units, basically the cream of the crop. These units even train with live ammo. However, I don't care how good you are, if you meet up with a significant force you're toast. If special forces were invicible, then we'd have sent a single Seal team to take on the Iraqi Army. Terrorists could very conceivably train a large enough force to overrun one of these silos. And then what do we do? Well, say a Hail-Mary while 10 warheads come streaking down on your family.

Do you understand what just one warhead is capable of? One modern nuclear warhead could probably wipe out all of Los Angeles or New York. LA County alone holds 9 million people. That's not counting San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Then you're talkin almost 15 million. Now imagine anywhere from 5 to 10 of these hitting the US.

With that kind of devastation in mind, I don't care how much it costs. We need to build this system and keep it up to date so that the damage is either reduced or eliminated. It's not just you and me, it's entire cities we're talking about. Entire families, life-long friends, kids, and whatever else is dear to you can be wiped out in a few seconds. Why take the chance that Saddam or some other idiot can't build a missile, or that the Russian silo guards won't be overrun. How much worth do you place on a single human life? Now multiply that by a few million.

[groverat]

Saying "The U.S.S.R. no longer exists" is far more than simply stating that communist Russia fell. The whole era is gone.

Anyway,
I think the main "concern" about pulling out of the ABM is unease with quick and decisive action. There seems to be an inherent distrust of upfront and direct attitudes coming out of D.C., and after 8 years of the exact opposite I can definitely understand it.

[BuonRotto]

Frankly, I cannot deny that UBL or anyone else (N. Korea, whomever) who wants to kill us couldn't do this. and the days of the cold war when you knew that the soviets were behind this stuff is gone. If projectiles land on our heads, we won't just be able to pummel the attackers off the bat because we will be handcuffed by the fact that we don't know who they are.

It sounds really absurd, but nothing is absurd any more. Gonna have to accept that.

[THT]

<strong>Originally posted by Arty50:
Frankly, no one has contradicted my points yet. In fact many have continued to argue several points that I've clearly debunked.</strong>

I'll try to review your points when I get back from vacation ;) (If the thread is still around.)

<strong>But the fact remains that nuclear and missile technologies are rapidly disseminating to the masses.</strong>

This is a bit of hyperbole. Masses? Outside of taking over a silo or submarine, the masses aren't getting such info.

Who's capable of developing a nuclear ICBM on their own:

USA
Russia
China
Europe (England, France, Germany)

Who's dependent on the above for vital information:

Japan
India
Canada
Brazil
Australia

That's all I can think of. Everyone else would be very far behind. I can't think of any other country that even has the facilities to develop one. The are only a few facilities I can think of where one can develop an ICBM.

<strong>Terrorists could very conceivably train a large enough force to overrun one of these silos. And then what do we do? Well, say a Hail-Mary while 10 warheads come streaking down on your family.</strong>

Did the program say what was required to launch the system? If it's anything like the USA's, said terrorists need some launch and armament codes before they even get the thing off the ground. It's simply not that easy to launch these systems. Ie, the scenario has already been thought of, and defenses against a terrorist takeover should be quite difficult to defeat. Getting the codes would be the hard thing.

<strong>With that kind of devastation in mind, I don't care how much it costs. We need to build this system and keep it up to date so that the damage is either reduced or eliminated.</strong>

No one disagrees with you. It is however all about where and how the money is spent.

Ballistic missile defense with lasers and rail guns? Yes. With anti-ballistic missiles? I'd rather keep it as a research program.

If you think about it, the odds of an asteroid strike could be on the same order as a terrorist launch of an ICBM. Hmm... where to spend the money.

[Powerdoc]

what is the goal ot the nuclear shield : a protection for minor attack, just a couple of missiles sent by crazy guys, or a protection for massive attack able to stop thousands of missiles ?

What American's autority propose to stop nuclear terrorism if they not use a ICBM, for example terrorist who will carry a nuclear bomb in the port of new york for example (i think there was a book written about this). Stopping a carrier like ICBM is a thing, but we (all the democratic nations) must also prevent terrorism to make or to own nuclear weapon.
You can be sure of that, they have already use plane, they will use nuclear bomb if they can.
Imagine the worst, and there will be always somepeople who have done it or who will done it.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>
Right, they caved to the Japanese because Bush announced thet he would never submit the treaty for ratification in its current form, and saw no hope for negotiations resolving the U.S.'s concerns (forests and credits).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which is to say that without Bush's rejection you wouldn't even have the fig leaf of the concessions they made to Japan.

And there was that little obstacle called the U.S. Senate. In a test vote 2 years before Bush even took office the treaty went down unanimously. Why should the Bush administration have wasted political capital fighting for something that they didn't negotiate, didn't believe in and had no hope of passage?

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by THT:

<strong>Who's capable of developing a nuclear ICBM on their own...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who talks about anyone developing this capability on their own? The scenario I've always heard involves them getting their hands on tech developed by someone else. As for how widespread this capability has become: Korea has already launched a rocket. It doesn't have the range to threaten us (yet) but there's no reason why they can't get there. They can certainly threaten Japan with it. They don't have the nuclear part yet but how long do you think that genie will stay in the bottle? India has the bomb and I believe they've tested some rockets already. I'm not worried about India launching something but how can you feel that it is so far-fetched an idea that the technology is making it's way towards more and more people? Pakistan has the bomb too. Is it really that hard to imagine Iraq developing this capability? - not tomorrow but there's a good chance they could get there the day after tomorrow.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[THT]

<strong>Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Who talks about anyone developing this capability on their own? The scenario I've always heard involves them getting their hands on tech developed by someone else.</strong>

I'm still having a very difficult time imagining someone getting a hold of a pre-existing ICBM, then launching said ICBM.

The takeover of a silo and launching is as impossible as it gets. Defeating the personnel in a silo is one thing, launching it is another.

The takeover of a mobile platform might be more possible, but how do they launch it? Same problem with launch codes.

The takeover of a nuclear sub is less probable than a silo. But if they do, they still have a problem with launching it.

<strong>As for how widespread this capability has become: Korea has already launched a rocket.</strong>

Amateur rocket hobbyists in the USA could launch a rocket. It doesn't mean they are that much closer to developing a system that can deliver payload to a spot somewhere half way around the planet. Yes, I'm being facetious, but North Korea doesn't have an ICBM.

<strong>It doesn't have the range to threaten us (yet) but there's no reason why they can't get there. They can certainly threaten Japan with it.</strong>

ICBM design and fab information may be out there, but going from information to the development and launch of one is a gargantuan task. North Korea to Japan is what, scud range? It will take 10 times the amount of resources to develop one with ICBM range compared to that. I suppose they could reach Alaska though.

There are also political reasons for which North Korea wouldn't develop one. Why would North Korea want to? Their immediate threat is South Korea. (It's actually themselves, but I digress.) The development of an ICBM would take physical resources they don't have.

<strong>how can you feel that it is so far-fetched an idea that the technology is making it's way towards more and more people?</strong>

Because said technology takes economic resources that only very few countries are capable of translating to a real product. Technology simply isn't information. It isn't what you see on a piece of paper. It takes real resources to develop bomb grade nuclear material and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

As far as an actual pre-existing ICBM getting into the hands of the wrong people, lets get the scenario straight and determine if it's possible or not. Does a Russian or Chinese ICBM need launch codes? What does it take to actually takeover an ICBM system?

Saying that it is possible is no better than that movie (Manhattan Project) where a kid is able to develop a suitcase on his own. It's akin to trying to defend against all possibilities no matter how improbable.

<strong>Pakistan has the bomb too. Is it really that hard to imagine Iraq developing this capability? - not tomorrow but there's a good chance they could get there the day after tomorrow.</strong>

No of course not. The problem is the intercontinental ballistic missile part. We'll know when they are trying to develop one. When said things happen, there are certain things this nation and the world can do to ensure that they don't develop one for the wrong reasons.

Btw, where did I say I was against ballistic missile defense? I'm merely not gungho on anti-ballistic missiles. A defense using anti-ballistic missiles has so many holes in it that developing it would be a wast of money. Something with a more flexible net would be money better spent and will hopefully have private applications.

As far as a course of action, the first thing to do is rebuild our intelligence net which sucks beyond all reason for a country of our resources. The second thing is the reduction of ICBM in all countries. The third thing is the protection of any and all ICBMs from inadvertant launch.

As far as the ABM treaty goes, I'm fine with withdrawing from it. Bush's speech on it, like most of his speeches, was inane in its reasoning (which really tells me he is working on political ideology rather than practicality and vision), but the treaty itself has outlived its usefulness since mutually assured destruction is rapidly declining. Heck, I'm waiting for the dissolution of the nuclear test ban treaty myself. Thermonuclear propulsion. Can't wait.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by THT:

<strong>Btw, where did I say I was against ballistic missile defense? I'm merely not gungho on anti-ballistic missiles. A defense using anti-ballistic missiles has so many holes in it that developing it would be a wast of money. Something with a more flexible net would be money better spent and will hopefully have private applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Missile defense should be thought of as encompassing many different types of systems. Some of these are good ideas. Some probably show less promise. The ones that most interest me and would most likely be used are the ones designed for use in theatre. They would protect our military when it is forward deployed where an adversary wouldn't need an ICBM to hit us. The Navy's Aegis system is an example. The Secretary of the Navy just killed that program, though. I'm not sure what is going on there. The top people at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, are behind the Aegis system. This is probably another political tug of war over funding.

[quote]<strong>As far as a course of action, the first thing to do is rebuild our intelligence net which sucks beyond all reason for a country of our resources...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed.

[quote]<strong>The second thing is the reduction of ICBM in all countries...</strong><hr></blockquote>

On November 11, the countries with the two biggest arsenals (the U.S. and Russia) agreed to do just that.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>That's not what people have been saying. What has been said is that the USSR doesn't exist so the treaty is obsolete. It addresses the concerns of another era. The world has changed.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sure that's not what you've said, but it's what others have said. Read some of the posts in this thread - they were arguing that we can't have a treaty with a non-existent country. They didn't say "the geopolitical blah blahs have changed..."

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Missile defense should be thought of as encompassing many different types of systems. Some of these are good ideas. Some probably show less promise. The ones that most interest me and would most likely be used are the ones designed for use in theatre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I completely agree with you. (And judging by its performance in the Gulf War, the Patriot still needs lots of work.) But then what's the point of getting out of the ABM treaty, which doesn't ban those types of defenses? And what's the point of building permanent base stations in Alaska?

[Arty50]

To THT,

If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.

[groverat]

[quote]They didn't say "the geopolitical blah blahs have changed..."<hr></blockquote>

The first comment of that lean in this
thread was:
"This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then."

That's from the second post of the entire thread.

A case of selective reading on your part that you just missed that entirely?

And that's from sinewave, a guy who no one accuses of being intelligent. ;)

--

THT, while I agree with most of your points, I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.

Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.

And while the possibility is remote, it is an absolutely devastating possibility to the point of apocalyptic (sp?).
I'm all for big rail guns shooting down asteroids, too, I think we should be going after things like that as well.

[THT]

<strong>Originally posted by Arty50:
If missile codes were such an effective security measure, they why do they guard the silos? Need I remind us all that there is no code that is uncrackable.</strong>

Is this a serious question (about guarding silos)?

No code is uncrackable (which will be a very debatable statement in a few years), but the statement is akin to saying everything is possible. The possibility is remote. The possibility that a terrorist tries [a takeover] is less remote, but one can fix this with better intel, better defenses inadvertent launching and arming of said systems, and the best solution of all, not having any.

<strong>Originally posted by groverat:
I must disagree on the assertion (if it's an assertion that you're actually making) that NMD isn't useful for the task that Bush outlined for it.

Quite honestly, we can't know where ICBM technology is going to be in 20 years, especially if other nations decide it's a good idea and start to pursue it heavily. Technology has a way of running forward very quickly.</strong>

Think about what you're saying in the former and the latter here, groverat.

If an antiballistic missile system isn't going to be deployed in 10 to 20 years, and if we don't know how nuclear bomb delivery systems will be deployed in the future, why are we developing the system in the first place?

My comment about the antiballistic missile system wasn't that it couldn't do its job, it was that it had too many holes in it as a defense system. Give the Russians another 10 years, they could have supercavitation perfected and it's bye bye to all coastal cities. NMD isn't going to do anything about that.

[7 hours later, after seeing TLOTR, I can finish this post.]

What I mean by "holes" is that NMD is a hugely expensive program that targets a specific thing, something that is getting less and less plentiful by the day. Problem is that a nuclear delivery system can be any manner of thing. The number 1 way for terrorists to deliver a nuke is in the cargo of an international airline flight. A semi-long range low flying cruise missile is another. In designing a system to protect against things in the future, it requires a bit of flexibility. The current NMD seems to be huge amount of money spent defending against systems that are going obsolete... and the USA only has so much money.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: THT ]</p>

[breakskull]

As usual, an impressive display of analytical thought and debating by most of you. Yet, so easily do we break down into you idiot this and you dumb ass that.

I know we now have the computational power to predict, anticipate and track missiles in flight. What we don't have and will not have for a good while to come is a delivery vehicle. Whether that be a laser, another missile or something like the railgun. Putting the politics aside for now, it was easier to put men on the moon than it will be to knock down or stop multiple targets travelling at ICBM speeds.

Anyway, isn't it weird how Pierre Boulle hit the nail on the head. We really are the Planet of the Apes. So we've traded ICBMs for sticks. The money that is going to be boodoggled off the ABM program is going to make many of you young supporters(today) bitter old people tomorrow. Well, I hope not.

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: breakskull ]</p>