[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.
[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.
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.
[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>
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.
[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.
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.
(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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
<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.
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.
<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.
Comments
"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.
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.
<strong>Don't look at me! I voted NADER!
That's why we're looking at you.
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.
<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.
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.
<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>
<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.
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.
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.
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.
It sounds really absurd, but nothing is absurd any more. Gonna have to accept that.
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
<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.
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.
<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?
<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>
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.
<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>