ABM Treaty
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.
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.
Comments
<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 The treaty is obsolete.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.
<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....
Any treaty that stops a country from defending itself is a bad one.
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>
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.
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>
<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.
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!
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.
No doubt our obligations to the Ottoman Turks, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and to the Knights of Malta are also still binding.
<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.
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.
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
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!
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?
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.
<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"?
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.
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".
<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?
<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?