IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12320-2001Aug14.html|Why Russians Fear Missile Defense]

[...]

Until recently, no member of the nuclear club has had to fear an external invasion aimed at stopping violations of basic human rights. Successful future deployment of a national missile defense could change this reality.

The Russian government might reasonably expect that its "national interests" in new areas of influence -- new bases in Georgia, Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union -- could be limited by the threat of NATO intervention.

Given the emergence of this new reality, it is surprising to me that the Bush team, at least on the rhetorical level, does not even try to camouflage its ambitions. Thus, for example, in February, during the annual Munich conference on Security Policy, Rumsfeld insisted that no one with peaceful intentions should fear missile defense.

These sentiments may sound peaceful to some, but to Russian generals and politicians, they are deeply disturbing. Who, they wonder, will decide whether Russia's "intention" to conquer Chechnya is "peaceful?" Who is to consider the extent of the humanitarian abuses, whether they are "severe and large-scale" or only "mild and small-scale." The American president will be the one to decide. And in the event he decides large-scale abuse has taken place, what is the next step?

On May 1 President Bush cited the war with Iraq as an argument for national missile defense: The alliance that rolled back Iraqi aggression, he said, "would have faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail [us] with nuclear weapons." That's one reason, Bush said, why the United States should build a national missile defense.

The logic of the president's argument is clear: The United States needs missile defense so it will be free to enter into a possible conflict without fear of being threatened by nuclear retaliation.

This is exactly the situation both Russia and China fear: an invasion to defend the independence of Georgia, or Taiwan, or to stop a "genocide," or whatever else the American president might take as evidence of a lack of "peaceful intentions." This is why the Russians fear missile defense.


Altounian makes some good points, though I would have phrased many of them differently.

NMD is and remains a very bad idea, IMO.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense.
The United States needs missile defense so it will be free to enter into a possible conflict without fear of being threatened by nuclear retaliation.

Sounds like an awful GOOD reason to have a defense screen, to me. :)

Addison

New So lemme get this straight...
... because I always got this stuff mixed up in the 70's


The United States needs missile defense so it will be free to enter into a possible conflict without fear of being threatened by nuclear retaliation.


Sounds like an awful GOOD reason to have a defense screen, to me. :)


Now, Ad, is that imperialism, colonialism, or just good, ol' fashion' military interventialism?
jb4

(Enquiring minds want to know...)
New None of the above
It's sensible defense, at a point where our military forces are apparently to be reduced from the "two-front" stance.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New I'll attempt to straighten you out...
Now, Ad, is that imperialism, colonialism, or just good, ol' fashion' military interventialism?

I call it "common sense".

The converse would be "We're going to willingly expose ourselves to nuclear attack".

Does *that* make sense?

(At best, I'd say that's "jolly sporting, old chap". Well, I need to get Peter to say that)

Addison
New It's not so simple.
Hi Addison,

I'll rebut your points below, but want to list some things that I take as givens first (not that I expect agreement on all of them):

1. It's no longer 1945. We (the US) no longer has a monopoly on nuclear weapons.
2. NMD won't be designed to distinguish between a missile launched from a power we have good relations with and a "rogue state".
3. The NMD system which they talk about installing in Alaska will do nothing against a threat from Iraq. It will, however, be designed to intercept warheads and/or missiles from Russian and Chinese territory.
4. It's exceedingly unlikely that nuclear missiles will be used in war in the next 10 years.
5. We're not at war with any nuclear power and it's exceedingly unlikely that we will be in the next 10 years.

It follows, I believe, from 1 that anything we do which changes the nuclear balance must only be done with agreement and assent of the major nuclear powers.

2 and 3 means that any missiles launched from Russia or China (or any other state in the area) will be subject to action by the system. It's disingenuous to say that such a system would do nothing to change the balance of power WRT them. It's true that such a system (as talked about) wouldn't be effective against a massive strike, but perceptions of stability in the balance of power is what has kept the peace (at least WRT conflicts with nuclear weapons) since the '50s. Perceptions matter a lot.

So, in an ideal world, it might be nice to render nuclear missiles "impotent and obsolete". But we don't live in an ideal world. We can't defend against "accidental launches" and "rogue states" and simultaneously maintain the strategic balance - not without taking into account the views and needs of China and Russia. We can't unilaterally impose our will on this subject without potentially dangerous consequences (specifically a new arms race).

What would make the US security situation much worse than a "rogue state" having a nuclear weapon would be to get into an arms race with China or Russia. "But Russia's a basket case! They're no threat!" some may say. If Russia feels threatened, she can rise to meet vast challenges. Remember WWII. And China isn't a basket case...

The converse would be "We're going to willingly expose ourselves to nuclear attack".

Does *that* make sense?


No, not in an ideal world it doesn't. But this isn't an ideal world. The balance of power with the major nuclear powers must be maintained. (Ideally with many fewer weapons.)

Lots of things can be done to minimize the risk of accidental launches. Some of which I'm sure have already been done - Agreeing to: 1) strict control over arming codes, 2) taking missiles off hair-trigger alert, 3) having self-destruct mechanisms, 4) only using liquid fueled rockets and keeping them unfueled, etc.

And the risk of missile launches by "rogue states" is vastly overstated, IMO. There's much more to having a usable weapon than simply putting a bomb on a duct-taped-together multistage rocket. Remember the very early US space program? "Rogue states" have to go through such a learning curve too, which means they have to launch rockets in various tests. Those can easily be detected and responded to if necessary. Plus, there's the issue of inviting massive (even conventional) retaliation if someone is stupid enough to attack the US.

NMD is a very bad solution to a problem which doesn't make sense, IMHO. Research should go forward, but talk of deployment and scrapping the ABM treaty is premature and even stupid at this point, IMO.

Cheers,
Scott.
New No, its not.
1. It's no longer 1945. We (the US) no longer has a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

Watch out, you'll get Peter fired up. Don't forget the Manhatten Project was a "partnership" between the UK and the US. :)

2. NMD won't be designed to distinguish between a missile launched from a power we have good relations with and a "rogue state".

So?

So you're saying that if Israel launches a nuke at us, that we shouldn't intercept it? (for sake of discussion, take as a given that Israel is "good relations").

I think that's not very effective as an argument. If such a system exists, and ANYTHING is launched nuclear, biologic, whatever (because technically we won't know what's what at the time), it should be intercepted.

3. The NMD system which they talk about installing in Alaska will do nothing against a threat from Iraq. It will, however, be designed to intercept warheads and/or missiles from Russian and Chinese territory.

Or North Korea, correct?
But even so, my point is that a nuke/missile from ANYWHERE is a GOOD THING to intercept.

4. It's exceedingly unlikely that nuclear missiles will be used in war in the next 10 years.

You hope. But you don't have anything to back that up with, other than hope. Technically they could be used before the end of today. I'd like to say its unlikely, too, but that's presuming a helluva lot.

5. We're not at war with any nuclear power and it's exceedingly unlikely that we will be in the next 10 years.

Same thing. Helluva assumption.

What if China crashes into Taiwan tomorrow?

It's disingenuous to say that such a system would do nothing to change the balance of power WRT them.

I'd agree with that.

We can't unilaterally impose our will on this subject without potentially dangerous consequences (specifically a new arms race).

True. And Russia's concern is being addressed.

China - hasn't signed any sort of treaties. Sneers at them. I don't think they've signed the Proliferation treaty. They certainly haven't signed onto the ABM treaty. And lest you forget - they don't have a problem testing in the open air, either. Golly. Seems that treaty isn't in "their interest" to sign.

Russia (USSR) - signed the treaty as they were busy *breaking* it. Yeah, I can see how much it concerned them having this "stability", and not "escalating" the arms race.

Now, by that (those) same token (s), why would we let (Especially China) unilaterally impose THEIR will on us?

Lots of things can be done to minimize the risk of accidental launches. Some of which I'm sure have already been done - Agreeing to: 1) strict control over arming codes, 2) taking missiles off hair-trigger alert, 3) having self-destruct mechanisms, 4) only using liquid fueled rockets and keeping them unfueled, etc.

All of which would require observation into the highest areas of security of the other nation. Hrm. I don't expect that to happen. And it also means that if the other guy gets the drop on you - you're screwed.

Additionally, 4) is wrong - all the US rockets today are solid-fueled. Was a major coup for us to get that working, too.

3) doesn't exist - because it might be exploited by whoever you're shooting at.

And the risk of missile launches by "rogue states" is vastly overstated, IMO. There's much more to having a usable weapon than simply putting a bomb on a duct-taped-together multistage rocket. Remember the very early US space program? "Rogue states" have to go through such a learning curve too,

I agree with the overstated part. But I don't think that its something that should be ignored.

You're right about the rockets - if they build them from scratch. But you don't. China is selling some not half bad rockets with many miles range. Who knows what's smuggleable out of the ex-USSR?

Iraq didn't have to "test" the "Scud". They did test a multi-staged Scud.

Plus, there's the issue of inviting massive (even conventional) retaliation if someone is stupid enough to attack the US.

Yes, I've noticed how that worried Osma Bin Laden...... The "rogue state" issue is dealing with someone like him...

NMD is a very bad solution to a problem which doesn't make sense, IMHO.

I agree that a missile defense system changes the strategic balance. But I don't agree that's a bad thing.

And *other* than an intercept system, *how* do you defend against a (nuclear) missile? The issue with the "rogue state" is for the sort where retaliation isn't an issue. For the Bin Laden's, for the cornered... What if Serbia had had a couple nukes?

When you're cornered, and have little/nothing to lose - why not? *That's* the "rogue" idea. And I agree its overstated. I personally think that we need missile defense for the same reason we have missiles. (To deter attack).

But I like the idea of *intercepting* a missile far far better than the idea of "I'll kill your ass after you kill mine"*. * - if I know where you are, and if I can find you and if you care.

That make sense to me. Body armor makes more sense than making sure you can shoot with a bullet in your chest.

And as technology progresses - and more and more countries have rocket/space technology the potential threats rise - and its not just nukes.

Hell, tossing powered Pu over the Midwest would be massively destructive - and a lot easier than hitting a city. Spreading agents of biowarfare would be easier in many ways than exploding a nuke - and easier to hide development.

And right now, there is no *possibility* of stopping that.

Does us building something to stop it concern Russia and China? Sure. Should it? Sure. Might it start a defensive arms race? Possibly.

But those are considerations in the overall schemes of things, and are not in and of themselves obvious reasons, IMO for the US to leave itself vulnerable to attack.

Addison
New Couple of things.
Hi Addison,

Thanks for the corrections. We're obviously not going to agree on many aspects of this issue. :-)

I don't think you've connected many of the dots, but I don't have time now for a point-by-point rebuttal (and I think the readers know where we stand).

On the liquid-fuel issue, thanks for the correction. Going to solid-fuel boosters gives greater performance and reliability and (I believe) safety, so there are good reasons to do so. But, it increases the risk of accidental launches (since you no longer have to take the time to go through the steps to load up the fuel tanks).

And encoraging China to move to solid rocket motors, as they've threatened to do in response to a US NMD system, wouldn't be a good idea. See, e.g., [link|http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/usmslsa.htm|How a US National Missile Defense will Affect South Asia] from the Center for Nonproliferations Studies.

Chinese Strategic Reaction and South Asia

China has warned that it will respond to an NMD by accelerating its nuclear modernization program; it has also threatened to expand its strategic deterrent quantitatively. China is thus likely to invest in a more robust nuclear triad. Within the triad, as China's strategic long-range strike programs come to fruition, single warhead liquid-fuel missiles will be replaced with longer-range, multiple warhead, solid-fuel systems.

A US NMD could also force changes in China's deployment posture. China currently lacks the technical capability to maintain its nuclear force on a high-alert status. Warheads are stored separately from their missile launchers. Because Chinese missiles are liquid-fueled, they require lengthy launch preparations. China's current nuclear modernization plans will bring it within striking distance of deploying a credible and survivable deterrent. However, NMD could prove to be the decisive factor that might persuade Chinese leaders to transform a small strategic deterrent into a full nuclear war-fighting capability. The theoretical possibility of a disarming US nuclear first-strike under cover of missile defenses, coupled with technological improvements in China's strategic assets and command, control, communications, and intelligence capabilities, could also force a re-appraisal of China's relaxed deployment posture. A possible Chinese response could be to maintain its strategic deterrent on a higher state of alert.

A modernized Chinese nuclear force and more robust posture will have a negative cascading effect in South Asia. Notwithstanding China's declared intentions, changes in its force capabilities and deployment posture will influence the nuclear debate in India. Likewise, New Delhi's nuclear decisions will affect Pakistan's strategic response.


Lots of that is putting the worst possible spin on what might happen. But there's little reason to think that it won't happen very close to the way outlined. Such an arms race isn't in any country's interest. India and Pakistan have enough problems without an accelerating arms race.

Yes, China isn't party to the ABM treaty. That doesn't mean they don't have an interest in the treaty and in strategic stability. China obviously doesn't and shouldn't have a veto on our defense policy. But a policy which runs counter to our interests due to the way it causes others to react shouldn't be enacted. If it corresponds to China's position, well that's fine in my book. We agree with China on lots of things already... :-)

That's about all I can say on this topic without repeating myself. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Couple of things.
I don't think you've connected many of the dots

Probably not - because you were mainly attacking some things I don't defend. :)

Going to solid-fuel boosters gives greater performance and reliability and (I believe) safety, so there are good reasons to do so.

Depends. Remember the Challenger? Once you light the candle, you can't snuff it out. But by and large on a daily basis, rather than live with tons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen around, or nitric acid and peroxides..

And encoraging China to move to solid rocket motors, as they've threatened to do in response to a US NMD system, wouldn't be a good idea

Possibly, no. But them doing that really doesn't *change* anything.

Even your quote says so, just doesn't realise it. :)

Warheads are stored separately from their missile launchers. Because Chinese missiles are liquid-fueled, they require lengthy launch preparations. China's current nuclear modernization plans will bring it within striking distance of deploying a credible and survivable deterrent. ...
The theoretical possibility of a disarming US nuclear first-strike under cover of missile defenses, coupled with technological improvements in China's strategic assets and command, control, communications, and intelligence capabilities, could also force a re-appraisal of China's relaxed deployment posture. A possible Chinese response could be to maintain its strategic deterrent on a higher state of alert.


In other words, if the US fires on China today - we can take out their entire arsenal. If you're talking hours to get the missiles to firing status, and the flight time of a US nuke is >30 minutes... heck, we can spot them with satellites, fire a Minuteman, and still bust 'em as they prep.

Does that change with missile defense? Nope.

And that's where I have to stand up and say, again, "So?" If china modernizes, that could be a problem. But they could (and likely will, ANYWAY (just as their systems age and bring new ones online, if nothing else)).

The US having a intercept system doesn't change anything for China - unless they're already ready to fire, anyway. A "surprise strike" cripples them, today.

No change.

So what's the problem?

Yes, China isn't party to the ABM treaty. That doesn't mean they don't have an interest in the treaty and in strategic stability.

No, but if they're REALLY interested in the US not having a ABM system.. Why aren't they demanding to sign onto the treaty?

But a policy which runs counter to our interests due to the way it causes others to react shouldn't be enacted.

But its a matter of which interests. Because of our position, we're a target. Paraguay, for instance, I suspect, doesn't even have contigency plans for somebody tossing a nuke their way. :)

We're discussing the lives of US citizens. You and Me. News flash! A Nuke has (or anthrax or something nasty) been launched. At your city.

Duck and cover. Remember how stupid that sounded?

But its all they could tell people in the 50s, and its not changed today. I don't see a ABM system as "stupid" for that very reason. Because it gives the option to stop it in flight. Body armor for cops is a precaution, not an invitation to go charging in like the Terminator.

If there are political reasons its a problem for deployment, well, we can, and should discuss them. But so far, I've not seen a lot of them. Russia and China saber-rattling, we'll have to see how that plays out.

You're right. They're worried about the US being able to REALLY toss its weight around, with less fear. But maybe that should be address in the weight tossing department, not the fear department?

Addison
New Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-)
Body armor for cops is a precaution, not an invitation to go charging in like the Terminator.

Let's say you're a gardener in a beautiful sunny Arizona. You've got an occasional problem with varmits in your garden. They eat your morrells. So you think about putting up a fence. Now these varmits are very clever and don't follow the rules of normal varmits. So you want a really good fence. You decide to make it out of stainless steel and make it 8 feet high and bury 8 feet of it below the ground. You think that'll keep out just about any varmit.

Your neighbor says, "Gee that fence isn't such a good idea. It's ugly and all that shiny stainless will reflect the intense sun into my yard and kill my delicate shitake mushrooms that we love so much. Please don't do that. Please find another way to control your varmits."

But you say, "Well, what problem could this fence possibly cause you? It's on my land. It doesn't make any noise. It's not costing you anything. It's unreasonable of you to prevent me from protecting my morrells. Why are you being such a bad neighbor?"

Your neighbor says, "Well, if you insist I'm going to have to do something to protect my shitake mushrooms. I'll have to damage your fence to protect my property. I don't have the money to build a big fence around my property, and I don't want to do so anyway. Your superfence will have to go one way or another!"

Up to this point, you've had tolerable relations with your neighbor. You like trading mushrooms back and forth, even though you don't like his taste in music and think his dog is ugly.

Your choices are:

1) Put up the fence as planned and earn your neighbor's wrath.
2) Do nothing so as not to upset your neighbor, and accept losing some of your morrells.
3) Control the varmits some other way, protect your morrells and preserve peace in the neighborhood.

What should you do?

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-)
4) Put up the fence and paint it black so it won't reflect. :)


3) Control the varmits some other way, protect your morrells and preserve peace in the neighborhood

And don't forget, the neighbor also feeds the varmints, and nurses hurt ones back to life, and takes all the ones trapped in the city and releases them in his backyard. :)


The big problem with 3), is so far, the "other way" and "protecting the morrells" (what are morrells?) are "well, lets hope none of the varmints show up". 3) just as theoretical as the ABM system itself right now. *And* its harder to make sure that the *other people* are holding up their end.

Don't forget, before World War II, there were treaties to prevent Germany from building an Army, Air Force, and Navy..... and Japan from building a Navy that could threaten the US........

I'd love to hear _alternatives_.

But I have to admit I'm not very happy with the admittedly small chance that somebody will toss a serious missile this way, and we're unable to prevent it.

So far, I can't agree with your opinion, that its a incredibly dumb idea, based on what you've brought forward. :)

Addison
New Morels! :-)
[link|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=morels|Morels.]
[link|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=morellos|Morellos.]

You know your neighbor better than I.

Take your pick.
Alex

Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not certain about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
New A thousand pardons. :-(
I thought it was morels, but on doing a Google search to be sure I saw about 40 different spellings (various rock bands, etc.). Should have grabbed my MW instead. Oh well... :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New The only real problems I see with the ABM shield...

I don't see a ABM system as "stupid" for that very reason. Because it gives the option to stop it in flight. Body armor for cops is a precaution, not an invitation to go charging in like the Terminator.

Or those guys who robbed the bank in California.


The real problem I see with the ABM system is


  1. I'm concerned that people are going to rely on the defense (and act stupid) rather than 'work things out.' Clinton has been criticised for getting the US troops into a number of conflicts. Now, imagine what conflicts Clinton would've been able to get US into if he knew the US was 'protected' from nuclear attack? (Imagine what happens if Hillary does win the Presidency with a 'nuclear shield'?)
  2. My only other concern is why we have to don the armor right now. Bush is pushing forward with a full implementation. Cops need body armor because they expect to be shot at.

New My take....
...is that the Russian government fears it because it devalues their deterrent against the US. They would then need to rely on conventional arms. Massing conventional arms is a) expensive and b)futile due to the US's technology lead.

In short....it puts them at risk.

I understand their point...given the decades of distrust between our 2 countries.

I don't agree with the Bush agenda here. There is no reason to deploy a system at this time. He should have began discussions about modification of all missile treaties...including the ABM treaty prior to announcing any intention to deploy.

Should such a system be deployed at some point? Absolutely. As long as ballistic missiles exist, we should be able to defend against them. Remember...the Chinese can aim their missiles now thanks to Mr Clinton.
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Impossible
I don't agree with the Bush agenda here. There is no reason to deploy a system at this time.

That's not a problem - we can't deploy anything at this time. We've had one moderately successful test (to the limits of what they were testing for), and several failures. We haven't had one full-fledged successful test, and even a successful test would hardly be evidence that the entire system would work. Besides all that, we hardly have the infrastructure set up to deploy even the rudiments of a beginning of a defense.

I see no problem with continuing to test and develop, but concerns about deployment are moot at this point. (And even if he gets money in the budget for it, it's still a moot point until we actually get something working.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New There's that issue, too.
I had something in there about that. About continuing to test and while testing modify the treaties to allow deployment when we are ready.

I also wonder...if there isn't a real agenda behind all of the current bluster. Its not as if his military advisors are idiots.
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Re: My take....
Hey, Be...Nice, succinct, and more'n'likely dead-on accurate.

Nice job!
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New Every once in a while...
...I get inspired (BIG wink ;-)

(shhh...I'm blushing)gee...dude...thanks :)
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Don't get too used to it...;-)
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New I was humbled more...
...by who made the comment than by the actual comment itself :-)

Trust me...I won't get used to it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Credit where credit is due!
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New I used to be humble
until someone pointed out my Greatness.

Sometimes One has to be honest about Oneself. :-)
New Re: Installing in Alaska will do nothing against a threat...
from Iraq.

Flash: the earth is a globe.

You must be looking at a Mercator Projection map. Try a globe or Polar Projection map. Use a string on a globe or ruler on polar Projection map from Iraq to various points in USA. These define the great circle route - the shortest path from point A to point B on the surface of the globe. It turns out if these don't go over Alaska, they come close.

An Alaska site would cover missiles from China as well. Russia is a problem. It's back to the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line.

[link|http://www.magmacom.com/~lwilson/dewline.htm#A|DEW line info.]
Alex

Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not certain about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
New Alaska was picked because North Korea was viewed ...
as a bigger threat.

[link|http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/jan/shield.htm|US-NMD Programme-Will It Trigger A New Cold War?]

The NMD system is to be deployed in three phases. In the first phase, the capability -1 phase, which will become operational between 2003 and 2005, there are to be 20 to 100 ground based interceptors X-band radar based in Alaska which are primarily designed to handle, Small Unsophisticated threats involving approximately five warheads and only simple penetration aids. Alaska is the preferred site because it provided maximum coverage of all fifty US States against potential North Korean attacks.


But, you're right the earth is a globe... Recall though that later stages of the NMD system plan to have a site in North Dakota, presumably to better cover threats from the Middle East, etc.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Alaska was picked because Sen for life Ted Stevens
said so, as well as the other reasons but to get the money ya hafta go thru ted and jobs for AK is not a hard sell.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Scott - catch NPR discussion Mon re Russia version?
Caught after ~ 10 min. At Commonwealth Club, IIRC. Blair and Swig only names caught.

Couple of PhD boffins, much experience in and about USSR, Russia over the years - addressing this issue and describing the deteriorating trust between US / them, especially re ABM, NATO plans - events since the USSR disintegration.

Good side:
Comments on - Kurchatov Institute scientists finding the bug in the M$ dbase for nuke tracking: they finally did find what was broke and told Los Alamos et al. The weapons experts, this small group on both sides - appear to retain a high level of trust. So far.

Worse sides:
The general economic chaos and lessening security, control of the large former USSR arsenal, make it impossible for Russia to raise and equip a conventional army to match that of NATO forces. Must rely upon nukes for the foreseeable, for perfectly clear economic reasons.

Critique of the failures of the Clinton admin to treat Russia with any comprehension, to see their POV -- offering only unilateral proven unhelpful opinions.. 'Disdainful' comes to mind as the attitude the speakers were conveying.

As result - West is no longer given benefit of doubt in the NATO and other machinations, no longer presumed to be 'benign' in its strategies towards Russia. That honeymoon is over (and IMhO we utterly failed the opportunities to make a few $Billion assists - events as might later cost us $Trillions - as the ill will, alienation continues)

Horrifying details of the decreasing experience, competence, pay! + alcoholism of - actual missile command structures: TODAY, not last year.

Overall theme: we MUST near-immediately reduce the response-time of ALL SIDES from the current 2-3 MINUTES... to days or hopefully much longer OR: these two are scared and believe we OUGHT ALL to be. (Nor is this info startlingly new either - we have a massive capacity to overlook as long as possible).

(Head of the Chelyabinsk nuke lab committed suicide fairly recently - over the deterioration he was witnessing, was responsible to control - could see no way to do so..)

The impending NATO schemes, perhaps including the 3 Baltics, etc.. most of the rhetoric since '92 has been at least subtly hostile to Russia's interests, actual problems - and its natural desire not to be relegated to YAN US-dominated and impotent.. state. (My summary of their POV).

I conclude that, more sabre rattling and stupidities like the latest ABM Reaganesque plan -- may just see the thousand-missile launch finally occur: and they Can launch 100s within MINUTES .. As can we. Still today.

MAD remains our operating plan. M.A.D. - what an epitaph for homo-sap.

Seems to me that if the jingoists insouciantly push forward, taking advantage of the Cheney US presidency, utterly ignoring the plight of Russia + the attitude we shall evoke from China and the rest of world -

Dr. Strangelove Redux is no longer unthinkable -- it may even be most probable scenario, via any sane risk analysis (?) Seems to be now: WORLD security or NONE for any particular nation. ABM now looms as a large threat to security of *ALL*, no matter our fantasies of 'Our Security': screw you all.

50/50? 30/70? place bets. It damn sure is not 90/10 (sanity/idiocy ratio)



A.

Dumbth. Don't go abroad without it.
New Nope, I missed it.
Sounds thoroughly depressing, like much of the news these days.

:-(

I briefly looked at npr.org but the only thing that showed in a search for "Russia" on 8/13/01 was an ATC segment. Was it a national broadcast? Do you recall the name of the show?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Found it:
[link|http://www.kqed.org/radio/presentations/index.html#cityarts|KQED-FM listing]

Monday, August 13, 2001: Russia: Facing the Future \ufffd Moderator: Michael Nacht, Goldman School of Public Policy; Speakers: Judyth Twigg, Virginia Commonwealth University; Bruce Blair, President, Center for Defense Information.

World Affairs Council - I confused with Commonwealth Club - because of ref. I didn't check yet to see if .pdf is available - can get audio tapes of most, though.

Also I know CDI. IMO one of the more competent groups in DC. Visited them, support them with $ every year. Believe they have no political axes - just intelligence about military and related issues. (Center for Defense Information)

Yup. Bad. Worse because.. nothing hyperbolic in this presentation; their experience extends to time in USSR in the old days. Blair mentioned how strained are many of his personal relationships there, today.

I also have a couple friends from the LBL days, peripherally involved in above, over the years. They are quite unhappy at the recklessness and (didn't quite say 'blind stupidity') of ABM, NATO rhetoric -- and our foolish ineptness at critical junctures since the Wall came down.

I remember thinking at that time (really!): "..now if we will just offer some mini-Marshall plan so that this humongous conversion process can have sound foundation -- we'll save Trillions and suffering, end McCarthyism forever and... and this madness will actually terminate!" Silly me.

(We seemed to love Gorby and count on his manufacturing a mini-US just for us - never mind how much he pissed off his own folks.) We have no empathy or in this case - gratitude for a real break! Just self-congratulatory hubris + "what's the $ cost?"


:[


Ashton
New Question: how do they propose to do this?
Overall theme: we MUST near-immediately reduce the response-time of ALL SIDES from the current 2-3 MINUTES... to days or hopefully much longer

Oh, sure, that sounds peachy-keen. Um, but there is one other country in the equation (and, presumably, as China buiilds up its arsenal there will be two, and possibly these "rogue states" that may or may not be building ICBMs.) How in heck do they propose to persuade them? Other than relying upon Russia's and China's good will? har har har har
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Doverai ni proverai..
Ronnie was so proud of himself! - his first uttered Russian words.. (old Russian saying)

Trust.. but verify.

And fact is / seems to be - there remains enough of that sense between the real pros in US and Russia (indicated by their telling *us* exactly what was broken in the #&*^%&#$ Microsloth db, which was hiding weapons numbers) to use the word 'trust' correctly. Today, anyway. Tomorrow ?? Etc.

No, I can't give you a nice slogan that *proves* we can make any such arrangement utterly idiot-proof. I could.. list a few dozen reasons though, why..

TWO MINUTES = an unimaginably STUPID amount of time before launching the beginnings of what the Rand Corporation dubbed, in the early '60s

Spasm War...

ie after a perhaps two or 3 missiles are enroute or land - we revert to primitive logic, no matter if it can be seen that this logic shall KILL ALL, And *THAT* is precisely the logic ever behind M.A.D. -- which we have survived because so far, not One Insane sub Captain + a few willing accomplices - has er surfaced on either side.

Wanna keep playing that game, as Russia's ability to control its weapons deteriorates every day?



I Don't.

China ditto - dunno the Chinese for doverai, proverai

(Obviously 'reduce' was the exact wrong! word, above. D'Oh.)
New What is ideal?
Trust but verify.

Missile defense system available to both Russia and US.

We deploy, they deploy.

Global arms tensions reduce.

Since we can bash their missiles and they can bash our missiles, we both reduce.

oh nevermind early morning/late night pipe dream
New An excellent solution: ABMs for all.
It may prove to be the only workable solution, in the end. A lose/lose deterrent and a win/win standing down of *every* hair trigger with verification, inspection, documentation:

allowed by both sides because the alternative - though we have (I have!) lived through it since '47 - is unthinkable, is simply M.A.D.



A.

If it's a pipe dream, it's good stuff
New giggling wildly
Ashton agreeing with me? Heheheh
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New ..only in your rare moments of relative.... lucidity :-\ufffd
New *my* rare moments?
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New You don't straighten any thing out by adding wrinkles
The converse would be "We're going to willingly expose ourselves to nuclear attack".


Oh, you mean like what we have now? Like what we've had since the beginning of the nuclear age?

Uh-huh...that's clear, alright.
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New I didn't.
Oh, you mean like we have now? Like what we've had since the beginning of the nuclear age?

That was exactly my point.

And its not since the beginning of the nuclear age. But since history around here is so derided, I won't explain further.

Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack.

Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me.

Addison
New To add a little
Yep. Currently we're wide open, exposed to nuclear attack.

Doesn't seem like a good idea, to me.

Even if we can't take every missile aimed at us out of the sky, isn't taking some of them out a desirable thing?

OK, so Russia launches a strike and takes out Washington (cough IMO that would be a good thing), Atlanta, New York, a dozen other major cities. Perhaps the missile defense saves Washington (dammit!) but if it also saves the Wriight-Patterson base north of CIncinnati I'll be happy. (I live in an area that would be within the blast range of a strike there.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New The imminent threat is not addressed after wasting $BB
One of the more astute posters on this topic (not in this thread, unfortunately) stated the obvious so succinctly:

"The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack" (paraphrasing).

So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack?

Oh, I forgot...we'll just put up video cameras everywhere....
jb4
Resistance is not futile...)
New That's merely one possibility.
"The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack"

Maybe.

And we've got ways of intercepting backpacks. Or trucks. Sure, it might slip through undetected, but there is *an* ability in place to potentially stop it.

(Additionally, the intelligence agencies would likely have some prior warning as they have for the other terrorist acts, as the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City - obviously that doesn't always work, but the "advantage" to nuclear weapons is they are rather hard to hide (from detection equipment. The lead time has to be increased, and its not easy to quickly change the target - unlike a missile - which could be launched, without prior warning, and be over any city in the US in about 30-45 minutes, today)

So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack?

Its very simple: you're quite possibly wrong.

In case I need to explain further: There is more likelihood (in my opinion) of a nuclear missile being fired than a small warhead smuggled in.

(And the ones that are "man portable" aren't anywhere NEAR as big as what you can stick on a missile, for obvious reasons).

So we're back to your versus my opinion on the likihood of something. Leaving yourself exposed to the current big missiles, because you might not stop a small hand-carried one is still illogical.

Unless you can be CERTAIN that that is the *only* attack you will be experiencing.

How do you propose to prove that?

Addison
New All of you are missing something
How is it no one is questioning if this Star Wars II will ever work any better than the first Star Wars boondoggle?
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New I don't think I'm missing that.
What boondoggle?

You have to define "Star Wars" - most of that is still theoretical (but research on things like attomic-pumped X-ray lasers has progressed greatly).

Most of that was at the time theoretical, and still mostly theoretical.

This is down to the good, ol counter-ballistic trajectory idea. Which has lots of prior history (anti-aircraft, anti-missile).

There wasn't really a "Star Wars I". There was Sprint and Spartan, which as I've heard, worked OK, but that's back to the same sort of thing that's currently being talked about.

Addison
New I don't think I've the patience
just now to dissect your "I THINK it WILL work..." {yawn} and variations on that theme. I conclude simply - you'll pick some wishful idea of 'techno'-later.. VS *any* basic human common sense-now.. every time. In other areas we call that,

You've Got Faith!

Swell. I've Got Faith Too: Whether it would ever have worked, or not - what it Will torpedo now and Next makes it: Not Worth It.



A.
New Good Reason?
I can think of good reasons to have warp cores. There is a small problem - warp cores don't exist, and never will. Missile shields are on that level. They don't exist, and never will. I worked on Star Wars, the problems are the same now as then, despite a 1000-fold increase in computing power. There is no way to deal with all the possible decoys. The limitation is in radar systems.

Moreover, it's 200 bil down the drain, for essentially nothing. Reagan drained the economy dry in the 80s, by the early 90s we were in a deep recession. Want that again?
New OT: 1990-1991 recession wasn't "deep"
for recent values of "deep"...

[link|http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html|The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure in the Light of Current Developments] says industrial production fell 4.6% (peak to trough) and employment fell around 2%. The peak to trough was around 9 months.

Some alternate data from the Federal Reserve is show in Table 11 of [link|http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/20010216/g17.pdf|this] PDF (beware - it's over 200 kB). It shows the quarterly industrial production numbers as changing as follows:

1981:
Q1 - +1.9%
Q2 - +2.2%
Q3 - +4.1%
Q4 - -10.5%

1982:
Q1 - -6.4%
Q2 - -5.2%
Q3 - -7.3%
Q4 - -7.5%

In contrast, the 1990-1991 recession was:

1990:
Q1 - +2.0%
Q2 - +0.6%
Q3 - +1.0%
Q4 - -5.8%

1991:
Q1 - -8.3%
Q2 - +1.5%
Q3 - +6.2%
Q4 - +1.1%

I haven't been able to find NBER data on changes in employment and industrial production for the 1980-1981 recession in my brief looking...

So, at least by the standard of the 1981-1982 recession, the 1990-1991 recession wasn't deep. I agree with your statement that it would be a waste of money to push for a NMD system though.

Cheers,
Scott.
New We need a healthy Russian economy
Big, powerfull countries in utter economic ruin are extremely dangerous. Look at Germany between the wars. Add huge nuke stockpiles that are the only military force the country can afford, and, well, consider the idea of Hitler (I'm not thinking of Russia's current leadership, I'm thinking of what, under continued economic ruin, the replacement might be) with a few thousand nukes sitting around.

For a variety of ugly political reasons on both sides, there isn't much we can do to improve the Russian economy. But if we get another arms race going, we can make it worse. Bad as it is, there is still room for it to get worse.

It would be nice to get past "duck and cover". But that isn't what the missile defense system is about. The missile defense system is theoreticaly about preserving our retaliatory strike capability. But there are so few scenarios where it would be relevant (Iraq would use ground transport or aircraft, Russia or China would simply overwhelm the system by launching lots of missiles, it might protect us from France if the positioning is right) that I have to suspect that the real purpose is either to transfer funds or to help future Texan schoolchildren confuse George II with Reagan. Unfortunately, when Reagan did it, damaging the Russian economy was in our best interests. And that is no longer the case.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
New Very well said. Thanks.
New Precisamente.. and, it is so evidently basic
yet utterly not understood? or simply ignored in the current sabre rattling of Bushie II and his handlers, who appear to be about -- random discord creation, worldwide.

I posted a recent talk on the subject by a CDI spokesman, in another thread.

It is getting *critical* in Russia ; not even close to being a pun on *critical mass*. Meanwhile we behave obliviously to this obvious and worsening tragic situation. We behave with full-race Dumbth.


A.
New Good points!
Alex

Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not certain about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
     WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense. - (Another Scott) - (49)
         Re: WashPost OpEd: Why Russians fears missile defense. - (addison) - (44)
             So lemme get this straight... - (jb4) - (41)
                 None of the above - (wharris2)
                 I'll attempt to straighten you out... - (addison) - (39)
                     It's not so simple. - (Another Scott) - (30)
                         No, its not. - (addison) - (16)
                             Couple of things. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                 Re: Couple of things. - (addison) - (14)
                                     Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-) - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         Re: Battling analogies. Bring it on! :-) - (addison) - (2)
                                             Morels! :-) - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                 A thousand pardons. :-( - (Another Scott)
                                     The only real problems I see with the ABM shield... - (Simon_Jester) - (9)
                                         My take.... - (bepatient) - (8)
                                             Impossible - (wharris2) - (1)
                                                 There's that issue, too. - (bepatient)
                                             Re: My take.... - (jb4) - (5)
                                                 Every once in a while... - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                     Don't get too used to it...;-) -NT - (jb4) - (3)
                                                         I was humbled more... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                             Credit where credit is due! -NT - (jb4)
                                                             I used to be humble - (Ashton)
                         Re: Installing in Alaska will do nothing against a threat... - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                             Alaska was picked because North Korea was viewed ... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Alaska was picked because Sen for life Ted Stevens - (boxley)
                         Scott - catch NPR discussion Mon re Russia version? - (Ashton) - (9)
                             Nope, I missed it. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Found it: - (Ashton)
                             Question: how do they propose to do this? - (wharris2) - (6)
                                 Doverai ni proverai.. - (Ashton) - (5)
                                     What is ideal? - (wharris2) - (4)
                                         An excellent solution: ABMs for all. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                             giggling wildly - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                 ..only in your rare moments of relative.... lucidity :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                     *my* rare moments? -NT - (wharris2)
                     You don't straighten any thing out by adding wrinkles - (jb4) - (7)
                         I didn't. - (addison) - (6)
                             To add a little - (wharris2) - (5)
                                 The imminent threat is not addressed after wasting $BB - (jb4) - (4)
                                     That's merely one possibility. - (addison) - (3)
                                         All of you are missing something - (DonRichards) - (2)
                                             I don't think I'm missing that. - (addison) - (1)
                                                 I don't think I've the patience - (Ashton)
             Good Reason? - (deSitter) - (1)
                 OT: 1990-1991 recession wasn't "deep" - (Another Scott)
         We need a healthy Russian economy - (mhuber) - (3)
             Very well said. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             Precisamente.. and, it is so evidently basic - (Ashton)
             Good points! -NT - (a6l6e6x)

Drugs.
245 ms