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

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

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

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

"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

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