A different view on missle defence decision.

[miko2d]

Could it be that US government trusts in russian democracy or at least stability of its government and its restraint and common sense - maybe more then most people, even russians do?
 After all, the people in charge now are not marasmatic brainwashed elders who survived Stalin by being too incompetent to be threatening, but smart and knowlegeable people. Average russian may be too ignorant about other countries and their way of life, but not Putin or his henchmen.

 So why should we be worried even if the russians do increase their warhead count and go MIRV. Who cares if they have more missiles as long as they are still not going to use them.

 If Putin needs to do some anti-US posturing in order to get more popularity and hold on to power - good for him.
 We had lots of disagreements in opinion with politicians/public in other democratic countries and many of them made careers on hostility to US. So what?
 We did not end up shooting or threatening each other and not going to.

 If the russians are going to feel safer with more missiles and more united before the US "threat" - very well.
 Any uniting cause will help the stability of their government and hostility towards US is an excuse as good as any - God knows the russians are not a nation that can be united through love to anything.
 What else could Putin say - "We need to tighten our belts and put aside our differences and stand behing the government however incompetent and corrupt - those pesky  Luxemburgians are up to no good" ??
 Not likely to work. US is a much more workable threat to ignorant people (like Boroda) who sucked hate to US with mother's milk and constant propaganda. Besides, we are much safer to deal with.
 Try to badmouth France and the french will express their displeasure, but uncle Sam has thick skin. We do not take offence easily and we know that people who express their dislike of us will most likely not cause any real trouble.
 "He who is not with us is against us" - it's a russian slogan, not american.

 At the same time the russians are not in control anymore of where their technology and nuclear material goes, so the rogue powers are more real threat.
 Those are people who's college-educated young men blow themselves up in order to get to paradise.

 So we build the missle defence, protect ourselves from possible missle attack from terrorists, help keep Russia united and employed and their military paid.
 Once the system is working, we may even sell or rent it to the russians. They seem to have more trouble with terrorism currently then we do.

 So quiet down, guys, go to the supermarket, grab a trunkfull of food and some charcoal and try to beat the traffic on the way to the picknic. It looks like it's going to be a great weekend. That's for americans, of course.
 You, russians, go ahead and have another anti-american demonstration, demand the government to build a few more milliles and pay salaries to the military. May be even burn an american flag or two. That may distract you from groveling in your stomacks.
 
 miko

[skernsk]

So why should we be worried even if the russians do increase their warhead count and go MIRV. Who cares if they have more missiles as long as they are still not going to use them.

More MIRV = more of them will be "lost" or end up on the black market.  

Seems funny that a "defensive" system can cause such a backlash of controversy.  I think the syatem is going to be more useful defending against "Terrorism" than Russia.

I am not worried about Russians like Baroda sitting next to the missile silo and posting on this BB

I am more worried about the lost/missing pluotonium and missile parts floating around the black market in easterrn Europe, or some other place in the world.

[tofri]

I do not think, that anybody miss the old times, when two superpowers were able to destroy themselves and the rest of the world.  But there was a balance and all knew, how mad or desperate the leadership of one country might be, they would face annihilation, if they would attack other countries.
Now the USA try to build up a defence. It is a honourable intention to protect your citizen, but it could be a thread to the rest of the world.
How should we protect ourself, if we can't throw bombs on the USA    
If the US are able to destroy a country without fearing a revenge, it would mean a complete new kind of world order.
Someone, who can kill you, is not your friend or partner. You smile to him and think the whole time getting rid of him.
There is no problem at the moment, but who knows what future will bring.  

 tofri

[Eagler]

Originally posted by tofri:
I do not think, that anybody miss the old times, when two superpowers were able to destroy themselves and the rest of the world.

THEY STILL CAN! They could yesterday, last week, last year, just as effectively (more effectively now) as they could in the 60's. They still will be able to if and when this shield is in place. As stated in the other threads, if this works, if it is deployed, the US allies will be under it. If I were they, I'd be supporting our efforts. Once again America is doing the work, spending the money on something that the other countries will sit back and reap the benefits from..the entire idea that this throws the balance is crazy. I'd be worried about a missle shield if we had the Chinamen testing one. There would be something to be concerned about...Hopefully this isn't one technology ole slick willie sold em while he was fornicating in the oval office...

well said miko

[Tac]

It only takes 50 20 megaton warheads to COMPLETELY diddly up the biosphere and bring nuke winter.

US and russia have more than 5000 aimed at each other's donuts.


The whole idea of one country having an effective missile defense system is as moronic as having those missiles in the first place. Just IMAGINE where we would be if all those resources and manpower had gone to the space program! Id be living on the moon by now!

[Dowding]

Oh come on! Terrorist threat?! What half-arsed terrorist sponsoring nation is going to go to all the expense of ICBM development without first using the old 'suitcase in an abandoned taxi' routine? It's cheaper, less detectable and almost completely anonymous.

A 'rogue state' doesn't harbour the desire for complete destruction of the US and et al, but highly visible isolated attacks. Nuclear missiles are are overkill; just pack some highly radioactive heavy metal around a conventional bomb, and detonate it in London, Washington or LA. The radiation sickness alone will reserve your particular group's place in the history books.

Multiply that by 10 times if you actually use a full blown nuclear fission bomb.

The terrorists the Russians have problems with are more likely to use the above method, and your missile defence shield will not help them.

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[miko2d]

So it looks like the misslile shield is not going to provoke a war.

 It now may seem to me to be ineficient and waste of money but I suspect the experts at Pentagon and the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee know something that I don't.

 miko

[Cobra]

Originally posted by Dowding:
Oh come on! Terrorist threat?! What half-arsed terrorist sponsoring nation is going to go to all the expense of ICBM development without first using the old 'suitcase in an abandoned taxi' routine? It's cheaper, less detectable and almost completely anonymous.

 
[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Uhmmm...North Korea and Iraq to name two of them.

Cobra

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Cobra ]

[Hangtime]

Damn.. I been to a few places in this world... in every country I saw fences, I saw doors and I saw locks on those doors.

Now lets suppose for a moment that a guy builds a house; puts his stuff in it, toejam like a wife; kids, dog, fruits of his labor, etc. Do you begrudge his puttin a lock on the door?

Same guy.. see's his neigbor's house was robbed, sez, "..damn, the dude even had a lock.." and promptly sets about improving his home's security with a motion detctor/burglar alarm. So does his neighbor. So do all the neighbors.

Look..  you want protection as good as ours?? We'll give it to yah if your a good neighbor. Locks and Alarms ain't the same as guns pointed at yer head, but if someone does try to break in... then we'll have the option of pointing a nuke at yer ass.

Which is why our house ain't gettin broken into. Get yer own fediddlein burgular alarm if you don't feel safe....

Itsa deterrent. Not a provocation. Whats provocative about a lock and a burglar alarm?

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]

[Dawvgrid]

OkOk,Hangtime so now you got the missileumbrella,,other countries wont be able
to hit you,,,,but you will be able to hit them,,do you think they`ll just sit back and say well we`ll give up ,,,,,,,,,not likely.

[StSanta]

The suitcase nuke or variants such as described by Dowding seem to be quite a threat.

Several Russian ones are unaccounted for.

I'd suggest that smuggling such a device into  America would be quite easy. After all, tons and tons of drugs are smuggled in, so it should be quite doable.

It's MUCH cheaper than developing long range missiles. It's low tech and it's very doable.

Even smaller terrorists groups could, with a fraction of the money used to just develop one missile, get their hands on one of these devices.

Not to mention biological weapons.

The US face a much larger threat from these devices than from ballistic missiles - Bush admitted (according to BBC) that if the Russians were to launch a full scale attack, the MDS wouldn't be able to repell it; thus the normal "MAD" is still in place between the two countries.

So, to me this seems like a perfect case of trying to deal with some rust on a ship that has a big leak.

It's your (Americans) money. Expect to pay something for radar units on foreign soil, however  .

[miko2d]

No missile shield in the would be able to make a significant dent if Russia decided to launch all the fifteen thousans or so warheads at US.
 There will probably be no long-term  difference if they expoded al those nukes over the ocean or over their teritory - even if US does not launch anything. Some of those warheads are multi-megaton.

 The intent of a missle shield is to stop or reduce a small-scale missle attack or an accidental missle launch.

 Russians should not worry about someone bringing a suitcase nuke to New York. If NY gets obliterated (I hope not since I live here) that will not cause us to shoot back at Russia. Detected missle launches would.
 It's just that with a missle shield those launches would have to be really massive to make US pull the trigger.

 If some rogue general takes control of a missle base in Russia or a submarine or two and launches a few dozen missiles hoping to provoke a nuclear war between US and Russia, US will have an option to wait and see what develops instead of immediately launching our whole arsenal to Russian targets.

 So the large scale war scenario does not change in any way but a chance of accidental or provoked war may be diminished (depending on the efficiency of the system).

 miko

[Yoj]

Still a horrible waste of money.  Its like building a tornado shelter on the San Andreas fault - sure, it might save your bacon, but its not likely to be the threat you're really facing.

- Yoj

[Hangtime]

Yah.. suitcase nukes are the big immediate threat, terrorisim is by nature, terrifying. Millions of civilans will die in such a scenario... but it's doubtful a few suitcase nukes would be able to suffiently undermine the military retaliation capability of the USA. Toss in a timed salvo of say 10-25 missiles from a rouge state, and now you have a credible threat against our nation... one that demands a better burglar alarm. The world has definitly changed since 1972, we need a better defense.

I suspect that in our lifetimes one of these suitcase scenarios will exact its deadly toll. However; I doubt seriously we would launch a wholesale nulear assault anywhere in reply to a single suitcase nuke.... but the world would again get to see what an enraged America looks and behaves like. The "Remember Pearl Harbor" national attitude would be reborn, the resulting war on terrorists and terrorism would obsolete the genere.

In the meantime, it's not unreasonable for America to face the facts of life in the 21st century. The nuclear club keeps getting bigger, the potential for a rouge state or it's demented leader to kamikazie is a reality. If Hitler had the A-bomb in 1940, what do you think would have become of Moscow and London in 1941?

Yah.. a free nation, in order to assure the protection of it's citizens needs to look to providing a least rudimentary protection of a threat from a rouge launch.. MAD has no meaning to a nutcase with an army and a nuke, suitcase prelude or not.

I would think that the world would applaud if we were able to slap down a strike and deal with the perp from a stronghold, rather than flog about ineffectively after being crippled by a pissant dictator.

A missile shield is not an offensive weapon.. it's a deterrent, and worth the price. I'd like my kid to grow old and cranky; just like me.

[Panze]

Lets take totally hypothetical situtation where there is major crisis between, for example, russia and u.s. Other has missile defense capable of destroying lets say about 50 incoming ballistic missiles.

If both sides are afraid that the other one will be launching nuclear strike, what would they propably do?
Country with missiledefence might consider it good idea to fire their missiles first, because IF they are able to destroy most of the enemy´s nukes before they are launched, enemy retaliation will be less effective and missiledefence might be sufficient to protect their country from total destruction. But if they waiting for enemy to launch their missiles first, their defences isnt enough!!

And knowing this country with no defence is more eager to pull the trigger. They fire first, all die. They fire second, only they die..

So to protect their own country it WOULD be better idea to attack first and this part imho is most dreadfull part of whole missile defence idea