NMD and international treatys

[StSanta]

To sum up the positions very briefly:

"Biden said he does not flatly oppose such a nuclear "umbrella," but was concerned that building one could alienate U.S. allies and Russia by violating the 1972 anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

Rumsfeld disagreed. "It threatens no one, and it should be of concern to no one, including the Russians or the Chinese, unless someone has an intention of doing damage to other people," Rumsfeld said."

Now, granted, my understanding of international treays might be limited.

But no matter if that system threatens or does not threaten anyone, it is in violation of a treaty. A treaty proponents say is outdated. It's still a treaty, it's still in place and I believe that all the parts of the treaty would have a say about whether it is obsolete or not.

Ignoring treatys/calling them obsolete when it suits a nation doesn't seem like a very sensible approach to me.

I read this as the US is going to push forward with the NMD even if it means violating a treaty. Of course, they'll try to convince other nations first but will go ahead with or without their consent.

Is it disregard for international law, or simply warranted action taken for self defence?

And, to compare, wouldn't Pakistan getting nukes when the Indians did fall in the same category?

Just wondering if there's some hypocricy lying around.

This is a serious question, not a troll and I try not to be too biased about it - it's just how it looks to me on the surface.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[TheWobble]

 Its DEFENSE, It cannot in any way be used offensivly, the only thing it can or would do is insure the safty of the US against a nuclear attack.

I for one would not mind bing "alienated" because Im safe from some amazinhunk 3rd world dictator, in an unstable reigon dropping a nuke on my head.


Look at it this way StSanta, Libia, SADDAM, maby even China and endless other people and even countries who want nothing more than to have the US wiped off the face of the earth.. look at saddam, He knew he would lose the war, all he wanted was to kill as many AMERICANS as possible,  Bottom line is that in the "Cold War" the US could talk to the people that had the power to launch nukes, reason, and knew what they were thinking more or less.  

The new type of folks that have and can get Nuclear missles are not rational people, they are not large countries that have much to lose, most are in poverty created by their dictator who is stealing from his people, theses people are they type that cannot be reasoned with, look at the suicide bombers, people that hate another country/religion or whatever so much that they would very Happily kill themselves jut to kill a few of who he hates...now picture a person with that mantality suddenly becoming a dictator via a revolution of sorts, say this country posses even 1 ICBM, there would be no reasoning no talking, just this insane (often literally) person and millions of americans lives are in his hands, treaty or none that just is not an acceptable risk to take.

Secondly what about the ultra ritch who hate the US, there is 1 in particular that is already "waging a war" against the US out of his own pocket(forgot Name), now say this guy gets ahold of an old soviet ICBM.  Again millions of americans lives in the hands of a madman.

Ya see what Im getting at, when a threat exists a country (or person) must be prepared to deal with it, the alternative is put blind faith in the hands of a person who wishes nothing more than to see you dead, and I doubt anyone cand argue that that threat(s) is defanatly out there.

EXCELLENT TOPIC STSANTA! a real noodle picker <S>  

[Wotan]

   What this does is force those who are already suspicious of the US to be even more so. Russian hard line generals will put pressure on Putin which may force him to take tough stands towards the west. If and when the old soviet military industrial complex re-asserts its self the first thing they will do is look for a way to beat it and we will look for away to improve it and they will beat it and so on and so on and so on.

           
     Technological advancement progressing the way it does will push this race even faster and cost more money then we ever spent during the cold war and for what? The US cant keep drugs or illegal immigrants from crossing the border so what makes you think that a Libya, Iraq or Pakistan would risk their destruction by launching a easily traceable ballistic missile when it could be very easily put in back pack and brought across the border and detonated with no warning what so ever.  

The more the US ups the anti the more those opposed to the US will as well. The reasons these treatise were agreed upon are several but one had to be that if both sides continue to develop the next generation super weapon the costs and the danger involved out weighed any short false feeling of security. War will always be a part of this world.

The fear of mutual destruction is what kept the nuclear powers in check. The idea that one side could reply in an instance gave them a sense of security the this so-called "nuclear umbrella" would take away. This will lead to destabilizing affect on those already suspicious of the west. It will force them to find away to circumvent the "umbrella". State sponsored terrorism will be used as a type of insurance and a guarantee that the technologically developed nation will kept in check

------------------
  Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Dowding]

Dejavu methinks - we had a discussion on NMD 2 months ago.

You're right Santa, unilateral disregard of treaties is frankly ridiculous, especially when the objective is a system that does not work yet.

Seems to me the whole NMD issue is surrounded by internal US politics.

ICBM development is expensive and highly visible. Why deviate from the tried and tested method of state sponsored terrorism, which is difficult to trace (just look at the lockerbie trial)? Like Wotan says, a small nuclear device in a suitcase would have the same effect and be easier to carry out. Even easier is radioactive or biologically hazardous material packed around a conventional explosive.



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-13-2001).]

[StSanta]

TheWobble:

I agree that *every* nation has the right to defend itself. It is also true that the US have a number of enemies that either already have or can gain access to nuclear deviced, here amonst some mounted on ICBM's.

Earlier, it was MUD that "protected" us - such a horrible scenario that no one wanted to happen. Today it's somewhat different.

But it still asks the question: when can you *justify* breaking treaties, and when is someone really engaging in an arms race rather than self protection? (some would argue it's the same)

Case in point: we (the world community) punished India and Pakistan for violating the non proliferation thingy.

Nowm, unless the Americans somehow get the Russians to agree, they will violate the 1972 missile treaty. Of course, there'll be no punishment, because the rules are different for the kings.

Yet I can see why Americans are concerned - there are so many nations out there that have proclaimed the US to be Satan Country and whatnot, sometimes for legitimate but mostly not for any real good reason.

How will the NMD stop a nuclear bomb placed into a van, driven through say Mexico up to LA?

At any rate, it might help you some. But I believe it also gives the population a false sense of security in that there are many ways to deliver a nuclear bomb.

So, to sum it up, the US will probably break a treaty they find obsolete unless the russians (unlikely) agree. Pakistan and India  started nuclear weapons programs, also in violation of some odd treaty. Will there be repercussions for the US, and if not, can one not argue that it's a bit of a hypocritical situation?

I mean we have such situaions all over, here too. I'm just trying to get to terms with just what's happening.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[TheWobble]

     

What this does is force those who are already suspicious of the US even more so.

So basically its better to be left open for a nuclear attack from some 3rd world toejamhole dictator than it is to have somebody suspicious of you??  So what if the get suspicious, most them weirdo jagoffs already hate america (which is why we are gonna build the damn thing).  They already think the US is evil LITERALLY.


   

If and when the old soviet military industrial complex re-asserts its self the first thing they will do is look for a way to beat it and we will look for away to improve it and they will beat it and so on and so on and so on.

Russia couldent care less what we do anymore, they know good and well that the US has no reason at all to even consider any hostile actions towrds them, so why would the burn tons of money to try and "one up" anything we do?, they would have nothing to gain, plus given what happened to them last time they got into an arms build up race against the US I seriously doubt they would make that mistake again.

Like I said (assuming you read my post) ITS DEFENSE, its not some doomsday device that will wipe out Mother Russia or any place else, the only people it should bother would be somebody who would be considering attacking the US via the ICBM route and if that is the case we damn sure need it.


   

when is someone really engaging in an arms race rather than self protection?

An arms race against who?? we have no "big" enemies that would even bother trying to reproduce it accept MABY China, like I said its to defend us from those oddball factions that think the US is evil, not russia or china or anyone else.

 

a small nuclear device in a suitcase would have the same effect and be easier to carry out. Even easier is radioactive or biologically hazardous material packed around a conventional explosive

There are a chance that we( or somebody else) could catch something like that, but whenever a nuke is incoming via ICBM, nothing can be done, I agree we are at risk from a smuggled in device, there are always threats like that, but ya gotta cover as many bases as ya can, just cause they MAY be able to get in one way is no excuse to not even try to protect ourselves at all.

 

I mean we have such situaions all over, here too.

and just because your not doing anything about it, nobody should??  If you get in a car and yer passenger doesent put on his seatbelt, does that make it wrong to put on yours?



[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-13-2001).]

[miko2d]

 Russia wants US to abide by the treaty that was designed thirty years not allow us to protect ourselves from them and vice versa - the only two countries with nuclear technologies.

 At the same time despite other treaties they are selling nuclear technology right and left to the regimes hostile to us, so that when somebody launches a missle, they will not be involved.

 It would be in their interests to combine with US and create NMD system together and then sell it to any country that wants it. With all their muslim problems and no ocean to separate them, they may need NMD sooner then us!

 miko

[Ripsnort]

 

[StSanta]

LOL rip, powerful argument.

A picture says more than a thousand words  



------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[Wotan]

the 3rd world toejam hole dictator is keep in check now from the fear that if he launched 1 we would could launch 100. This dictator only seeks 1 thing...power. He may play hardball but he would never risk his life ie his power in such a way that would certainly lead to his destruction. He would however sponsor and pay others to do so. Russia would encourage this through the sale of smaller yet lethal tactical nuclear warheads (ones that are used at relatively short range and that never leave the atmosphere). Anyone remember the Cuban Missile crisis. Yes this dealt with ballistic missile sites in Cuba but Russian military commanders in Cuba had tactical nuclear missiles at their disposal in case the US would have invaded Cuba. These ranged out to about 300-500 miles (don't remember offhand). Your umbrella would force those rogue nations to develop these types of weapons. That is what "suspicion" does. It destabilizes any real attempt at honest peace. And besides the monetary cost is too high. We have a defense against ballistic nuclear weapons, it is the fear of assured mutual destruction. We ought to honor our treaties. Unfortunately, I feel this is more about money then anything. They create a threat, offer a solution that costs huge amounts of money, and engineer it so it becomes obsolete quickly inorder to spend even more to upgrade it. I might feel differently if this was developed and shared with the world as a means to make ballistic missiles useless. Or if the specific threat I as a US citizen faced was from these types of weapons but in both scenarios this is not the case>

[Ripsnort]

My prediction is the next nuke used will be in the middle east.

and if you have a morbid curiousity.... http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Tests/

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-13-2001).]

[TheWobble]

 

the 3rd world toejam hole dictator is keep in check now from the fear that if he launched 1 we would could launch 100

No he's not, thats the point there are MANY would would gladly lose there life (and the life of their country) because they feel they will be a Maryter, killing millions of american is a MORE than justifiable tradeoff for them dieing and being (in their mind) a Hero.

[LJK Raubvogel]

I'm sure Russia has never broken any of the treaties  

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 02-13-2001).]

[-towd_]

we made a treaty we sould keep it. funny how you boys make excuses for breakin our national word when its conveinent.

 remember from all tests the dambed thing wont work . the danger is from infiltrated tac nukes wich we cant stop . this so called defence system is just a porkbarrel for the defense contractors. to hopefully restart the cold war. we are running out of places to sell military equipment slaughering people is just not the easy sell it once was. we dont need the madness again.

face it if you want to nuke a city in the u.s. and you have a million or two it wont be a problem.  and missiles wont be the delivery mechanism.

p.s. not all americans are a filled with hate as some of the people on this bbs some of us do get laid enough.

[TheWobble]

Its a good idea, Im glad they want to build it.  Any safeguard is a good safeguard IMO.


 

we are running out of places to sell military equipment slaughering people is just not the easy sell it once was. we dont need the madness again

How will shooting down a hostile ICBM "slaughter" anyone?  
They arnt trying to install some kinda massive deth ray its pure DEFENSE.  Its totally useless unless we are atacked.

Smuggled in weapons and bombs at least have a chance of being intercepted by securities of ours and other countries.  A missle however would be unstopable once launched (which could happen on a whim) it would be un avoidable.

And as far as breaking a treaty with Russia, screw them!, they are the idiots who sold all the whoopee missles to any jagoff nutt that could afford them.  And now WE are the ones at risk from them, they disregarded the safty of the ENTIRE WORLD by selling nukes without any caution to make a few bucks, they were thinking of only themselves and knew but didnt care that they could be very well selling the lives on MILLIONS of innocent people, they can take that treaty and stick it.  They undermined its whole puprose by their idiotic and unregulated selling of weapons of mass destruction.

Oh btw, who wants to try and count how many treaties the Russians has broke with the US and or everyone else?