O/T - National Defense Article at CNN

[JTMauney]

I apologize in advance for posting something off-topic from CM, but as a former Marine NCO and avid historian, I've found the people in this forum to be well-written, intelligent, generally conversant in most things military, and in many cases former professional soldiers such as myself. I wanted to get some feedback on this article concerning national defense of the United States. If you've no interest in it, please move on and it'll sink quickly to the bottom of the "CM Thread Quagmire". =)

This is the sort of uneducated clap-trap that completely destroys my faith in the journalistic competence of our media. Admittedly this is an opinion piece, but you'd think the little twit would at least bother to gather a few facts before spewing forth his opinions like the prose equivalent of runny cat****. Click and read the link first. Below the link, you'll find the rebuttal I sent to CNN, should you be interested. I'm quite sure they'll ignore it, as it doesn't fit in well with their approved party line.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/07/missile7_7.a.tm/index.html

Rebuttal

---------------------------------------

Oh, this is a charming little, (emphasis on LITTLE), feedback box you've got here. [Ed. - it was about 2" x 2" on the screen; not even 20 letters across, so I felt obliged to point out their psychological disdain for my opinions]. No matter-- I'll work with it. I'm writing in response to Tony Karon's article dated 7 JUL 2000 entitled "It's Missile-Test Time." I shall address my points of contention by quoting directly from the article.

1)"...insist that North Korea could be in a position to drop warheads on your home town by 2005; critics, ranging from State Department and intelligence officials to Russia and European NATO members, pooh-pooh this timetable."

I'd like to call your attention to the third "authority" that is 'pooh-pooh'-ing (how wonderfully articulate) this timetable. The Russians. And when did we start trusting what the Russians have to say about nuclear disarmament? Over 50 of their plutonium warheads are "missing", presumed in the hands of client states and breakaways from the old Warsaw Pact. They either cannot or will not keep up with their own nukes; I'm inclined not to trust them on the matter of a former communist client-state's current nuclear arsenal and ICBM capability. Which segeways into my second point of rebuttal...

2) "And even if Pyongyang, whose missile program has been dormant for the past two years, could muster the technical wherewithal to develop such long-range missiles, the naysayers argue, there are a growing number of political and economic factors militating against North Korea's pursuing this course."

This is an example of wishful thinking at its worst. "No," said the War Department in 1946, "there's no way the Russians can have nukes in less than 10 years. Their economy is in ruins from WWII." Fast-forward to the first Russian atomic weapons test before the decade was out. Oh, great long-range foresight, there. Now there's a nuclear arms race AND a war in Korea. Just because you don't WANT it to happen, or don't THINK it's possible, doesn't mean there isn't a real good chance of it actually occuring. Isolationism and head-in-the-sand foreign policy are the quickest ways to get yourself into a war.

3) "Then there are the consequences: Building the system would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and Moscow has not only shown no interest in renegotiating the pact to allow Washington to go ahead, it has also warned that if the U.S. withdraws from the treaty all other arms-control agreements are null and void. The reason for Moscow's hostility is that they see the system as a precursor of a larger umbrella that could eventually neutralize the deterrent value of Russia's own nuclear arsenal."

The Russians have been blatantly ignoring the ABM Treaty since before the ink was dry. U.S. intelligence has known for years about ABM's in and around Moscow. No, they didn't cover the entire country, but that's simply because they couldn't afford it when they were busy churning out a 3:1 advantage in armored vehicles in hopes we'd relax off the Fulda Gap long enough for them to take Eastern Europe in it's entirety. This particular paragraph of the article amounts to little more than uninformed sophistry, and deserves no more attention.

4) "...while President Clinton is considering a limited system involving some 20 interceptors to guard against one or two missiles fired by "rogue states," candidate George W. Bush has committed himself to a comprehensive, "Star Wars"-like anti-missile shield that would eliminate all threats."

A plane intercepting a warhead the size of a microwave oven re-entering the atmosphere somewhere in a 100-mile radius at several times the speed of sound? I wouldn't take that bet with YOUR money.

5) In regards to China, India and Pakistan "upping their arsenals" in response to our ABM system-- why do you think we're building it in the first place? While China is fairly stable at the moment, (excluding that threatened foray into Taiwan a few years back, of course), those other two states have both repeatedly shown themselves to be politically and militarily unstable. Do YOU want to be in the position of negotiating a "please don't attack us" treaty with no position of strength to fall back on except "we'll retaliate ten-fold if you launch at us?" Good. You can have the job, because *I* don't want it. I'll be out back restocking my Cold War bomb shelter.

[Fionn]

Being willing to speak whilst being totally ignorant of the issues involved is quite common.

You can see it every day on this forum and in usenet. It's no surprise that journalists don't check their facts that much either anymore in light of the fact that the general populace for which they write is so spectacularly uneducated and ill-informed that it, in general, won't ever noticed the errors being presented to it.

Ps. I do think that one of the unwanted side-effects of a US ABM system will be the proliferation of launch systems among "junior" ICBM-capable countries such as India and China. Let's face it... By the time redundancy etc is built in the US will end up with a system which could provide a great deal of protection against a Chinese strike ( after many billions of dollars of further testing etc etc). The only way the Chinese can get around that ( and still present a credible threat) is to produce more ICBMs, improve their technology so they have more MIRV-type rockets and more survivable launch sites.

Once they do that Taiwan will ask for local defence and India will have to respond which will trigger Pakistan which could, conceivably, result in even more leaks of tech to the Islamic world.

Basically the system won't be a good defence vs Russia or China, is almost bound to create an Indian subcontinent nuclear arms race which is something that should be avoided if at all possible and won't offer ANY protection against smaller yield tactical nukes ( which are amongst the most popular to go missing in Russia from what I hear).

Let's face it... The GREATEST threat to America in a nuclear environment is a single small yield nuke ( preferably a suitcase nuke) smuggled into one of the prime cities during a major televised event.

Personally I'd rate inaugurations and things like the Superbowl as favourite targets for both psychological impact and "real effect" since nothing beats watching LIVE television broadcasts being cut off and knowing that the tens of thousands of people you just saw on the footbal field or on the street watching the inauguration are dead.

Give ANY local terrorist group with a modicum of experience a small nuke and a couple of hundred thousand dollars and they can get a nuke into any oceanic city in America ( I'd prefer to target a city on the sea since I think it much easier to gain access via sea).

Your real threat isn't some rogue state with 1 or 2 nukes or China or Russia blasting you with a few hundred to a few thousand. The real threat is someone who has listened to a radical immam a little too closely and decides to make a statement on worldwide TV.

The ABM system is IMO, as much a means of re-assuring Americans as it is a system envisaged to deal with said threat. Since your politicians etc can't secure you from tactical nukes carried to the detonation point via van or boat they don't make a fuss about them since there's no point making the public afraid of something which can't be protected against.

This whole ABM thing is just a big populist smokescreen. In reality you'd do a lot better to GIVE the billions of dollars to the regions from which fundamentalists who might use these things arise and try to create employment and better living standards. It is well known that any society in which jobs are plentiful and freedom of thought is allowed very rarely generates terrorists. Of course, such an EFFECTIVE solution isn't "mass media" and "populist thought"-friendly and so isn't going to be enacted.

They're selling you an ineffective pipedream to ensure you keep your eyes off the REAL threat since, if you thought about it at all, it'd terrify you.

[XPav]

You disagree with the news item on CNN, and provide rebuttals to some of the points in the article.

Quite frankly though, I believe that the "call everyone who worries about what deploying an ABM system an uneducated twit" strategy is just stupid.

Quite honestly, while I think national defense is an important issue that many politicians don't understand, I don't think that a "limited missile defense" program would ever do a bit of good.

Lets ignore the fact that North Korea or Iraq or China *knows* that any nuclear strike on the US would instantly result in the instant flattening of their country. Go ahead and buy into the "rogue state with crazy dicator" mantra, but Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il have proven themselves to be masters of at least one thing: keeping themselves alive and in power.

Lets ignore the fact that no one can figure out how on EARTH a ground based interceptor is supposed to figure out which of the incoming things dropped from an ICBM is a warhead, and which one is a decoy.

Lets ignore the fact that our own european allies, who have stood by us for 50 years and would have been the front lines of any conflict with the USSR think this is a bad idea.

Lets ignore the fact that while Russia may have lost warheads, they haven't lost ICBMs, and last I checked, ABMs don't defend against suitcase nukes.

We can spend the billions of dollars that would have to be pumped into the system to make a barely useful ABM system on much better things if we're interested in national defense. More flashy gizmos, while providing lots of nice money to defense contractors and providing jobs, aren't going to help.

What we need, more than anything, is to pump that money back into the military to

1) Increase salaries

2) Increase readiness

That's what's going to protect us.

[Mark IV]

In reality you'd do a lot better to GIVE the billions of dollars to the regions from which fundamentalists who might use these things arise and try to create employment and better living standards.

There's a word in there I don't quite understand... "give"?

"Invest" makes more sense in the context. Investments create jobs. Historically, gifts only create wealthy gift-administrators.

We already are investing (and giving) billions to third world countries who hate us. They still hate us, but they remind us when we're behind in our payments. At least we're keeping the dialogue open, as they say...

What do you think would really happen if we gave a few (extra) billion to Syria, Libya, Iran, or Afghanistan?

As for ABMs: Oh, come on, we're just playing around. A little R&D never hurt anything. We've evolved from spending billions to kill foreign populations, to spending billions to kill incoming missiles. This is progress.

If China wants to go broke building countermeasures, like their erstwhile mentors in the world-wide revolution export business, that's fine, too.

Suitcase nukes (assuming some apocryphal exaggeration for effect- I wanna see the biceps on THAT courier) are really a bigger concern, but the responsibility of different organizations, like the FBI. Probably ATF, too, since I'm sure those things need to be registered.

The National Defense establishment gets paid to handle incoming, and it would look bad for them if somebody plunked a nuke down in the middle of the US. Smuggled weapons of mass destruction are not their thing. I'm sure we're spending plenty of billions on that, too, but in the appropriate departments.

[Jeff Heidman]

I am going to have to go with the anti-ABM crowd here.

First of all, Moscow has *not* violated the ABM treaty: said treaty specifically allows for the ABMs Russia and the former USSR has/had deployed. From the Soviet perspective, I can easily see how this would look like an offensive system, much less China or other mini-nuke powers. Quite simply, the proposed ABM is would be a direct and blatant violation of the ABM treaty that is still in effect.

Frankly, I do not see North Korea or some other rogue nation deploying an ICBM of three against the US. I doubt they could build it, I doubt they could test it without us knowing, and I doubt that they would be so stupid as to use one. Most importantly, I doubt they would choose to use an ICBM as the delivery vehicle anyway.

Sure, they *might*. But these decisions have to be made in an environment of finite defense dollars. It is not a matter of saying "Hey, they have some miniscule chance, so it is worth protecting ourselves from it." You have to show that there is a threat, AND that spending $60 billion to combat this threat is more important than spending that $60 billion to combat some other threat.

We have a military that today does not have the combat power or support or readiness to accomplish another Gulf War. We have aircraft (F-16/F-14/F-15) that are going on 30 years old. We have an Army that is grossly over deployed, underpaid, and undersupported. We have a lot better things to spend $60 billion on. If a rogue nation decides that they are willing to suffer the consequences of launching a nuclear attack on the US, they can do that a lot easier and cheaper than trying to develop and launch an ICBM.

Jeff Heidman

[Schrullenhaft]

(Took a little too long to post this and it shows)

I believe that the ABM treaty allows for an anti-missle defense around Moscow and Washington. The US never put one up, but the Russians have left theirs in place (though it probably isn't all that effective against ICBMs).

Unfortunately I think that the ABM system currently under testing is a BAD idea. There is so much opposition from friend and foe alike that it would do more harm politically to field such a weapon system than it would to just leave the leftovers of MAD policy in place. American politics has gotten to the point that politicians are pandering to the American public to eliminate any vestiges of the Cold War and it's MAD offspring. "We're doing everything technologically feasible to protect you from ANY threat". This is true isolationism, replacing diplomacy with technology.

The answer is not a weapon system that would have limited employment and could probably be overwhelmed with a well designed decoy system. When it comes to nuclear weapons POLITICS is the true countermeasure of choice. It has been since the US faced nuclear capable enemies in the Cold War.

By developing an ABM system the US risks putting the rest of the nuclear capable states on an expensive and wasteful path of developing countermeasures to such a system. Whether it be an increased stockpile of warheads and delivery systems or developing decoy countermeasures. What would America do in response ? Why build a larger shield of course; increase the number of interceptor missles and develop better radar/detection systems. In effect the arms race starts all over again in order to maintain the idea of limited invincibility. A defensive capability multiplies your offensive capability and possibly (especially from the Russian & Chinese view) the willingness to use that offensive capability.

I agree that the CNN reporter is guilty of taking US Intelligence estimates for face value (which have been wrong in the past) or those of other countries for that matter. But beyond that I believe his points are valid.

While conservatives like to point out the lack of prepardness our defense spending engenders and effectively point out historical mistakes made in this area. I think that they also have too much confidence in the idea that a technological solution is a feasible alternative to diplomacy. As someone else already pointed out - "rogue" states are very concerned and adept at their own survival.

[This message has been edited by Schrullenhaft (edited 07-10-2000).]

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This whole ABM thing is just a big populist smokescreen. In reality you'd do a lot better to GIVE the billions of dollars to the regions from which fundamentalists who might use these things arise and try to create employment and better living standards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn, you don't pay US taxes do you? From the tone of your message this is pretty obvious. The US ALREADY gives Billions of dollars to foreign powers, but we cannot monitor the use of the money. Foreign countries are very eager to attain international aid from the USA but tend to baulk when told how to spend the money. There are a lot of US citizens who are tired of seeing OUR men die in foreign countries. Playing 'SuperCop' has terrible repercussions. Do a little research on the amount of money being given to Egypt and Israel by the US Government. All this has done is built up an anti-USA policy feeling to the countries we don't give direct foreign aid too.

"Alone, the U.S. accounts for about one-third of the world's military expenditures and more than all other NATO allies combined. We spend over three times as much as the most exaggerated estimate of Russian spending, over four times that of China. Indeed, with our allies and friends, we account for about three-fourths of global military spending. Eight of the world's ten largest military budgets are those of our allies." - Foreign Policy In Focus

I WANT to see the ABM system fully funded. The trickle effect of this system will be a better NASA, since the technology is mutally shared. This system will assist in space exploration and space debris defense for which there is no defense whatsoever atm. A full 2/3rds of all US governmental researching funds stem from defensive spending.

It's good to hear the opinions of Non-USA citizens. Hopefully my tone in this post won't create any more hositilities towards the USA. As a citizen of the USA, a former NCO, and a partner in the US government I'm really close to a (mental) breaking point with regards to 'foreign policy.'

[Dittohead]

As with most things on the Clinton News Network they show little interest in obtaining facts. The only thing that matters is the sensationalism of the story. I.E. Tailwind. Remember that during the Gulf War the CNN expert on the US Military and policy was Larry King I think. They are a bunch of Left wing losers who don't care about the truth.

Tony

[XPav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The answer is not a weapon system that would have limited employment and could probably be overwhelmed with a well designed decoy system. When it comes to nuclear weapons POLITICS is the true countermeasure of choice. It has been since the US faced nuclear capable enemies in the Cold War.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every single country in the world is utterly baffled by America's foreign policy. The most powerful country in the world is utterly inconsistent in dealing with everyone, and the leadership can change (potentially) every 4 years, and assuredly every eight years.

Quite frankly, as an (I'd like to think) informed citizen, I'm baffled too. I stack Bush up against Gore, I don't like either. I don't like Bush because I really don't want conservatives to try and turn the social clock back to the great old times of the 50s. I don't like Gore because I think it'll be more of the same bumbling administration (hopefully minus the cigars) that we've had for the last 8.

I'd vote for Nader, but he has absolutely NO clue at all about foreign policy and defense He said we should cancel the F-22 because the increased G-forces it can pull harm pilots. I mean, at least have a reason that makes sense (like: too expensive, better to spend all the money of heavily updating and refitting all our F-15s and F-16s).

Foreign policy is NOT a priority for any candidate. Any policy statements they make are solely there to make the public feel nice and protected.

Am I going to be forced to vote for based on their potential National Security Advisor and Secretaries of Defense?

Grrr.

Democracy sucks.

But its better than everything else out there.

[Aacooper]

The whole ABM argument is theoretical because the ABM system is not ready, and is decades away from ready. 2005 is half a decade. The fact is, and no one who has posted has apparently looked into this, decoys emit the same light and heat signature as warheads. Plus, they move the same way in outerspace. It takes a trivial amount of engineering to create decoys (remember during the Gulf War the pieces of Scud that fell off in flight successfully confused the Patriot system), and it's certainly no secret how to do so.

The Pentagon has falsified data to make the system look better, and the tests kept getting easier and easier. Still, the system has never had a clear-cut success, and has failed the most recent test.

Lastly, there is a 0% chance of a rogue nation launching a nuclear missile for any reason. The reason is that dictators of rogue nations, though they may seem crazy, are nothing if not determined to hold onto their power. The launch of a nuclear missile against the US will guarantee SSBM, B2, Tomahawk, and maybe even ICBM retaliation. In other words, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD, remember that?) is still a viable strategy. The difference is, a rogue nation will take most of the destruction.

Lastly, JTMauney's opinion did not refute any factual allegations in the article, he just took issue with the author's opinions (which is fine).

[XPav]

Hey AACooper....

Thanks for the backup.

[Darryl]

The argument is made that no "rogue" nation would be willing to risk anihlation by using a nuke against the U.S. Here are a couple of facts...

The clinton administration tells N. Korea a couple of years ago, "We'll give you a power generating nuclear reactor if you'll stop your nuclear weapons program." Naturally the N. Koreans take us up on the deal, then promptly add the reactor to their weapons program.

Meanwhile in Iraq, Saddam thumbs his nose at clinton by restricting the U.N. weapons inspectors. So clinton has some explosives hurled into Iraq. As per clinton's other "successful" foreign policy fiascos, this one also fails and the U.N. inspectors haven't been allowed into Iraq since.

Now here's a nifty scenario for you.....

Let's pick one of these countries, say Iraq

for the sake of discussion.

Say in 5 years Iraq has built a crude nuclear device. Say also that they sell, or give it to a third party with a grudge against the U.S. That third party

places the device in a truck container, the container is loaded onto a container ship in another country. That ship is bound for a major U.S. port. Do you know how many thousands of containers are loaded onto trucks in the U.S. everyday? Care to guess how many go unsearched by customs officials?

The device is loaded onto a truck, driven into the heart of a major U.S. city, and detonated. Since the deed was comitted by this third party Iraq has some denial ability. The world would hardly approve of the U.S. using nukes against Iraq without undeniable proof of their responsibility.

And that would never do since we seem to be basing so much of our policies on world opinion these days. Provides fuel for thought doesn't it?

------------------

Darryl

[This message has been edited by Darryl (edited 07-11-2000).]

[marcusm]

This is highly offtopic imo but.

The biggest problems with this system is

1) It's horrendeously expensive. There's a number of better ways to spend hard earned tax money.

2) The laws of physics makes this system very random at best. In order to protect a country against a total launch from either super power you'd have to bring something from Star Trek .

3) Those rogue countries are more likelly to develop stuff like suitcase nukes anyway. Why spend billions on an ICBM when you can get someone do it for free? They get their payment in heaven apparently .

I think this is system is the biggest hoax ever presented to the US taxpayers. I'd much rather see them invest more in the space programme (Mars?). Interesting to see if there's any support left when the next recession begins.

Marcus

[Mark IV]

Darryl, I tend to agree with your general concerns, but it sure doesn't make much of a case for ABMs, does it?

ABMs are for ICBM-equipped potential adversaries like China, Russia, and France . They are a very long way from ready, but "ready" starts with tests and demos (even beta demos!). The first cannon probably couldn't hit s**t either.

It was 25 years from the V2 to the moon, and the moon is relatively large and predictable. Decoys are part of the challenge and simply one more obstacle to be overcome.

If the whole ABM concept is proven to be unfeasible then the tests will be valuable for that reason alone. Time to look at particle beams and orbiting lasers again! Do people think that politics and technology have somehow peaked, and that nothing new is possible?

It would be nice to negotiate ICBMs out of existence but that's not real likely soon. As long as they're around I would like to see countermeasures being worked on.

Taking history at face value, I prefer a gram of prevention to a kilo of cure.

[BorderBill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm:

This is highly offtopic imo but.

The biggest problems with this system is

1) It's horrendeously expensive. There's a number of better ways to spend hard earned tax money.

Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard earned tax dollars? I've haven't seen any of our politicians working too hard to obtain these dollars.

[bbaker]

Whatever happened to MAD? Aren't the politicians who are currently pushing the hardest for the deployment of a questionable ABM system the same politicians who were so resolute in supporting a massive nuclear arsenal to keep America safe through deterrence? Or is it that they can use it as an issue to attack Clinton and farm out $60 billion in funding to defense industries in their home districts?

I have no idea what a limited ABM shield is supposed to accomplish. It is, by definition, useless against a fullscale attack and what would any nation, no matter how "rogue", hope to gain from chucking a couple nukes at America on the tips of ICBMs?

If you really hate America, and really want to blow up a couple of cities, why launch the missile (hey, USA, retaliate here!) when you can sail it into SF Bay and set it off from the boat? Heck, even if you're suicidal, putting it onto a cargo ship and sailing it over has to be at least as reliable as a missile. As we so ably demonstrated last Friday, lots of things can go wrong with such a complicated technology.

So if it isn't unreasonable to assume that the most realistic threat we face from nuclear arms in the next few decades is from a "terrorist-style" delivery, probably from real terrorists, why endorse a plan that will only serve to *increase* the number of nuclear weapons at large in the world? If we're worried about the possibility of a weapon falling into the wrong hands, why increase the probability that one will do so by increasing the number of weapons available? The ABM program, in this regard, is worse than useless.

IMHO,

B.

[marcusjm]

Borderbill

------------------------------------------

Hard earned tax dollars? I've haven't seen any of our politicians working too hard to obtain these dollars.

-------------------------------------------

I'm from Sweden so it should be tax crowns . Or € for in a near future.

Sweden has also had a big defence debate since the govt decided to decimate the defence forces. Apparently the big bear is not so dangerous anymore .

It's a pity imo since it takes decades to build up a good defence and nobody knows what mad man might come up somewhere.

I also think it was a mistake to lease 200 Leopards from Germany. It would be better to put the cash in a airmobile force. Choppers/Airforce are the future.

God I wish Major H and BTS makes a modern version . Imagine a Vietnam version of CM *drewl*

Marcus

[JTMauney]

I think the confusion here results from a misunderstanding, probably fostered by a world media with very little foresight which stems from a relative ignorance of history, about what constitutes a threat from a "rogue state." We're not talking about Libya or the JRA producing an ICBM here and lauching it at the U.S. for no apparent reason except mass destruction and death. Is a "suitcase nuke" from a known terrorist state a threat? Surely. But processes and policies-however ineffective-are already in place to deal with that threat. The ABM system is designed to deal with an entirely different sort of threat, one where MAD, the "old way of doing business", doesn't work. I believe many people make the mistake of assuming that everyone in positions of power with their fingers resting on buttons and levers is rational, cool and level-headed enough to restrain themselves from "pushing the button" out of petty motivations like vendetta. Not true. A cursory examination of history will reveal just how dangerous that sort of thinking can be to a people's security. I'll make a detailed example out of North Korea.

Thomas Jefferson said something that sums up late 1930's Germany and modern North Korea quite nicely: "Any nation is only three meals away from revolution." Kim Jong-Il is a totalitarian tyrant in the truest form of the word. The American press have spent countless hours in the past few years pointing out just how evil, corrupt, and insane he actually is. Now they have to face up to the fact that their little pet monster they've been perfectly willing to point and quaver about, as long as they could paste up vid-bites of starving children, is a real threat. If he feels himself threatened, like an animal in a corner, he WILL lash out at the nearest target-- in this case South Korea, which happens to have several thousand American soldiers right on the border, and which he is technically still at war with. The U.N. couldn't effectively rally support by slapping him with an unwarranted international aggression sanction, as they did with Iraq, in order to pull allies into the war. Those UN resolutions are already in place, because the Korean Civil War, (which is what it REALLY was, our involvement notwithstanding), never ended. Kim, for all his arrogance and eccentricity, KNOWS this. If he attacks, it'll be Us Agin Dem, and he knows it. No other Pacific Rim nation will DARE get involved. The Commonwealth countries may or may not decide to pitch in.

Of course, he'll end up on the losing end, regardless of who else decides get their feet wet. He might make a mess of S. Korea (again), but eventually we'll push him back into his corner. THAT is when he'll be really, really dangerous. Do you think, if he has a missile with intercontinental capability, he's gonna launch it at S. Korea? Hardly.

NOW we see the real need for an ABM system. It's not the threat of some terrorist launching a SCUD with a horseshoe and bomb tied to it at L.A. It's the fact that seemingly controlled international politics can very quickly spiral out of control, and not having a system in place to deal with that sort of contingency is tantamount to criminal negligence. The U.S. came very close to discovering this the hard way in 1941.

If you would have peace...

[XPav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The American press have spent countless hours in the past few years pointing out just how evil, corrupt, and insane he actually is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the American press was a bunch of nitwits that don't know crap? Thats what you said when you started this thread. So when the agree with you, they're smart, and when they disagree with you, they're dumb?

Make up your mind....

Kim Jong Il isn't insane. He's been painted that way, because the American press demonizes all the bad guys into the next coming of Hitler ca. 1945.

While they aren't nice people, they're not insane, and they're not stupid. They like being in power. Being fallout over their capital city isn't in their gameplan.

Your "it might happen!" philosophy is alarmist, and expensive, and ultimately, self-defeating. Building an ABM system will increase the risk of having nukes tossed at us, not reduce it, and the money could be better spent in many other places.

[Spook]

I think this is a good time to dispel some myths attached to the notion of "nuclear missile defense", or NMD.

The first and foremost myth (easily latched on by the UCS and multiple news media outlets) is that NMD will be primarily framed by the ABM system that is presently being tested & debated. Not hardly. The ABM system under test is an example only of a "mid-range intercept" (MRI) method in which the attacking missile has reached maximum velocity but has a predictable trajectory. I now offer an acronym that will be just as crucial to NMD planning.

BPI---Boost Phase Interception.

The working notion here is to attack the launched missile while it is still at relatively low altitude and is less able to deploy "countermeasures." Devices like the Airborne Laser (ABL) and localized, shorter-range ABM batteries (e.g., located in South Korea) are two examples of BPI systems being considered.

The ABL doesn't seem to labor under the same media scrutiny attached to the planned MRI ABM network, and presently has full congressional & administration support. So regardless of this year's decision made to ABM systems, some version or another of NMD is likely going to be implemented within the next ten years. The recent MSNBC polls showed a 75% public support for some form of NMD system (even if defined only notionally), and politicians will latch onto that.

And just how well will any NMD system work? Well, I'm certainly not going to trust media wonk predictions on technology trends over the next ten years. What still may be smugly argued now as impossible (especially with the second missile intercept failure this last weekend) may instead prove completely feasible, and perhaps even affordable, within 5-10 years. Remember how many people would've argued 100 years ago that powered flight was impossible?

To me, the lynchpin of how effective an NMD system would be depends on how well the suspect launch sites of potentially belligerent nations can be monitored in real-time. Satellites are already orbiting with 1-meter resolution, as related in Aviation Week (as was the BPI concept recently). What shape will an information network take over the next five years regarding site monitoring, data transmission, missile launch/trajectory capture, etc.?

The other myth (IMO) is that an ABM system in and of itself will be a destabilizing effect on world relations and could start a new arms race.

Bull****. NMD or no NMD, a new arms race already hovers on the horizon. NMD had ZERO impact on the decisions of India and Pakistan to explode test nukes in '98, and the public support in both countries for joining the "nuclear arms circle" has been very high. And does anyone here believe that the Chinese DIDN'T get anything out of the DOE nuclear weapons security leaks for the past several years?

So the "worst-case" scenario being offered is that with the US installing an NMD system, China is compelled to accelerate its missile production as a "deterrent" and then India (and then Pakistan) follow suit in one-upmanship. Where the logic drops off is in the notion that China is fully willing to stand pat now in both its nuclear arsenal and its conventional forces. The Chinese have been building on both for years, and will continue to do so. Recently-designed tanks, fighters, and warships are being actively bought (or copied under license) from Russia, because Russia needs the money; examples include the Su-27 and T-80/T-90 tank series. And in a strange recent twist, Israel is helping China in building its own version of an AWACS aircraft. And allowing the possibility that China DOES decide to "force" the Taiwan issue, its airmobile forces are now being expanded with added training efforts.

The reason that China is pissed off over the NMD planning is that it MIGHT undermine the effectiveness of Chinese saber-rattling applied to Taiwan over the reunification issue. I think that all parties concerned---China, Taiwan, and the USA---don't really believe that even a locally-deployed NMD system in Taiwan will give enough "security" against attack, but the Chinese certainly don't want to see local NMD pop in as a noise factor.

I will close in saying that the negative picture I'm painting above on the PRC government doesn't mean that the PRC is seeking some sinister world domination plan. But I do believe that the PRC hopes to become a bigger arbiter of East Asian affairs, and the assimilation of Taiwan fits with such a plan. Not to mention that China is expanding its monitoring stations in the Spratlys, the Marshalls, and in the Singapore shipping channels.

[marcusm]

JTMauney

NOW we see the real need for an ABM system. It's not the threat of some terrorist launching a SCUD with a horseshoe and bomb tied to it at L.A. It's the fact that seemingly controlled international politics can very quickly spiral out of control(snip)The U.S. came very close to discovering this the hard way in 1941.

-------------------------------------------

This doesn't make sence. The main reason with the so called terror balance was that nobody dared to launch in the first place. With the possible exception of Saddam I don't think anyone is stupid enough to launch against USA or Russia. I still think the suitcase nuke makes more sence for a less sane leader. Its cheap and causes as much damage as the ICBM option, the added benefit of this option is the difficulty in finding out what nation is behind it. It's not that hard to find out who launches a big mofo ICBM.

Marcus

[Darryl]

Mark Iv, you make some interesting comments but I think you misunderstood me. My point was to show that it would be quite easy to deliver a nuke to the U.S. without any sort of boost vehicle.

That having been said, I do happen to believe that ABM is a very important project which must be continued. Don't forget the Patriot system (which used computer software developed thanks to Pres. Reagan's SDI) is a very rudimentary yet highly effective method of intercepting small high speed targets In a manner which was deemed "impossible" by the same sort of "experts" who now claim a workable ABM system is impractical, or would be "de-stabilizing" to world peace.

Frankly why should I care if the people who might launch nukes at my country, are upset that if I build an ABM system they'll have to spend more to build more missles to destroy my country?

------------------

Darryl

[Guest grunto]

CNN... clinton news network... NBC... nothing but clinton

'he is the puppet, he is the puppet, pull his strings' (seconds, u2)

andy

[Guest grunto]

foreign aid... 'from the poor in the rich countries to the rich in the poor countries.'

all the imf money does is create misery in the recipient countries, and when it's all said and done the recipient politicians have squirreled the money away in switzerland, and the recipient country itself is left with no new industry/devlopment, but a massive bill.

when they default (and they nearly always do, or if they haven't they will) the u.s. taxpayer is left holding the bag while the 'pimps and whores' running the 'developing' countries retire to fashionable places such as paris and london.

imf=evil

andy

[XPav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't forget the Patriot system (which used computer software developed thanks to Pres. Reagan's SDI) is a very rudimentary yet highly effective method of intercepting small high speed targets In a manner which was deemed "impossible" by the same sort of "experts" who now claim a workable ABM system is impractical, or would be "de-stabilizing" to world peace.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Crusade (Rick Atkinson, ISBN 0-385-71083-9) page 278. "A subsequent study found that as few as 9 percent of engagements resulted in confired "warhead kills", although in other cases Patriots apparently knocked the Scuds off course of "dudded" the warheads."

So, that was against a ramshackle IRBM with no countermeasures (except for the "fall apart into pieces because the missile is poorly built" defense) against a known threat in time of war.

9 percent. While that's a more impressive record than any other missile could claim, that's a pretty lousy number. It was one hell of a morale-booster though.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is possible to hit a piece of incoming metal with a missile. That's refinement of technology. However, that still doesn't address the question of "how are you supposed to tell which of the incoming pieces is a warhead, and which is a decoy."

Everything's coming in on a ballistic flight path. This ain't the same as countering chaff and flares, because the decoys, to outside obversation, appear the exact same as the warhead.

If you want to stop ICBMs, you've got to make sure it never gets launched, and if it does, hit it while its going up or before it seperates. After that, you're hosed.