Missile Defence

[Derfel]

In my world issues class the other day we talked about the US plan for Missile Defence. After some discussions we came to two conclusions, 1, that it would make the United States the only country with effective nuklear weapons, or 2, it would mean that Canada and the US would be invulnerable from terrorist attacks.
I guess you could view it either way, what do you guys think?

[Robot Jesus]

I don’t see how the missile defense would prevent terrorism attacks.

The only real reason I see for the missile shield is preparing for a war with china.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

the current way peace is that when u start a nuklear war u destroy the world a missle defense systemthat could stop said apocalspe from effecting the us might give bush or any futur the incentive to start a nuke war and kil all of human kind

[Toastburner B]

I don’t see how the missile defense would prevent terrorism attacks.

That, I agree with. Terrorist attacks and missile strikes are quite different.

The only real reason I see for the missile shield is preparing for a war with china.

Not true, IMHO. With both North Korea and Iran gearing up their nuclear programs, and the fact that have often done so in defiance of the international community, leads me to believe they are far more likely to fire a nuke at the U.S. than China. True, Iran doesn't have the range to do so, but I believe North Korea could if they fired over the pole, correct? I remember seeing a report or something like that on the news awhile back...or am I making things up? Please correct me.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

the us invaded iraq agaisnt the un's wishes

[Viper Daimao]

I think they've claimed they could maybe hit us. I havent heard any hard fact that they could. However I think we should open this missile defense system up more. Get NATO involved. Iran is for a fact working on missiles that could reach Europe. What better way to bring NATO back as a force with a direction than all of us working toward a collective missile defense system?

[Arlia Janet]

I don't think nuklear... er... nuclear missiles are really a threat that will come to fruition. If North Korea shoots a missile at anyone, they will cease to exist. You use missiles for deterrence and political leverage. North Korea wants missiles so that can be let alone to do what want to do.
“Stay back. Don’t come in here, I have missiles… and I’m so ronrey.” *




*thank you Team America: World Police

[Toastburner B]

the us invaded iraq agaisnt the un's wishes

Oh, for heaven's sake, can we not turn this into another Iraq war thing? I believe we have all had enough of those to last us a lifetime.

But, to go along with your point, yes, we did. What that has to do with my point, I fail to see.

All I was saying is that I personally believe that North Korea and Iran are more likely to use nuclear weapons, if they had them, then China is. And the fact they have done so inspite of everyone's best efforts, everyone being the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., pretty much everyone and their dog, helped me to form the opinion above. As such, I believed that a missile defense system would probably be put to use protecting the U.S. against Iran and North Korea, as compared to China.


I think they've claimed they could maybe hit us. I havent heard any hard fact that they could. However I think we should open this missile defense system up more. Get NATO involved. Iran is for a fact working on missiles that could reach Europe. What better way to bring NATO back as a force with a direction than all of us working toward a collective missile defense system?

If I remember correctly, the rest of the world got mad at the U.S. because by creating a missile defense system, we broke Antiballstic Missle Treaty. (www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/july01/2001-07-12-defense.htm) Not that it appears to matter anymore, seeming as Russia is testing their own missile defense system (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/29/antimissile.shtml). I guess it would come down to whether or not NATO wanted to play ball with us or not. The U.S. isn't particularlly popular in Europe at the moment. But, in my opinion, it would be in their best interest since they are withing striking distance of Iran.

[GatoFiero]

In my world issues class the other day we talked about the US plan for Missile Defence. After some discussions we came to two conclusions, 1, that it would make the United States the only country with effective nuklear weapons, or 2, it would mean that Canada and the US would be invulnerable from terrorist attacks.
I guess you could view it either way, what do you guys think?
Conclusion 1 counter argument: Missile defense technology is far from perfect. Other countries would simply launch more nukes to overwhelm our defenses. Think of it like this, even if the system had a hit rate of 99%, all an enemy would need to do is launch 100 nukes at a vital target. Statistically, 1 nuke should get through, and that’s all that matters. I wont even get into the electro magnetic effects of such an attack.

Conclusion 2 counter argument: Only if terrorists launch an ICBM from a captured government installation. It is far more likely that terrorists will take a cheap-ass cold war era ICBM, place it on a freighter, ram the freighter into a harbor, and then detonate the nuke.

Overall, I am against the idea of a national missile defense shield. However, I am very strongly in favor of developing missile defense technology for use in other applications.

[Viper Daimao]

What nation has 100 nukes to launch at us? maybe russia?

These arent easy to make, N.Korea has been working for years and they claim to have what? 6-10?

and further more, 99%, or even 50% is a lot better than 0%.

[Illuminatus]

Conclusion 1 counter argument: Missile defense technology is far from perfect. Other countries would simply launch more nukes to overwhelm our defenses. Think of it like this, even if the system had a hit rate of 99%, all an enemy would need to do is launch 100 nukes at a vital target. Statistically, 1 nuke should get through, and that’s all that matters. I wont even get into the electro magnetic effects of such an attack.

Do you have any idea how much 100 nukes cost? Hell, even if the percentage is 90%, that's still way more nukes than most countries have and are willing to part with. A missile defense system would be a huge deterrent, except to some sort of megalomaniacal foe.

[Toastburner B]

Hmm...I just thought of something.

Are we talking about counter-missiles, a la "Godzilla 1985", or a laser-defense net, like the old "Star Wars" system? I'm afraid I'm not every up to date with the facts.

[AerodynamicHair]

Look, I disagree with the whole missile defense thing. I'm just going to touch the subject generally, because I'm hoping we aren't talking about the old "Star Wars" missile defense project.

Deterence has been working for us for quite a long time, and it continues to be a logical threat to pretty much every nation out there. If one guy goes crazy, we all go boom, so there isn't much of a chance of someone deciding to "drop the bomb."
By creating a missile defense system, we're rocking the boat. MAD goes down the drain because we'll be able to launch our weapons without being beaten to a pulp, and that scares the hell out of all the other nations. When those nations get scared, they start to come up with badder weapons and better defenses to close the gap, and then we've got another weapons race. In my opinion, thats a bad thing.

I don't see the point of a missile defense system, really. It's already been said that terrorists are not likely going to use missiles, and I think that MAD, while definitely not perfect, was doing its job to keep nations from declaring nuclear war on each-other (though I would also like for us to disarm more, and the whole missile defense thing kills that too).

And if we are talking about that "Star Wars" missile defense system, then we've got some problems.

[icythaco]

These arent easy to make, N.Korea has been working for years and they claim to have what? 6-10?
This brings up an interesting issue: The U.S. can't effectively convince other coutnries to not build and/or stop building nuclear weapons when it itself is sitting on the largest nuclear "defense" system in the world. Its just hippocritical, so America's argument against other countries having nuclear weapons, however morally correct it may be, is still logically flawed. The only other available solution open to us (for implementing our policies) is to become the authority figure instead of the leader and diplomat: to use force and agression instead of diplomacy, asserting ourselves forcefully to make sure nuclear weapons don't get into the wrong hands. But the rest of the world is thinking "Who decided America could dictate whether or not we can develope nuclear weapons?". So you get situations like what's happening in North Korea, and more will follow its example, mostly because of the unrest and tension created when countries are forced to do (or not to do) something against their will.

The problem with using threats and warnings instead of convincing arguments to get your way in a country is that it is only a temporary solution, and creates and/or increases civil unrest and may lead to rebellion. The great thing about winning over other countries with smooth talk, good diplomacy, and new policies is that it costs very little (unlike building huge amounts of nuclear weapons and striking wars on Iraq), and is a relatively permanent solution. After all, your friends are more likely to help you out than your hostages, and friendship usually lasts longer than...um...hostage-ship. Its the difference between doing something you don't want to do because the largest power in the world is breathing down your neck with its 200+ nuclear weapons, and doing something well because you believe in it and have been convinced that it will be benefitial to your country. You obviously do a better job when you believe in something than when you are forced to do it against your will. A great example of a country who uses diplomacy instead of force is Switzerland: I've never heard of a country having any beef/conflict at all with Switzerland since it became a country, unless you count Hitler (of course, he had a beef with everyone anyway). They've managed to remain neutral in all modern conflicts, and have become the diplomatic center of the world due to there neutrality (example: The Geneva Convention). This influx of diplomacy brings with it trade and strengthens the entire country, politically and economically, and they don't have to spend money on maintaining a large costly army. In fact, Europe as a whole is doing much better than the U.S. in most aspects of soceity, especially economics, education, and politics.

Of course, the U.S. is so caught up in its position as the self-elected "police-force" of the entire world that it cannot logistically follow the Swiss example by relying on diplomacy instead of military might. The fact that we must rely on our military to give our words power means that the U.S. cannot feasibly become pacifistic either. We dug ourselves into this hole of global loathing, as seen throughout our history, but we can't maintain our current "ideals" and dig ourselves back out at again at the same time.

Edit: Sorry about being so lengthy. I know this is alot to digest...

[Devon Lake]

*Shudder*
Gimme a break, who truly thinks that blasting weapons into space capable of wiping out entire cities is going to make the world safer for anyone? Did the advent of nuclear warfare make everyone comfy and cosy in their beds late at night? Does anyone think that bringing this insane power struggle into space is going to fix global security? It's just another way for humans to kill each other.

Now, I could go into political science and Thucydides's "History of the Peloponessian War" and explain how the security dilemma works. However, I think that nothing explains it better than old episodes of Loony Toons. You know how you'd see Elmer Fudd chasing after Bugs Bunny with an axe, then they'd run off screen and Bugs would be chasing Fudd the other way with a pistol in his hand, and then they'd again go off screen and Fudd would come back chasing Bugs with a rifle? And then Bugs would respond with a cannon, and then Elmer would respond with a bigger cannon, and then the two would keep going back and fourth with bigger and bigger weapons until everything gets blown up? That's exactly why arming yourself to the teeth will not make you more secure.

If you're wondering why your nation has enemies worldwide burning it's flag, stop for a second to think; if there was a foreign superpower with a military build-up that would put to shame both that of Nazi Germany and the former Eastern Bloq combined, a defence budget consisting of 50% of all that government's revenues and which was roughly equivalent to the military spending of every other nation on the planet combined, and this nation had been to war twice in the past 4 years... Would you not be the slightest bit intimidated? When such a nation starts talks about putting it's already unparalleled stockpile of weapons into space, it just sort of makes the rest of the world freak out. That's why it's probably not a great national security policy.

That's also why all of Ottawa was on Parliament Hill screaming in protest during the Bush visit yesterday (Well, that and the War in Iraq, the Homophobia, the women's rights issues, the environmental concerns, the exploitation of the 3rd world, a few boycotts against Canadian products, and numerous other issues). I mean, Canada doesn't have any big enemies. Sure, Al Qaeda wants us dead like everyone else (Not that there's a whole lot you can do about that short of reverting into police state.) and I'm sure if any of those meager third worlders knew who the hell we were they'd be shaking their fists at us like every other nation better off than they are, but in general, Canada's pretty cool diplomatically. I kind of doubt our fellow nations would hold such sentiments though if we made preperations to wipe them off the face of the Earth (I doubt the explaination that we'd only do so if we needed to would reassure them very much either.)

[DarthZeth]

the current way peace is that when u start a nuklear war u destroy the world a missle defense systemthat could stop said apocalspe from effecting the us might give bush or any futur the incentive to start a nuke war and kil all of human kind

yeah man. fucking bush just WANTS to kil all human kind with nuklear war. He is trying to bring on apocalspe with his missles

you know what else sucks about him? He's so stupid, he doesn't even have command of basic English. Don’t you just HATE people who don't have a command of basic English?


*ahem*

Anyway's, the United State's nuclear posture and doctrine has been retaliatory, though out the cold war. The basic assumption was that nuclear war was too devastating, and probably unwinnable anyway. So our nukes were deployed and targeted for massive retaliation. mainly aimed at Russian population centers. In contrast, the Russian's deployed their nuclear forces with the assumption that a quick first strike could possibly take out our ability to deliver a massive retaliation and make nuclear war "winnable", or at least survivable, even with heavy casualties. At least since the advent of the ICBMs that was the case. In a lot of ways at the beginning of the cold war total nuclear annihilation wasn't possible. Strategic bombers could be stopped, and couldn't hit anywhere in the globe in under an hour. ICBMs, though, were (and still are) unstoppable. Death in 30 minutes, or the holocaust is free.

Of course, the technology that made a quick first strike a possibility also made it suicidal. The ability to take out missile silos with an ICBM was largely fictional (The CIA thought the Russians had the technology to get a direct hit on a missile silo 10,000 miles away, and the KGB, knowing a lot of US technology outclassed Soviet technology, assumed that if the CIA thought the USSR had the ability, the US must have that ability. in reality, even our latest ICBM, the peacekeeper, probably couldn't make direct hits more then 50% of the time), but a strategy to counter it was developed. American missile silos were arranged in "dense pack". A direct hit to a silo would send up a huge debris and fallout cloud, and the fallout would destroy any other incoming missiles that were heading for the area. So the idea was to keep the silos close enough that when one was hit, the others were actually be protected from further attacks. Of course, since a launching missile is going considerably slower then an incoming missile, the silos could still launch while the fallout cloud remained overhead.

So, basically, you had to destroy one target, then wait, then destroy another target, then wait. This negated the first strike's effectiveness, seeing as first strike's idea is to take out the enemy's capability to wage war.

Retaliation is just to make sure the war is soooo expensive, no one ever tries it. So air bursts and basically indiscriminate destruction works fine for that.


so anyway, yeah. America has never been postured to START nuclear war. Hell, Truman, the only man to order the dropping of an A-bomb in hostility, fired Macarthur for suggesting using A-bombs in Korea.

Besides, we have this habit of rebuilding everything we blow up. Rebuilding the world after a nuclear war would be hella expensive. The taxpayers would never go for that.

EDIT
a defence budget consisting of 50% of all that government's revenues

Just thought i'd point out that the defense budget accounts for less then 20% of total government spending. That’s about 50% of discretionary spending (about 60-70% of government spending is considered "non-discretionary"). Of course, government spending and government revenues don't match up, but spending isn't 250% higher then revenues, so no way in hell does military spending account for 50% of revenues.

I just hear that “we spend half our taxes on bombs” argument a lot. Just thought I’d point out what the statistic being stated REALLY is.

EDIT again (because the data is worth it)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z7.xls
(My calculations in red all else is from that source)
for FY2003: (in millions)
Total outlays for discretionary programs : 825,705 (100% (this was a tricky one ) )
National defense : 404,946 (49% of discretionary spending )
Total nondefense : 420,759 (51% of discretionary spending )

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist15z2.xls
Total Federal Government Expenditures FY 2003: 2,157,600
Total Government Expenditures (federal, state and local) FY 2003: 3,314,500

Defense spending ($405 Bil) as a percentage of the total Federal expenditures ($2157 Bil) : 18.8%

Defense spending ($405 Bil) as a percentage of the total Government expenditures ($3,315 Bil) : 12.2%

EDITx3
here's a spreadsheet with all that data in one place. Discretionary spending, non-discretionary, defense, etc
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z1.xls

PPPS:
a military build-up that would put to shame both that of Nazi Germany

almost forgot: You loose anyway (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)

[icythaco]

you know what else sucks about him? He's so stupid, he doesn't even have command of basic English. Don’t you just HATE people who don't have a command of basic English?
heh, heh...looks like Arnold Schwartzeneiger is out of the running for sure in 2008, even if he passes his gung-ho amendment that would let foreigners be allowed to become president.
(Hey, he was Mr. Universe...I'm sure he can handle one measly little country!)

Note the metaphorical sarcasm coming from my voice...

[KhanFusion]

Anti-ballistic missle technology is worth developing. Fact is, there is pretty much zero possibility that the US would not share the technology with friendly, and even quasi-friendly, nations around the globe if such an mechanism was actually useful. In the event that the system was useless, the North-American governments would simply claim otherwise(you have to bluff in those kinds of cases) and not export the proof of their failure. Common sense.

I understand that other sovereign nations would get nervous if the US could theoretically fire nukes at "rogue' nations without the threat of retaliation, especially so with a president and (this is the scariest part) a congress that has a greater chance of doing something that retarded since the 1800's, when we declared war on freaking Britain..... but realistically, there's no way even the most hawkish factions of the US are willing to take that risk/shoot themselves in the head. Because thats what nuclear war is: russian roulette with 5 and a half bullets. We didn't spend the better half of an entire century scared shitless of nuclear war just to start one now.

[icythaco]

the 1800's, when we declared war on freaking Britain
I assume you're referring to the war of 1812, but congress wasn't acting "retarted" by declaring war: indeed America had been fighting a guerilla war with Britain on the sea ever since the revolution. Declaring war was just a way to officially announce an already ongoing conflict in order to make the spoils of war (obtained from rich British merchant ships by American pirates) legitimate in order to boost America's economy. We knew Britain could never attack us directly because of their defeat during the revolution and our resulting alliance with France and Spain. So we had nothing to lose by declaring war, and by legitmatizing stolen British cargo, we allowed for the pirated loot to be sold in the mainstream economy instead of the black market.

[Luna Santin]

Whee, this post hasn't been written in one sitting or in sequence, so it'll be a bit... off. Anyway, here goes.

In order to understand some of the expected implications of a missile defense system, it helps to understand something called the security dilemma. As a general rule, states seek security -- I would further argue that those which do not will quickly be eliminated by those that do, adding a sort of natural selection to the mix. As a second general rule, an increase in the relative security of any one state will typically cause a decrease in the relative security of several or all other states. Why? Take the example of a missile shield. Previously, no country could launch ICBMs at any other country which possessed ICBMs -- the attacked state would retaliate with their own barrage -- but with a missile shield in the mix, the option of reciprocation is removed and there is no effective method of ensuring that the state with the shield will not launch such an attack.

Solution? If it could be called a "solution," that is. Other states will produce missiles capable of penetrating the shield, or emphasize methods of delivery which can't be blocked by the shield. When the other states maintain the ability to launch a second strike, they increase their security, thereby decreasing the security of the original state, which is then likely to upgrade its shield. The cycle continues. This dilemma, and the resulting arms races, are a very important factor in the progression of weapons technology from that of large sticks to that of strategic thermonuclear weapons and beyond.


The only real reason I see for the missile shield is preparing for a war with china.

And North Korea. And Iran. And the European Union.


the current way peace is that when u start a nuklear war u destroy the world a missle defense systemthat could stop said apocalspe from effecting the us might give bush or any futur the incentive to start a nuke war and kil all of human kind

A missile shield couldn’t give anyone the incentive, or even the capability to commit genocide. All it does, in an elementary sense, is prevent unauthorized high-altitude flights within a target zone. In a strategic sense, it theoretically prevents the delivery of a long-range strategic weapon. Shorter range deliveries are still quite possible – submarine fleets and land delivery will become more important. Granted, the US has a nice navy, but we’ll come to that.


the us invaded iraq agaisnt the un's wishes

Oh, did we? I was unaware of any UN resolution condemning the action. I think we did invade it against the wishes of, say, France and the UN Secretariat. Both parties had much to gain from the status quo. Specifically, the economic strengths and personal gains acquired through numerous illegal deals with the Hussein regime, most notably including the oil-for-food scandal.

Many nations will oppose most any action by the US for the sole sake of avoiding a unipolar world; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and particularly after the First Gulf War, many feared that no coalition could stand against us. Natural result? Coalitions form to oppose the superpower which survived the Cold War. If you take a look at things, several big players in things look to be setting up the EU as the counterbalance to US power; some are of the opinion that it’s only a matter of time before the world looks like EU-China v. US-Russia. Littler nations support the UN because they don’t like their options in such a bipolar world.


I don't think nuklear... er... nuclear missiles are really a threat that will come to fruition. If North Korea shoots a missile at anyone, they will cease to exist. You use missiles for deterrence and political leverage. North Korea wants missiles so that can be let alone to do what want to do.

Is it safe to assume that the leadership of North Korea will make such rational decisions? Suppose they believe that they, and some of their army, will survive? Suppose they don’t care that most of their people will perish in any counter-attack? A nuclear second strike is generally targeted at population bases – dictatorships tend not to be overly concerned with those. Given the stakes, simply assuming the presence entirely rational decision making within all parties may not be prudent.


Conclusion 1 counter argument: Missile defense technology is far from perfect. Other countries would simply launch more nukes to overwhelm our defenses. Think of it like this, even if the system had a hit rate of 99%, all an enemy would need to do is launch 100 nukes at a vital target. Statistically, 1 nuke should get through, and that’s all that matters. I wont even get into the electro magnetic effects of such an attack.

Right. Let’s just launch a hundred nukes. No big deal. You do realize that even a 50% success rate will vastly alter the balance of power, yeah? Building nukes, and THEN building ICBMs and RVs to deliver them is one of the greatest technical and industrial challenges of the past century.


Conclusion 2 counter argument: Only if terrorists launch an ICBM from a captured government installation. It is far more likely that terrorists will take a cheap-ass cold war era ICBM, place it on a freighter, ram the freighter into a harbor, and then detonate the nuke.

That assumes that terrorists are the only threat a government should be concerned with. They are an important threat, yes, but not the only one.


Are we talking about counter-missiles, a la "Godzilla 1985", or a laser-defense net, like the old "Star Wars" system? I'm afraid I'm not every up to date with the facts.


The current model has a beefed up Patriot missile eliminating the target RV, by my understanding.


By creating a missile defense system, we're rocking the boat. MAD goes down the drain because we'll be able to launch our weapons without being beaten to a pulp, and that scares the hell out of all the other nations. When those nations get scared, they start to come up with badder weapons and better defenses to close the gap, and then we've got another weapons race. In my opinion, thats a bad thing.

Counter-point: All we do by not developing a missile shield is let someone else build one first.


In fact, Europe as a whole is doing much better than the U.S. in most aspects of soceity, especially economics, education, and politics.

First, ungrounded statement. Second, off-topic.


The fact that we must rely on our military to give our words power means that the U.S. cannot feasibly become pacifistic either.

A government without guns is a government without power. A government with guns inferior to those of other governments is weak. The other reason Switzerland is secure is that (a) they have the advantage of terrain which excellently deters invasion and (b) no one cares about them or their land enough to bother. The US does not possess either of those qualities.

Besides, coming back to the concept of nuclear weaponry; what’s the Swiss recourse if someone threatens them with nuclear attack?

[Devon Lake]

almost forgot: You loose anyway

I'd concede if I had said something like "Bush is teh Hitler" or "All Americans are Nazis!!!1111", or some other mindlessly inflammatory comparison based on empty rhetoric and devoid of any point, but in this case the facts of the matter stand. Godwin's Law isn't applicable to every single reference to WWII, it applies to a statement that predicates an association with fascism. I was predicating an association with military build up; if you want to take that as an insinuation of fascism, deal with your own nations 400 billion dollar defense budget before getting miffed at me.

That the Axis powers represented unprecidented military build up is undeniable. So is the fact that the Allies under American leadership were powerful to overcome them. Furthermore, the US has only continued to build up it's military prowess since the cold-war and for probably it's entire duration outgunned the Soviet Union (As much as one can outgun an apponent in MAD.) Name me any other hegemon in history with a military force roughly equal to the rest of the world's combined.

[Toastburner B]

The problem is, in my humble opinion, is that M.A.D. may not hold the same threat that it did back during the Cold War.

Let's take for example, the idea of the U.S. going to war with North Korea. Let's say that the U.S. is kicking butt. I'm not convinced that M.A.D. will keep North Korea's leadership from wanting go out in a blaze of glory, or for them not to think that dropping a nuclear warhead on American soil will kill our resolve to fight.

I'd rather have a missile that has a 1-in-10 chance of stopping it than depend on the thinking of a doomed leadership to avoid a nuclear blast.

But, like I said, that's my opinion. I'd rather be prepared for the unthinkable than to believe that the unthinkable won't happen.

[DarthZeth]

There is also the point that the reference to Nazi German is stupid. we shamed them from 1942-1945. We shamed the eastern bloc countries from 1945-1991. you know, we kind of won the arms race and all (I seem to recall us having something like 5 times more nukes then Russia? It hardly matters anyway). We shamed the soviet military strategy in Iraq 1991.

Besides, current "military build up"? our armed forces have shrunk considerably. We went from over 2 million armed forces personnel in the beginning of the 90s, to less then 1.4 million armed forces personnel today.

Besides, the power and cost of our army and the fact that "this nation had been to war twice in the past 4 years." is why people burn American flags?? were those two wars why, I dunno, they blew up the fucking WTC?

here, let me take your quote there, and highlight, in bright red, every bullshit reason you listed for why people hate America:

"If you're wondering why your nation has enemies worldwide burning it's flag, stop for a second to think; if there was a foreign superpower with a military build-up that would put to shame both that of Nazi Germany and the former Eastern Bloq combined, a defence budget consisting of 50% of all that government's revenues and which was roughly equivalent to the military spending of every other nation on the planet combined, and this nation had been to war twice in the past 4 years... "

PS: according to the CIA World Factbook, in 1999 world military spending was about three quarters of a trillion dollars. also in 1999, US military spending was around a quarter of a trillion. I don't think the rest of the world spending twice as much as the US is "roughly equal". but hey, 100% might be your idea of "roughly", considering that your 50% stat was off by 250%.

besides, in terms of GDP< the US doesn't even make it into the top 10 spenders. they don't even make it into the top 25. they just barrrrely make it into the top 50, with 3.2% of our GDP being spent on military.

oh yeah, we also spend a lot of that money playing other country's army, like South Korea, Germany, Japan...


So yeah, anyway, your reasons for why anyone hates us is bullshit. Your most accurate part was about going to war in the past 4 years. No one gives a fuck about how we compare to Nazis, or that our 3.2% of the US GDP that we spend on the military is more then the entire GDP of most countries (there are only about 30 countries who's entire GDP equals what we spend on the military. At least around that 1999 stat. if you take our 2003 stat of $405 billion worth of military spending and compare it to the 2002 GDP Stats on nation master, only 22 countries make it.)

The (simple) reason why nations hate us is because we interfere with their interests. The (simple) reason why people would hate us is because we interfere with their culture.

Not because of a relatively small budget item (for the US).

EDIT: lies, damned lies, and statistics
before I close these browser windows, ill let you fellows know where I got the stats form this post.
thanks to NationMaster.com (www.nationmaster.com) for 2002 GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp) information and 1999 Military Expenditures as a percent of GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp)

For dollar amounts of US military expenditures, see my last post for the source
Thanks to the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html) for the information on 1999 world military expenditures.
Military Personnel statistics (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/history/309hist.htm)

[Archbio]

But, like I said, that's my opinion. I'd rather be prepared for the unthinkable than to believe that the unthinkable won't happen.

I think the main criticism is, or should be, grounded in the idea that there should be an effort to keep "the unthinkable" from happening. Whatever is the merit (or lack thereof) to the idea that missile defence systems would make the "unthinkable" more likely, you just ignored it. At least, in that very simplified wrong position/right position statement.

Let's take for example, the idea of the U.S. going to war with North Korea. Let's say that the U.S. is kicking butt. I'm not convinced that M.A.D. will keep North Korea's leadership from wanting go out in a blaze of glory, or for them not to think that dropping a nuclear warhead on American soil will kill our resolve to fight.

I'm pretty sure most of the people that are against that project are also against "kicking butt" in North Korea for that very reason. I also think that should have been pretty obvious.

[Luna Santin]

I think the main criticism is, or should be, grounded in the idea that there should be an effort to keep "the unthinkable" from happening. Whatever is the merit (or lack thereof) to the idea that missile defence systems would make the "unthinkable" more likely, you just ignored it. At least, in that very simplified wrong position/right position statement.

Any effective missile shield would reduce the ability of other nations to immediately and directly strike us domestically. On the surface, this seems obviously good. There are some issues created in that it skews MAD around quite a bit -- some would argue that we'd then have the ability to launch our birds without fear of repercussion. It does alter the game considerably, but it doesn't seem to me to give any of the great powers a decisive advantage or disadvantage -- all the important players have nuclear subs, anyway, if nothing else. Is there some reason for us to want random countries like India to have the capability to launch an ICBM at us? Is there some reason we don't want to have to wait an additional ninety minutes or so to end the world with stealth bombers instead of missiles?

Hostage negotiators wear body armor. Is this because they don't plan to negotiate? No, it isn't. It's because they don't want to get shot. There are problems created with the missile shield -- some people fear that the US is attempting to gain first strike capability. Again, I feel the need to point out that not pursuing the technology to erect a missile shield will only really accomplish one thing: letting someone else get it first.


Let's take for example, the idea of the U.S. going to war with North Korea. Let's say that the U.S. is kicking butt. I'm not convinced that M.A.D. will keep North Korea's leadership from wanting go out in a blaze of glory, or for them not to think that dropping a nuclear warhead on American soil will kill our resolve to fight.
I'm pretty sure most of the people that are against that project are also against "kicking butt" in North Korea for that very reason. I also think that should have been pretty obvious.

I'm pretty sure that building a missile shield would prevent them from doing that. I also think that should have been pretty obvious. Just because we want the world to be peachy and pacifistic doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to protect our people. There are better arguments you could be using against the project, in my opinion.

[Archbio]

I'm pretty sure that building a missile shield would prevent them from doing that. I also think that should have been pretty obvious. Just because we want the world to be peachy and pacifistic doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to protect our people. There are better arguments you could be using against the project, in my opinion.

The argument was that the missile shield would protect (some) from actions North Korea would take if invaded and cornered. That's true (and extremely circular considering the discussion at hand), I agree, but if war isn't declared on North Korea, these increased risks of "irrational attacks" don't appear (according to the original reasoning). That argument is invalid if you don't believe you should "kick butt" in North Korea. And it was what was stated as one cause of what the missile shield is supposed to be "protecting your people" from.

So no, I wasn't making an argument against the missile shield there, only an argument against the argument for the missile shield.

Again, I feel the need to point out that not pursuing the technology to erect a missile shield will only really accomplish one thing: letting someone else get it first.

That's assuming the rest of the world was trying to get it. I don't know what to think of that kind of reasoning. Of course, now that everyone thinks the US is getting one, the point I would have liked to make is very, very moot.

Hostage negotiators wear body armor. Is this because they don't plan to negotiate? No, it isn't. It's because they don't want to get shot.

The Hostage Negotiator doesn't have a visible weapon. The comparison is faulty: the psychological effect is different. This is protection+capacity for destruction. [To correct the image, think what would happen if the hostage negotiator was to approach the hostage taker with the body armor and a visible, readied weapon.]

all the important players have nuclear subs, anyway, if nothing else. Is there some reason for us to want random countries like India to have the capability to launch an ICBM at us?

Good point, but there still is an effect on powers when there are steps taken to render part of their arsenal (arsenal which is reciprocal: a very important point), useless. A lesser effect, granted.

[Devon Lake]

There is also the point that the reference to Nazi German is stupid.

Nuh-uhn, your momma’s stupid! But in all seriousness, do you think for a second you could cut the rudeness so that we can engage in a cogent intellectual exchange? You’ve been here long enough that you should know by now that calling someone’s stance/evidence/beliefs bullshit is in no way going to further any sort of discussion.

Proper discourse consists of presenting a given stance backed up by one’s beliefs and proofs, and discrediting opposing stances by demonstrating a flaw in logic, a mistake of fact, or extending their line or reasoning to a position you cannot maintain. While you’re certainly capable of sound discourse, unnecessary swearing and condescension really isn’t helping your case, and really. Really, it just makes me want to do something else with my time. But hey, if you’re object is just to kill the discussion…

Besides, the power and cost of our army and the fact that "this nation had been to war twice in the past 4 years." is why people burn American flags?? were those two wars why, I dunno, they blew up the fucking WTC?

While most everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, the fact that the US would go straight from one such messy conflict and jump headlong into another one before even finishing the reconstruction of Afghanistan is unnerving. Most of the nations in opposition to the War in Iraq had participated in the War in Afghanistan after all.

Furthermore, it really doesn’t help matters that the US flinging itself into this second conflict broke international law and was rationalized under false pretense. There’s been no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda even after the war, let alone before hand to justify the preemptive strike. I know your pissed about the 9/11, we all are, but going berserk and invading the third world every two years is not going to bring the dead back to life.

PS: according to the CIA World Factbook, in 1999 world military spending was about three quarters of a trillion dollars. also in 1999, US military spending was around a quarter of a trillion. I don't think the rest of the world spending twice as much as the US is "roughly equal". but hey, 100% might be your idea of "roughly", considering that your 50% stat was off by 250%.

You’re quoting me Clinton era figures? No no no my friend, the diplomatic situation of the US was far more stable 5 years ago. How about some figures from the Bush Administration? Like these: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

I’ll leave you to do you own math with those.

besides, in terms of GDP< the US doesn't even make it into the top 10 spenders. they don't even make it into the top 25. they just barrrrely make it into the top 50, with 3.2% of our GDP being spent on military.

Yes, but even if Tonga blew 100% of it’s GDP on guns, it’s really never going to intimidate anyone accept for the Republic of Minerva. Besides that, many of the countries that spend so much of their GDP on defense also have a very poor GDP per capita anyway; they need to spend more of it proportionally in order to defend themselves.

No one gives a fuck about how we compare to Nazis, or that our 3.2% of the US GDP that we spend on the military is more then the entire GDP of most countries (there are only about 30 countries who's entire GDP equals what we spend on the military. At least around that 1999 stat. if you take our 2003 stat of $405 billion worth of military spending and compare it to the 2002 GDP Stats on nation master, only 22 countries make it.)

Well, it’s kind of hard to argue with “no one gives a fuck about…” because that’s not even a point. That’s middle schooler taking a hissy a fit. As a member of “the rest of the world” I can personally attest to the fact that many people are shaken by the idea of a nation already so overwhelmingly militarily dominant wanting to put its weapons of space. But of course, if you cared about us you’d have seen how Parliament Hill was jammed with anti-missile defense protesters all this week in Canada.

The (simple) reason why nations hate us is because we interfere with their interests. The (simple) reason why people would hate us is because we interfere with their culture.

And what pray tell do you think gives you the ability to interfere with the interests and cultures of other peoples?

[Luna Santin]

Also, bless you for having a name I don't have to copy-paste when quoting. >_>

The argument was that the missile shield would protect (some) from actions North Korea would take if invaded and cornered. That's true (and extremely circular considering the discussion at hand), I agree, but if war isn't declared on North Korea, these increased risks of "irrational attacks" don't appear (according to the original reasoning). That argument is invalid if you don't believe you should "kick butt" in North Korea. And it was what was stated as one cause of what the missile shield is supposed to be "protecting your people" from.

So no, I wasn't making an argument against the missile shield there, only an argument against the argument for the missile shield.

Ah. I misunderstood you a bit, then. I'm not sure that NK would wait for us to invade before launching. Suppose we impose strong sanctions, and they don't want to deal with them -- they'll threaten to use their birds. What are the world's policy options, then? The missile shield would affect the situation with NK, in the short term, but in the longer term it would apply to most such threats which arise; I don't yet know what the next threat/crisis/whatever you want to call it will be, but I'm sure there will be one, if you follow.


That's assuming the rest of the world was trying to get it. I don't know what to think of that kind of reasoning. Of course, now that everyone thinks the US is getting one, the point I would have liked to make is very, very moot.

I'm more assuming that someone, somewhere, eventually will. I think that's a rather safe assumption. A decision to avoid pursuing the shield now doesn't prevent anyone else from pursuing it later; it seems to me to weaken our future options. I like having options.


The Hostage Negotiator doesn't have a visible weapon. The comparison is faulty: the psychological effect is different. This is protection+capacity for destruction.

Ack. Very true. I'll adjust it a bit. Suppose we have several teams of infantry, all of them armed, some of them very heavily. There isn't an indication that any of these groups will start shooting at each other at the present time, but there are some stresses and a history of conflict. Would it be prudent, in that situation, for the biggest infantry team -- a likely target, or at least player, in any large conflict -- to put on body armor?

I think that analogy is better, though I do admit I'm biased. Feel free to rip it apart if you find some other flaw. Admittedly, the one team seems to be preparing for a conflict by putting on armor, trying to one-up everyone else, but with the stakes as they are (namely, life and death), isn't it wise to be prepared?

In a truly peaceful world, it's a problem when one group starts developing new weapons. Given the increasing possibility of WMD-proliferation and new additions to the list of nuclear powers, I would argue that the situation is hardly as stable as some opponents of the missile shield would suggest (I don't know if you're one of them). I don't expect France to be launching nukes at us any time soon. Given the developing programs in China, North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and any number of other nations, however, I think the old model of nuclear power doesn't apply as well.

--edited because I missed this--
Good point, but there still is an effect on powers when there are steps taken to render part of their arsenal (arsenal which is reciprocal: a very important point), useless. A lesser effect, granted.

Yeah. I'm not crazy-gung-ho enough to imagine there won't be negative implications if the US continues on its current path, here. In this issue, I think everyone wants to err on the side of caution -- though which side that is seems to remain debated, heh. I picture a world where several nations and/or coalitions have developed these shields, within... oh, I don't know how long, but probably a few decades at the most.

[Archbio]

Ah. I misunderstood you a bit, then. I'm not sure that NK would wait for us to invade before launching. Suppose we impose strong sanctions, and they don't want to deal with them -- they'll threaten to use their birds. What are the world's policy options, then? The missile shield would affect the situation with NK, in the short term, but in the longer term it would apply to most such threats which arise; I don't yet know what the next threat/crisis/whatever you want to call it will be, but I'm sure there will be one, if you follow.

Here's where we go back to square one: it all depends on whether or not nuclear obliteration is a good deterrent. It's not a reliable deterrent when the attacker has nothing to lose: the point where a state has nothing to lose really depends on the rationality of its leaders. But I think even North Korea would rather take sanctions over obliterations. Could it really threaten atomic attack without really meaning it? Maybe, but can a nation bluff another nuclear power with nuclear weapons?

I'm more assuming that someone, somewhere, eventually will. I think that's a rather safe assumption. A decision to avoid pursuing the shield now doesn't prevent anyone else from pursuing it later; it seems to me to weaken our future options. I like having options.

I'll put my own view on this in this simple way: I'd have no objection at all if everyone benefitted from such a shield (you never know). And I'd have no practical objection if every nuclear power had such a shield.

But only because it's a defensive measure. I think the argument wouldn't stick if it was an offensive weapon.

Admittedly, the one team seems to be preparing for a conflict by putting on armor, trying to one-up everyone else, but with the stakes as they are (namely, life and death), isn't it wise to be prepared?

Not if it is the extra protection that precipitates the conflict the protection is supposed to defend against.. Especially if the protection wouldn't protect against everything that could happen in a conflict, but even if it did, I don't think it would be wise.

Remember: if.

In a truly peaceful world, it's a problem when one group starts developing new weapons. Given the increasing possibility of WMD-proliferation and new additions to the list of nuclear powers, I would argue that the situation is hardly as stable as some opponents of the missile shield would suggest (I don't know if you're one of them). I don't expect France to be launching nukes at us any time soon. Given the developing programs in China, North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and any number of other nations, however, I think the old model of nuclear power doesn't apply as well.

I guess you could call me an opponent of the missile shield. But not a very strong opponent, besides the objection I just raised (which is just the possibility of an objection), it's mostly the arguments flying around the project that made me pay attention, more than the project itself.

[Edit: I do have an objection that goes beyond the missile shield itself. It has to do with how the US would use any upper hand the missile shield would give them. But that's another question]

I'd say, though, that the world still falls under the MAD logic. That is that nuclear-wise it is stable, but not safe. The idea that the new nuclear powers change that balance all that much I can't understand. Most of these I can't see launching suicidal attacks... that is unless they are cornered. That's why I think there's more than a fear of unprovoked nuclear attack behind the fear of new nuclear powers (besides the disintegrating nuclear monopol, which is a given). Conflict, which was safe for the Super Powers in most of the world and on a wide scale during the cold war (small scale wars, proxy wars), suddenly becomes barred where those multiplying powers are concerned. In itself, I don't think that's a bad thing, but the bigger powers lose some of their freedom of movement.

As long as the nuclear weapon is a nation state, I feel the same reasoning still applies.

[Later Addition Beyond this]

Yeah. I'm not crazy-gung-ho enough to imagine there won't be negative implications if the US continues on its current path, here. In this issue, I think everyone wants to err on the side of caution -- though which side that is seems to remain debated, heh. I picture a world where several nations and/or coalitions have developed these shields, within... oh, I don't know how long, but probably a few decades at the most.

I agree it's probably already in motion. Here's to hoping only shields are being developped, and not ways to get through them.

[AerodynamicHair]

Alright, I just want to ask one question:

What the hell happened to diplomacy?

Luna Santin and Archbio have had some good points about the current nature of the world and how this shield makes us look, but no one has brought up any other options. I agree that we should take measures to protect ourselves, and that now that the idea and theory behind the missile defense system is out other nations will seek it. Still, that doesn't force us to come up with one ourselves. We aren't specifically at war with any of these countries that can threaten us with nukes, so an arms race isn't important. I know that we should prepare for when one of these nations might become an enemy, but why not just rock the diplomacy before we head straight for the super-cool sounding missile defense shield. We create a treaty and agree with other nations that we will not develop a missile shield if they do not develop one, and we continue work on missile dismantlement treaties while still keeping enough alive to keep MAD alive. We do have the influence to do this, racing to the workbench to build this missile defense system is not the only or best option.

I have some problems with Luna Santin's Negotiator metaphore, too, or I guess it's a full combat thing now. A missile shield is not just body armor, it's a magic shirt that repels almost all bullets. Body armor just lightens damage, this missile defense system will make us almost invincible. Body armor is a large advantage, and thus the enemy team would get worried, but I don't think that the example of body armor reflects just how worried the rest of the world would get from something like we're thinking of building here.

Imagine this scenario: You are positioned right next to an opposing force. At the moment, you are at a truce, and have agreed not to fire upon eachother. Still, this opposing force can become violent at any time once again, so there is still some tension. Then, you learn that the opposition has just ordered armored vehicles. The vehicles themselves are unarmed, but they're existance give a huge advantage to the other team in manueverability and defense. You realize now that nothing would be able to stop them if they decided to attack, though there is no current reason for them to do so.

In this situation, if you're team got a little threatened, if you felt that they were probably going to strike, then you're only strategic option would be to strike them first when they don't expect it.

I'm not saying that our building of a missile shield would cause us to be attacked, I'm just making an example of how other nations might feel when we have this kind of advantage.

[adamark]

a country's government's primary focus is to protect its citizens. a MDS would be a logical outreach for the government of any country. our government is not to consider other country's peoples' safety (first), only our own. but whether or not a MDS would make us safe is still up in the air.

[AerodynamicHair]

Well, a governments focus is what is best for its citizens, and an MDS is definitely not in our best interest because it would cause other nations to feel threatened and make us seem more hostile, even if we aren't. It also costs money that could go to other things and would probably push up our weapons developement even further than it should be.

[Archbio]

I am obligated in no way to argue solely based on the function and point of view of a government. Nevertheless, I was raising some doubts in good part on its supposed function: long term protection of american populations.

[And anyway, I think it should be clear when discussing things like that the good of who is considered when saying something is "good", or "bad". I think everybody has been doing that as of yet]

[adamark]

the rest of the world already feels threatened by the USA. the rest of the world already looks upon the US as an imperial war machine bent on world domination.


we can't get any worse of a reputation. your argument is therefore rather invalid.

the security of our citizens in terms of ABSOLUTE security, not second-hand security through diplomacy, is a government's first responsibility.

i just don't buy the argument that we should be whipped little weaklings like canada so that we aren't worth the pickings. we will always be ripe for a fight, in my opinion. preparedness is necessary.

[Archbio]

we can't get any worse of a reputation. your argument is therefore rather invalid.

Actually, that's not true. But more importantly, there is a difference between "reputation" and how a country stands in the practical calculations of other countries.

the security of our citizens in terms of ABSOLUTE security, not second-hand security through diplomacy, is a government's first responsibility.

I don't believe "absolute security" is possible without diplomacy, with only force. I also find that not considering diplomacy at all makes it harder to achieve security. Of course, it would be easier to be secure without diplomacy for a country that's not all over the place, but it's kind of late for that.

just don't buy the argument that we should be whipped little weaklings like canada so that we aren't worth the pickings

I think that deserves a sarcastic round of applause, some kind of award or something.

[DragonDaimyo]

Personally, I am in favor of a missile defense system to protect the U.S. (and possibly neigboring (sp?) countries as well :cool: ). I believe that, even if it isn't foolproof, I'll take the one in whatever chance of blowing up the missile.

Someone commented earlier that they opposed it because it could cause another Cold War - style arms race. While that is true, what you're forgetting is that an arms race is a race in technology. While the ICBM came as a direct result of the arms race, the space shuttle was an indirect result. We got the ability to put things into space. Natural human curiosity put people up there next. Next thing you know, we have a NASA and the space program (I'm glossing over some history, but you get the meaning).

In the end, I think that both the military and civilian results of Missile Defense reasearch is certainly worth pursuing.

[AerodynamicHair]

Yeah, some (all right, alot) of military technology eventually makes its way into the public market, so you could say that an arms race would also increase technology and make the standard of living. But that doesn't mean that military technology spending is the best route to new technology. We could do well enough, and maybe even better, if we were researching other things than how to blow someone up more effectively. Military research leads to indirect gains, general technological research leads to more direct gains for the public.

I just don't think cooler GPS gadgets are worth another arms race.

And a new arms race wouldn't necessarily be cold-war style, it could just be general King of the Hill style everybody vs. the guy on top kind of stuff.

[DarthZeth]

Nuh-uhn, your momma’s stupid! But in all seriousness, do you think for a second you could cut the rudeness so that we can engage in a cogent intellectual exchange? You’ve been here long enough that you should know by now that calling someone’s stance/evidence/beliefs bullshit is in no way going to further any sort of discussion.

you’re arguments would shame NAZI GERMANY.

oh wait, my allusion to Nazi Germany is stupid. hmm. so was yours.

don't make a stupid reference to Nazi Germany, and i won't call it stupid. You've been hear long enough to... oh never mind about how long you've been here.

I’m sorry that my mode of speech offends you. But your ego, or my use of the word "fuck" doesn't change the arguments. It only really matters if I’m trying to CONVINCE you. But, as you've said, I’ve been hear long enough to know that generally doesn't happen.

By the way, you still haven’t shown why bringing up Nazi German is relevant or even accurate. WE shamed Nazi Germany and Eastern Bloc countries loooong ago. in WWII and the Cold War. and etc,

So yeah, we shamed the Nazis. we BITCH SLAPPED the Nazis and hung their dumb asses in Nuremberg (oops, profanity).

Still a "stupid" argument towards why anyone hates America (well, ‘cept for the poor Nazis we left swinging in the wind. Id be pissed off if i were a Nazi). or would you be less offended if i said you "made a mistake in logic"? whatever. argument sucks.


Proper discourse consists of presenting a given stance backed up by one’s beliefs did that
and proofs, check
and discrediting opposing stances by demonstrating a flaw in logic, three for three!
a mistake of fact, yeah, some pretty big ones.
or extending their line or reasoning to a position you cannot maintain. powerful military = hate America is not maintainable. got points on that one too.
While you’re certainly capable of sound discourse, apparently I AM, since I didn't miss a single part of what you say proper discourse consists of
unnecessary swearing and condescension really isn’t helping your case. im not sure if this is the logical fallacy of the straw man (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm), or style over substance (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm). Im leaning for style over substance, because the profanity really wasn't an argument.
While most everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, the fact that the US would go straight from one such messy conflict and jump headlong into another one
You mean like going from Kuwait/Iraq 1990-91 to Somalia 1992-93? and Kosovo 1993? Funny thing, those were all UN/Nato operations, too.

but regardless. the two wars in the past 4 years is, wait let me find it, "why your nation has enemies worldwide burning it's flag"... it really doesn't explain why our nation had enemies burning our flag in 1999? or 1995? or 1990? or 1985? or 1980? or.. or..

well, you get my point. that tricky way time flows FORWARD kind of rules out Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the speed we went from one to the other, or whatever your reasons was, as why people hated us BEFORE we did that. The American Flag Burners didn’t spontaneously appear in 2001. or, your arguments says they appeared in 2003? Whatever. Its wrong.


before even finishing the reconstruction of Afghanistan is unnerving. Most of the nations in opposition to the War in Iraq had participated in the War in Afghanistan after all.

As of November 4, 2004, there were 28 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga.

in May 2004, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Singapore , and Thailand were around, but have since gone home.

so that’s, 35 countries actively involved in Iraq? (since actually SENDING troops seems to be the standard for “support” in some circles. I’m not sure about UN style strongly worded letters of support or anything like that, though)

Numbers on Afghanistan are more elusive, I fear. Some say 70 countries “supported” us. But we’ll use the same standard that “support” counts as “sending people”. The countries who sent people to Afghanistan are:

Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece , Hungary , Iceland , Italy , Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg , Netherlands , Norway, Poland, Portugal , Romania, Slovakia , Slovenia , Spain , Turkey , United Kingdom , United States , Albania , Austria, Azerbaijan , Croatia, Finland , former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1), Ireland , Sweden , Switzerland , New Zealand, Afghanistan (hey, NATO counts afghanistan? Well, here’s the source (http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm))

So, 35, not counting the US and Afghanistan. As of June 15, 2004. According to NATO.

Waiiittt a second. That’s the EXACT SAME NUMBER of countries that sent troops to Iraq. (oh wait, I didn’t count those who pulled out before that June 2004. I don’t have that list though.)

Alright, in terms of actual support, 18 countries were with us in Iraq AND Afghanistan, 17 were only with us in Iraq, and 17 were only with us in Afghanistan.

There seems to be underwhelming support for the argument that more countries supported Afghanistan then Iraq. Unless you count strongly worded letters? (good luck compiling a list of letters. Compiling a list of people who actually took action was fucking HARD.)


There’s been no evidence of … ties to Al Qaeda

yeah, There is evidence (http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html)

of course, that’s ignoring Saddam’s links to other terrorists, and the millions of dollars he spent on Palestinian terrorist operations.


I know your pissed about the 9/11
Oddly enough, 9/11 has nothing to do with (my) support for the war in Iraq.

The point about 9/11 is that the flag burning enemies were pissed.



You’re quoting me Clinton era figures? No no no my friend, the diplomatic situation of the US was far more stable 5 years ago. How about some figures from the Bush Administration? Like these: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

I’ll leave you to do you own math with those.

That list is incomplete (an an March 2003 estimate of FY 2004), which is why I quoted the CIA world factbook (I googled your source, too).

Good news though, I just found the 2003 Total World Military Spending figures, as quoted here (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending) from the Stockholm Institute. $956 billion. Making our share in 2003 about 42%.

Ok, so your error (in saying US spending == non US spending) was only about 38%, not 100%.

Well, it’s kind of hard to argue with “no one gives a fuck about…” because that’s not even a point. That’s middle schooler taking a hissy a fit.
Funny thing, the point was the part that followed “no one gives a fuck about…”, namely the “how we compare to Nazis”.

You seem to want to make bullshit comparisons with Nazis, but you don’t want to argue that the comparisons have a bearing on… anything.

As a member of “the rest of the world” I can personally attest to the fact that many people are shaken by the idea of a nation already so overwhelmingly militarily dominant wanting to put its weapons of space.

“weapons in space”? oh, you mean, having the ability to SHOOT DOWN MISSILES THAT ARE FIRED AT US.

Oh dear me. The horror. The horror!

By golly, we WANT the rest of the world to have the ability to destroy America with ICBMs. Is that it?

But then, I’ve heard about possible USAF doctrine shifts to maintaining “Space superiority”, so perhaps you’re talking about. (buncha crap deleted about this. if you wanna talk abotu it, bring it up again)

And what pray tell do you think gives you the ability to interfere with the interests and cultures of other peoples?

To the point I was making, that doesn’t really matter.

The point being that military strength is NOT the cause of animosity. The causes are non-military.


But to diverge from the point, except of asshats like Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html), Americans tolerate cultural interference from other countries every day. The term “American Culture” is practically laughed at all the time, since its really a hodge-podge of a hundred other cultural influences. Its business as usual when a foreign culture influences us.

If I want to act French, its my right. If I want to act Japanese, that’s my right too. It goes both ways. If a French dude wants to act American, god bless him.

hey man, celebrate diversity, not Xenophobia.

Oh, you asked what gives us the ABILITY to effect other cultures? Simply: other people’s willingness to accept “american culture”. Iranians don’t listen to Rock and Roll because we force them to.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

i was talking with someone in my class and he was saying how the us could just nuke the world and rule and when i told him the fact that if u shoot a nuke at the world alot more nukes are going to get shot back at you he couldnt comprehend that even if it took an hour for a nuke to get somewhere thats still enough time to launch one back at youre country i dont know what his problem was but he thought that as soon as you press the button there dead.

[Toastburner B]

grthwllms...puncuation. Please. It makes things much easier to read.

But, you're point stands. The guy was not very informed...i.e. rather stupid...about the whole thing. Anyone who has common sense...or even saw the movies War Games (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/) and Crimson Tide (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112740/) should know this.

While it is true that the U.S. has the dubious honor of being the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in a war-time situation, I believe it has been proven that we won't launch nukes just to "conquer the world", so to speak.

[Luna Santin]

To explain some of the problems I see in a modern application of MAD... during the Cold War, the world was largely bipolar -- there were two main camps, each directly opposing the other; each victory for one camp was a loss for the other, producing a zero-sum game. The policy options for each side were fairly simple: make gain, obstruct efforts by the other side to make gain. Now, an imbalance in a system is frequently associated with a war -- the imbalance can take any number of forms, be it prestige, particular resources, and so on -- and clearly, a bipolar system with only two sides is easier to balance than a system with many sides.

In a multipolar system, the options are less obvious and balancing is more difficult. It's like trying to balance a full mobile instead of a see-saw -- any change in one side affects several other sides in ways which may be difficult to predict. As a result, multipolar systems are historically most likely to cause large and catastrophic wars -- take Europe in the early to mid 1900s as an example; compare this to a bipolar system, which is likely to have small wars but remain relatively peaceful (as the Cold War did).

When discussing the possibility of nuclear exchange, I see the world as a multipolar system. For a list of nations which have declared, are suspected of, or have formerly attempted to attain or actually possessed nuclear capability, I'll refer everyone to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons) (the list checks with what I remember, I'm not going to double-check beyond that). It's much easier to apply MAD in a bipolar world -- if the other side launches its birds, you launch yours back. In a multipolar world, it's much less clear cut; there are not two, but at least seven sides potentially firing in any exchange, and well over 100 potential target states. Sure, if China launches nukes at the US, we fire back -- what if they launch nukes at Taiwan? Or South Korea? Or Japan? What if France launches at Britain? What if NK launches at the US, we launch back, and China isn't so sure about the missile trajectory? Nukes are dangerous enough when there are only two players.

And I hope it's obvious enough why I say this, but: simply put, I don't find MAD to be a wise first-line defensive posture in an unstable world. You can debate me as to whether the world is stable, now; if you do win that point, though, can you demonstrate that it will remain so?

Not that I don't think MAD is effective. Perhaps almost terrifyingly so. The problem I see is that it only takes one idiot to start the endgame into motion. If a rogue state launches its birds into a missile shield, a retaliatory glassing, along with all the escalation involved, is less likely -- that's an option I tend to like.

After a fair amount of Googling and Wikipedia-ing around, I can offer this. If anyone's wondering who has nuclear subs, the public list is: US, Russia, France, UK, China, in approximate order of fleet size. For the public list of states believed to possess ICBM-capability, add: Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. It's also interesting to note that I can't find any public declaration of missile silos by France or the UK -- only subs -- but if someone else can find them, more power to you.

So. Now I hope I made sense with all of that. <_<

[AerodynamicHair]

You make a pretty strong point. We shouldn't think that MAD is the best option for safety, nor should we rest on it. It really is kind of an itchy trigger-finger situation, and that still is an uncomfortable world to live in.

Still, I see this as more of an argument towards disarmament and not for a missile shield.

I think we need to phase out MAD slowly by disarming along with other countries. I don't think we should build an MDS in order to create that safe feeling. No matter how you look at it, the MDS gives the us a very strong military advantage, and any state who doesn't consider the U.S. a "friend" will start working hard to develop something to be on level with us.

Darth Zeth made a good point earlier about why other nations hate us. American animosity is non-military. People don't like us simply because we don't share the same interests, not because of anything military or any of the wars we have participated in. It's a "We think we're right, they think they're right, and we can't get a compromise between" kind of situation. I don't think this makes it ok for us to launch the MDS though. It hightens our military ability, and though we may disagree why people don't like us, the fact stands that they don't. I still say that it would just create increased military development in the world and start another arms race, a multi-polar arms race.

I hold my ground that this would indeed be very, very bad.

[Archbio]

It was clear enough for me!

How big are the chances of a nuclear free for all happening? I always thought the AD part of MAD is more important that than the M part. No matter how many nuclear powers there are, I can't see any nation expecting a nuclear attack to result in anything else than retaliation in kind. One could even argue that more nuclear powers reduces the chances of being able to escape destruction, since there can be no hope of knocking all of the potential opponent's retaliationnary capabilities out. There's not just "the enemy" to take care of.

The iniating nation, the one who launches first, really couldn't expect to sit by the sidelines and survive.

Of course, once the nuclear weapons are in the air, the worse will happen. And yes, the result is more unpredictable in a more multipolar world. But in that regard the bipolar world isn't much better.

I just can't see any state (at least among those with nuclear weapons) being that irrational.

Sure, if China launches nukes at the US, we fire back -- what if they launch nukes at Taiwan?

I can't see how that in particular has changed from a bipolar world. China doesn't have any more chance of risking that than the URSS against, say, Afghanistan. The same principles apply.

[Edit]

You make a pretty strong point. We shouldn't think that MAD is the best option for safety, nor should we rest on it. It really is kind of an itchy trigger-finger situation, and that still is an uncomfortable world to live in.

Just to be clear, I totally agree with that.

Still, I see this as more of an argument towards disarmament and not for a missile shield.

With that too... Hell, I agree with pretty much all of AreodynamicHair's post.

[DragonDaimyo]

Yeah, some (all right, alot) of military technology eventually makes its way into the public market, so you could say that an arms race would also increase technology and make the standard of living. But that doesn't mean that military technology spending is the best route to new technology. We could do well enough, and maybe even better, if we were researching other things than how to blow someone up more effectively. Military research leads to indirect gains, general technological research leads to more direct gains for the public.

I just don't think cooler GPS gadgets are worth another arms race.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, so I'll go with my instinct and remain open to correction.

I never said that military reasearch was the best way to go about getting general technological gains. What I said was that missile shield technology would be worth pursuing both for military and civilian aspects of it. This is a rare case for me, because I believe that most reasearch is best left in civilian hands and purposes.

However, I believe that missile defense is one case where we should go for it even if only for military deployment, due to the extra layer of protection if affords. You must admit, most people would be a lot more willing to negotiate if they knew that we could hit them and they can't hit us. (Note: I don't actually advocate using nuclear strikes in this manner, but the threat can be used to pressure others to the bargaining table)

[adamark]

Well, we spend too much on the military anyway. We really can't afford to spend 100billion on missile defense. But if it will help the US become more isolationist I would go for it. We would have our "magic shield," assuming it worked. We could limit the size of our armed forces and cut spending overall but keep that shield operating. Get out of the rest of the world's business, and go on with making good business.

[Sithdarth]

I hate to bring up a term that was used to describe the origins of WWII but it has been danced around a bit in this thread. (Note: I am not comparing any country to Germany at the time.) Appeasement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) is really the end result of MAD, or any WMD. Ofcourse there is one tiny problem, both sides partake of it. Country A arms and points it's nukes at country B and demands something. Country B gives the bare minimum to prevent war then arms and points at country A. At some point countries C, D, E, and so on enter. Here we have the problem where everyone thinks they have the method to get what they want, and they do. Which is why no one can really get what they want. There is far to many conflicting intrestes for it to be stable.

Throw in a Missles Defence Shield and all of a sudden country A is the only one with the power to demand things. That is really not good. However, allowing the situation to continue as it is won't work either. At some point 2, or more countries, are going to come to a point that can't be comprimised. (The Cuban Missle Scare for example. The Soviets backed down but a different leader in a different time might not have. We doged a bullet.)

At this point the system collaspes in on itself. After all you can't expect to keep getting what you want if you make empty threats. So now we consider disarming. Only problem is that Pandora opened her box and we can't put it back. There will always be the chance of a left over hidden silo or a rouge nation making their own. That puts us back at the begining or worse creates enough fear for MAD to actually happen or we end up with a bunch of causlities and a even more on edge world.

Given the relative nofunctionality of those three possiblities what then is left? (They may work but never enough to really be safe.) Well if we can't make them go away then we have to remove the threat in another way. What better way then some sort of shield that stops attacks. Look at were we are back to now. But wait there is still hope. Just the threat must be eliminated universly. I find it highly more probable that countries will work together for a defense shield then giving up the nuclear security blankets. At least then they have the knowledge if something goes wrong we could possible get revenge. Sounds horride but it may be the way we have to go.

Of course treaties to prevent arms able to pierce the shields would be nice and probably in acted. One problem countries looking for an edge won't sign or will ignore them. So this will require that we maintain our development of the technology of missles and defense until we are ready to share our little rock. It's not the perfect solution but one for this doesn't really exsits. All we can hope for is maximum servival and a stable lasting balance of power. Odd that it shoud require we learn to share and take a small step towards a united planet.

[icythaco]

Darth Zeth made a good point earlier about why other nations hate us. American animosity is non-military. People don't like us simply because we don't share the same interests, not because of anything military or any of the wars we have participated in. It's a "We think we're right, they think they're right, and we can't get a compromise between" kind of situation. I don't think this makes it ok for us to launch the MDS though. It hightens our military ability, and though we may disagree why people don't like us, the fact stands that they don't. I still say that it would just create increased military development in the world and start another arms race, a multi-polar arms race.
Personally, I think other countries hate us because they resent our apparent dominance of the world. We are (arguably) the most powerful country in the world, but we come off as bumbling and ignorant on the political scene; other countries are PO'd because they think they could do a better job if they had America's seat of power. They don't understand how such a new, inexpierienced country has managed to dominate politics with such unstable policies and diplomacy; every one of them thinks they could do a better job than us.

But that's mostly because the less powerful always resent those with the most power,
and the U.S. is no exception: other countries may get away with things, but all our flaws are held up for judgement, so we come off as less politically and socially correct, than, say, France or Germany.

Besides all this, if we build a missile shield it would clearly tell the world that we are afraid of and going on the defensive against nuclear attacks, and other countries would sieze on our fear to build their own weapons and claim that they were in "defense" of their nation also. If we told them not to, it would be the kettle calling the pot black. We shouldn't provide an excuse for other countries to start nuclear projects of their own.

It has been proven that the revolutionary soon becomes the norm, and the same thing will happen for this nuclear shield idea. If other countries manage to find a cheap way to build a missile defense system after we do, then we will lose our leverage and authority in those areas.

[Devon Lake]

By the way, you still haven’t shown why bringing up Nazi German is relevant or even accurate. WE shamed Nazi Germany and Eastern Bloc countries loooong ago. in WWII and the Cold War. and etc,

Let me try and put this into very, very simple terms. Do you deny that the Nazi’s attempted to build a vast military hegemony of global proportions? Do you deny that the US has actually succeeded in the goal of global hegemony by default becoming the world’s only superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union?

In fact, let me just retract the Nazi comment right here; it’s completely unnecessary. Attempting to build a military hegemony in and of itself is a foolish end irregardless of which nation instates it as their policy. This was my point in the first place and evidently you’ve missed it entirely in your quest to scream and swear.



Originally Posted by Devon Lake
Proper discourse consists of presenting a given stance backed up by one’s beliefs

did that

Where? I’ve yet to actually see your stance on the issue. Unless your stance is “Devon’s debates stupid,” which really doesn’t address the question of missile defense.



Originally Posted by Devon Lake
a mistake of fact,

yeah, some pretty big ones.

Yes, thank you for correcting me on military expenditures as in relation to government revenues. My memory is all too feeble sometimes. On the other hand, you’ve yet to address these far more disturbing figures: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

You can’t just show one mistake of fact and claim you’ve won.



Originally Posted by Devon Lake
or extending their line or reasoning to a position you cannot maintain.

powerful military = hate America is not maintainable. got points on that one too.
Woah there Socratese, not maintainable to whom? I maintain that stance. The people of Canada overwhelmingly maintain that stance. Many people around the world maintain that stance. Perhaps you’re confused. This criterion refers to when you explain the logical conclusion of your opponents argument to them in such terms that they are inclined to drop it.

Eg, “I hate all women!” “But dude, your mom’s woman!” “Your right. I love my mommy… I guess I don’t hate ALL women,”



Originally Posted by Devon Lake
While you’re certainly capable of sound discourse,

apparently I AM, since I didn't miss a single part of what you say proper discourse consists of

If by meeting my criterion you mean for the larger part of your argument going, “Pfft! That’s fucking stupid!”



Originally Posted by Devon Lake
unnecessary swearing and condescension really isn’t helping your case.

im not sure if this is the logical fallacy of the straw man, or style over substance. Im leaning for style over substance, because the profanity really wasn't an argument.
No, this is my own, “If you act like a middle schooler with an attitude problem, I’m simply not going to talk to you,” policy. Furthermore, no one in the history of politics has ever convinced anyone else with a picket sign reading, “Fuck you!” If you’re goal is to engage in an intelligent discussion, you’re going nowhere talking like a kid from South Park.

You mean like going from Kuwait/Iraq 1990-91 to Somalia 1992-93? and Kosovo 1993? Funny thing, those were all UN/Nato operations, too.

One the other hand, those weren’t unilateral wars. There’s a world of difference between one action acting on behalf of the international community, and one nation acting on behalf of itself. Quite simply, the international community has no need to fear the wars it is in support of.

but regardless. the two wars in the past 4 years is, wait let me find it, "why your nation has enemies worldwide burning it's flag"... it really doesn't explain why our nation had enemies burning our flag in 1999? or 1995? or 1990? or 1985? or 1980? or.. or..[quote]

Yes, but we live today. I’m speaking about the diplomatic situation that’s relevant now, not 15 years ago. America’s stance internationally is different today than it was 15 years ago or even 5 years ago. Besides that, the US has basically been the world’s strongest military player for the past 50 years, which may contribute to the long history of disgruntled foreigners. I’m pretty sure the Soviet Union had its flag burnt more than once throughout its history to. Yet, when’s the last time anyone burnt Switzerland’s flag?

[quote] There seems to be underwhelming support for the argument that more countries supported Afghanistan then Iraq. Unless you count strongly worded letters? (good luck compiling a list of letters. Compiling a list of people who actually took action was fucking HARD.)

Fair enough. I guess that’s what I get for speaking only from my own experiences. Now I’ve got the impression that I’ve been duped by the Canadian press, which is more apt to cover other nations unsupportive of the war in Iraq than the “Coalition of the willing” as it has been dubbed.

yeah, There is evidence

of course, that’s ignoring Saddam’s links to other terrorists, and the millions of dollars he spent on Palestinian terrorist operations.

Most of those points are sourced to claims by Colin Powel. I’m sorry, but I’m just no more likely to take his word any more than that of President Bush. While some of the information is worrying, none of it is overly compelling. From what I understand, much of it is unverified: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7336-2004Jul22.html

And again, where are all the nukes that American diplomats insisted were being stockpiled by Iraq?

“weapons in space”? oh, you mean, having the ability to SHOOT DOWN MISSILES THAT ARE FIRED AT US.

Oh dear me. The horror. The horror!

By golly, we WANT the rest of the world to have the ability to destroy America with ICBMs. Is that it?

But then, I’ve heard about possible USAF doctrine shifts to maintaining “Space superiority”, so perhaps you’re talking about. (buncha crap deleted about this. if you wanna talk abotu it, bring it up again)[quote]

Let me put it to you this way. How would you feel if every nation in the EU had weapons in space? How about Russia? About China? How about India and Pakistan? I’m afraid of the Ukraine having nukes they can’t even launch. Why shouldn’t I be scared that the country next door wants to put their weapons over my head?

[quote] To the point I was making, that doesn’t really matter.

The point being that military strength is NOT the cause of animosity. The causes are non-military.

Perhaps, but as Clausewitz said, “War is just politics carried out by other means,” In other words, the two are indistinguishable.

[KhanFusion]

Devon Lake
" On the other hand, you’ve yet to address these far more disturbing figures: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/worl...ry-spending.cfm

You can’t just show one mistake of fact and claim you’ve won."

http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm
"Figures are for latest year available, usually 2002. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending. The figure for the United States is from the annual budget request for Fiscal Year 2004."

Not trying to attack you, but rather trying to show that your back-up ammunition isn't as effective as you want it to be. You know, since it doesn't show military spending as a percentage of GDP, and also doesn't give a very accurate comparison.

Devon Lake
I maintain that stance. The people of Canada overwhelmingly maintain that stance. Many people around the world maintain that stance.

Proof, please? I mean, since this tiff between you and Zeth seems to be revolving around whether or not a argument can be supported one way or the other. So yeah, you make a statement like that, I'd like to see some reliable data that THE reason that the US is hated is simply, or even primarily, because its military is excessively strong.

Devon Lake
Furthermore, no one in the history of politics has ever convinced anyone else with a picket sign reading, “Fuck you!”

Ironically, this is precisely the language used by a tremendous amount of Bush/and or/America protestors over the past 4 decades. And don't forget the effigies. They're like "fuck you" with fire.

Yeah, Devon Lake again
And again, where are all the nukes that American diplomats insisted were being stockpiled by Iraq?

Well, actually nukes were never mentioned, to my memory. It was all about biological or chemical WMD's. Sure, thats just a minor detail, since I'm sure you meant WMD's period..... but keep in mind the monikor of "pre-emptive strike" is completely unwarranted when you give the guy 4 months of warning. There's no proof out there, as of now, that Saddam managed to sneak incriminating weapons out of the country, but there wasn't proof(or even any clue) that the Nazi's(oh crap, there they are, coming up again) had created the concentration camps until the very end of WW2 either. Think about that for a few minutes.

DL
Perhaps, but as Clausewitz said, “War is just politics carried out by other means,” In other words, the two are indistinguishable.
No, war and politics are distinguishable. But I get what you're trying to say.
But you know what, though? There are more aspects of international contact than war and politics. There are more ways to influence a fellow countryman's opinion of a foreign nation, than to just point out "aggression'.


Anyway. This thread is off topic, and onto another. Lets re-thread this for Mod's sake.

[icythaco]

Yeah I agree with KF here. Let me show you a comment/link posted by Darth Zeth earlier after another one of Devon Lake's posts:
a military build-up that would put to shame both that of Nazi Germanyalmost forgot: you lose anyway (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)

Therefore, I think I'll leave this thread before it sinks entirely...

[DarthZeth]

In fact, let me just retract the Nazi comment right here
There you go.
I’ve yet to actually see your stance on the issue.
Failed critical reading, did you?

My stance is that animosity towards America has little to do with military strength therefore, whether or not the US continues to go ahead with SDI won’t make much of a difference on whether or not people ‘like’ us.

You saying I didn’t present a stance, and my not presenting a stance are two very different things. Hell, you even argued AGAINST my point later on. But you claim it doesn’t exist? Odd, my friend. Very odd.

On the other hand, you’ve yet to address these far more disturbing figures: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

HOLY HELL YES I DID! Read post #38. I told you that those stats are incomplete, AND estimates of 2003 from before 2003 ended. I gave you complete stats of 2003 from AFTER 2003 ended.

Shit dude, I even gave you your parentage error! Which was a bit off with the 1999 numbers.

If you aren’t even going to READ my posts, why are you responding?

Woah there Socratese,
…
your argument going, “Pfft! That’s fucking stupid!”
…
No, this is my own, “If you act like a middle schooler with an attitude problem, I’m simply not going to talk to you,” policy.

eh, not much to say about most of this here.

Unrelated to the argument itself, I DO find it amusing that you complain that I call you names, then call me names. You’re basically saying “Pfft! That’s fucking stupid!” only pretending to be superior about it by not using curse words. (yes, calling me a “middle schooler with an attitude problem” IS calling me names. I don’t really mind, by the way. Untrue statements can’t harm me.)

One the other hand, those weren’t unilateral wars
35 nations have sent personnel and/or hardware to Iraq for OIF. 37 contributed personnel and/or hardware to Desert Storm (including Afghanistan! You know, back before they were eeeeevil).

I don’t feel like looking it up, but I’d wager all three George Washingtons in my wallet that there were fewer then 35 nations supporting Kosovo operations, or Somalia. Hell, I don’t think NATO had 35 countries while we were in Kosovo (which was a NATO operation.), you know, since they only have 26 member states now. (ok ok, so the stats I had in the other post included, er, non-member “fellow” countries in Afghanistan operation. But I’d still wage that there were fewer the 35 countries involved in Kosovo)

There is a subtle difference between being “unilateral” and “not being sanctioned by the UN”

Oh yeah, as a side bar about Kosovo, there was apparently not enough evidence to convict Milosevic of war crimes and genocide. So was that was unjust?

There’s a world of difference between one action acting on behalf of the international community, and one nation acting on behalf of itself. Quite simply…
We were “acting on the behalf of the international community”? So 1991 WASN’T a war for oil? Doh!

Well, I guess we’ve established that Bush 41 was a stand up guy then. I guess?

Oh, but that’s right, Saudi Arabia paid for most of Dessert Storm. It guess it was THEM that was acting on behalf of the international community, not on behalf of.. them.. selves? Wait, shit, they WERE acting on behalf of themselves!

Oh well. At least we know Russia and France, our SecCo buddies that opposed OIF were acting.. or.. well.. not acting? Opposing? What DID they do in 2003? Write strongly worded letters? “Express the interest of the international community”? yeah, that’s the phrase I’m looking for. Russia and France were “Expressing the interest of the international community” when they opposed OIF.

Or, wait, no Russia and France WERE acting in their own self interest, weren’t they?

Oh well. I guess you can say that OIF was “one nation acting on behalf of itself” anyway. Except its “35 nations acting on behalf of themselves.” Is 35 nations an international community?

So yeah, that’s a “quite simple” way to look at it. Too simple. All nations are pulled by their own interest. France doesn’t act in another country’s interest against their own. While I can list a bunch of things the US has done in other country’s interests from the Marshall plan (your welcome Europe. Don’t worry about the bill) to sending food to North Korea, I can’t list any of those things that weren’t acting, also, in the US’s interest. (well, in RETROSPECT there are a lot of things that haven’t served our interests. But expectations of all of them were that they would.)

So anyway, saying that actions are altruistic on ANY level ain’t quite right.

I’m speaking about the diplomatic situation that’s relevant now
I see. So you’re saying “People hate America because of the two wars they waged in the past two years. Ignore the fact that hatred of America stems from other things besides war, because that’s not what I’m talking about. I won’t argue against these other causes of hatred against America, I’ll just IGNORE them. Because they aren’t the cause. They aren’t the cause because we are ignoring them. Lalalala. Can’t hear you”

Ahem.

IM talking about the current diplomatic situation as well. Those causes of hatred against America didn’t just ‘disappear’. Ignoring them because you don’t think they matter doesn’t really address my point. My point being that they exist, and are far more powerful then the intent to gain the ability to shoot down incoming nuclear warheads.

when’s the last time anyone burnt Switzerland’s flag?

haha, I just had to find the answer to that question. The answer is amusing. Check it out here (http://www.fotw.us/flags/flagburn.html) (search for “Switzerland”). This article refers to the 80’s.

Near Switzerland, where many Swiss have bought houses in France and have hoisted a Swiss flag on a pole (this is common in Switzerland but considered as totally disrespectful and aggressive in France), there were periodically some local night 'expeditions' to hoist down the flag and burn it, but fortunately these demonstrations of extreme stupidity progressively have become extinct.

So, the last time anyone burned the Swiss flag was the 80s. and it was the FRENCH that were doing it! Priceless!

Besides the irony of it, that is actually exactly the point. Did the French who burned the Swiss flag care about SDI , or Switzerland’s military? Nooo. The more important factor in this slice of hostility was the CULTURAL ones. Or, the cultural conflict, anyway.



where are all the nukes that American diplomats insisted were being stockpiled by Iraq?

No one ever said Saddam had nukes. The actual charge that Bush caught flak for was that Saddam had talked to Nigerians about getting Uranium.

Oddly enough, the Butler Report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/butler-report.pdf) (WARNING! Bigass PDF) confirmed that the intelligence on that point was valid.

Let me put it to you this way. How would you feel if every nation in the EU had weapons in space?
let me put it to you this way: the ability to stop an incoming nuclear warhead is not a “weapon”. No more then the explosion of reactive armor on a tank is a “weapon”.

But to answer your question anyway: not too worried. Besides the fact that it would have to be done collectively, like the ESA, if every nation had weapons in space, that means every nation would have ICBMs, which would be just as much of a problem (with out SDI, that is). And that problem would be next to nothing, since most EU nations are friendly to us, despite friction about current events. No EU nation is going to attack us. We aren’t going to attack any EU nation. England and France have had nukes for years (I dunno if France has ICBMs though? I’m fairly certain they have, or had, a Nuclear BM sub, though). No one was ever worried that they would be pointed at us.

as Clausewitz said, “War is just politics carried out by other means,” In other words, the two are indistinguishable.

Yeah, wars are always political.

But, if war and politics are indistinguishable, does this mean that the use of politicians is as condemnable as the use of soldiers? Please say yes, please say yes…


ps: KhanFusion, you can make the "Originally Posted by uyWhoSaidThis" thing appear by putting a "quote=GuyWhoSaidThis" tag instead of the regular "quote" tag

[Toastburner B]

Eh...on another note:

U.S. to test missile defense system (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/missile.defense.ap/index.html)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military planned to conduct the first full flight test of its national missile defense system in nearly two years, with the test coming possibly as early as Wednesday evening.

Weather conditions at an Alaska launch site would determine when the test will go forward, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.

The $85 million test comes as the military is in final preparations to activate missile defenses designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

During the test, a target missile will be launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and an interceptor missile will fire from Kwajalein Island in the central Pacific Ocean.

Because the launches will test several new aspects of the missile defense system, Lehner said the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission.

The test is the first in which the interceptor uses the same booster rocket that the operational system uses, Lehner said. It is also the first in which a target missile is launched from Kodiak.

In earlier testing, which critics deride as highly scripted, the interceptors went five-for-eight when launched with the goal of hitting target missiles.

Two previous tests scheduled for this year were delayed due to technical problems. The next test, which will attempt to hit a target missile, is scheduled for early 2005.

So, according to this article, it seems the primary purpose of this missile defense project is to protect us from North Korea in case they go...for lack of a better term, and please pardon the pun...ballistic on us.

[icythaco]

Oh crud...this is what I've been worried about: Other countries now have a legitimate excuse to build their own missile "defense" systems. "If the U.S. is worried about, why shouldn't we be worried about?" and the U.S. can't really respond without sounding like a hippocrit.

[Toastburner B]

What? This isn't the first time we have tested the missile defense system.

And other countries are already developing them. As I have posted before, Russia also tested a missile defense system (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/29/antimissile.shtml).

Uh...and just for clarification purposes, is there is reason why you put "defense" in quation marks? Are you saying it won't work, or that it will be used for something other than defense?

[Sithdarth]

Well I did address the pros and cons of everyone having a missile shield. However, everyone seems to be caught up in the flame, or nearly so, war going on in here. In short I'm rather distrubed by the fact the obivously intellegent people can't discuss amonst themselves without personal attacks and ignoring entire arguments for those personal attacks.

That being said, the current political theory of balance of power says that when one country gains an advantage the others will try and limit that advantage with new weapons, alliances or what have you. Knowing this, and the evidence is pretty clear of this, the only sane way to build a missile defense system is cooperatively with the rest of the world. Which has the added benifit of helping nations learn to work together and possibly forge lasting links that could lead to more stable peace later.

[DarthZeth]

Oh crud...this is what I've been worried about: Other countries now have a legitimate excuse to build their own missile "defense" systems. "If the U.S. is worried about, why shouldn't we be worried about?" and the U.S. can't really respond without sounding like a hippocrit.

Why would we care if another country had the ability to not get shot?

I mean, granted, the Canadians appear to have a great interest in other people having the ability to destroy the US with ICBMs... but I don't hold that sort of, odd, point of view about other countries.

Being at the cutting edge of the technology, we will most likely have the best system for shooting down missiles. That negates the advantages of an ICBM. Hell, if it worked (which it wont) it would make the ICBM obsolete. Ignore the fact that it already is, and that we are dismantling most of them, or desperately trying to figure out new uses. SSBNs are being disarmed of their missiles (which aren't technically ICBMs) and being outfitted for littoral warfare.

I digress. The point is, other nations being able to shoot down ICBMs, which we don't intend to use ANYWAY, doesn't matter. Us having ICBMs mattered when we were vulnerable and needed to scare the Soviets into not shooting us. If SDI actually was 100% reliable (it won't be) we could just pack our ICBMs up or use them to send monkeys into space or some crap. They are old hat.

Now, I heard about the Russians developing a missile designed to reenter with powered flight at something like mach 17 that would pose problems for an ABM system. If that technology ever got anywhere, then there would be a reason to keep ICBMs around as a deterrent. And if they then made our ICBMs obsolete by making an AMB system, then we might try to make a system that could defeat their AMB system.

But looking at this like an arms race is inane. Russia is so down in the dumps at this point, they are almost at the verge of scraping their entire navy and starting from scratch. China is the number two military power… with a combat strength one third of the US combat power. If I recall correctly, the number if ICBMs they have aren’t even in the Dozens.

The logic behind an ABM system is to count disproportionate threats. Not Soviet Russia. Kim Jong-Il can threaten to make an ABM system if he wants. It would be a waste of money. We would never nuke North Korea, and they are so technologically fubar that they wouldn’t be able to achieve a working ABM system anyway.

Seriously. A country worrying about the threat of the US launching an ICBM at them is delusional. No country we have ever attacked would have benefited from an ABM system.

[AerodynamicHair]

I'm sorry, but I don't see what current military power has to do with an arms race. Sure, China has one third the military strength of the United States right now, and the amount of weapons they have ready to launch just might be a joke, but that doesn't mean that they won't start to build up. An arms race doesn't require a large force to begin with, it only requires the desire to build up that force, and you haven't really proven that an MDS would not encourage that kind of behavior.

What I'm worried about is not that other countries will strive to build their own MDS, I'm worried that other countries will start to build up their military power so as to "even the playing field." Even if no nation beleived that the US would launch a missile at them, it would be easy for them to justify increased weapons spending because of our superiority.

So china may very well have little to no missiles, but any large defense development on our part or on the part of another nation may make them feel that they need to improve their military situation. Next thing you know, China moves from having a third of the US's military might to having half of it.

I don't think you take your own example of russian missile technology as seriously as you should. You say that looking at this like an arms race is insane, but you never give any proof that other nations wouldn't be persuaded to build up military strength if we build this thing. You only give proof that they don't have the current technology to be on par with us now, weapons wise. That doesn't mean anything.

[icythaco]

I agree with AereoDynamicHair on this one: he basically just made the argument I was about to make (although probably more eloquently than I would have done).

going back to an earlier comment:
Uh...and just for clarification purposes, is there is reason why you put "defense" in quation marks? Are you saying it won't work, or that it will be used for something other than defense?
I'm just pointing out the fact that the missile defense system, at least the current design, involves intercepting a hostile enemy missile with another missile. Other countries would have an excuse to build nuclear missiles, and hide them under the guise of "defense".

[DarthZeth]

China's current military disposition is nothing the US has to worry about. Well, we only have to worry about it in regards to Taiwan mostly, Korea some, and Japan, peripherally.

We are not in an arms race with China. China is in an arms race with Taiwan.

We really aren't in an arms race with ANYONE. You say " it would be easy for them to justify increased weapons spending because of our superiority." but, uh, we are three times more powerful then the number two power. Superiority is there. The justification is there.

Its one more brink in the wall. Our tanks are better, our navy is better (their subs are laughable), our air force is better, our space assets are better, our troops are better, etc etc.

Like I said, China doesn’t need to worry about ICBMs. They need to worry about our surface warships that can sit in the 300 mile wide Taiwanese straight. An ABM system would be useless against all the forces that we would ACTUALLY use in a fight with China. Even if they DID have a perfect ABM system, it wouldn't help them get across the straight of Taiwan.

Other nations worrying about US ICBMs is like me worrying about the monster under the bed. its simply not a threat. If china wants to waste their money on an ABM system... GOOD! Doesn't matter a DAMN to the US of A.

There ARE situations where an ABM system would come in handy. For instance, a working ABM system could seriously fubar the India/Pakistan situation... if either India or Pakistan had one. This has nothing to do with US ICBMs.

[AerodynamicHair]

I'm sure we really don't have to worry about China. I'm sure that there is no way that china could attack us with any kind of missile. I'm sure that there is no way that China could build an ABM system.

But that doesn't really have that much to do with the whole Arms Race arguement.

You infered that a missile defense system wouldn't push China into an arms race because the justification is already there and they haven't done anything yet. Basically, they aren't going to do anything because they haven't done anything already even though there is a huge gap between our forces. You have a point there, but not a very good one.

First of all, I'm just using China as an example. Any nation could increase weapons spending as a result of US military force. All I'm trying to say is that nations will increase military development more if we create such a huge advantage. I'm not saying all nations will do this, but some will. Perhaps it won't create an arms race, but it will increase global weapons development and spending, which I take to be bad on it's own.

Secondly, just because nothing has started yet, that doesn't mean that nothing will ever start. Yes, we have a very large gap between the US's and China's military ability. But, the addition of a MDS would increase that gap by an incredibly substantial amount. We aren't talking about building a few more missiles, we're talking about making the United States impervious to other missile attacks. This is the kind of advantage that will get other nations on their toes. It might be just enough to get china to increase it's missile technology research and to increase general military spending.

Third, I'm not talking about other nations building ABM systems. I'm talking about general weapons research and spending.

My point still stands. Perhaps it won't create an arms race, that is a worst-case scenario. Still, it will cause other nations to increase their weapons programs and spending. It might not make them feel threatened, but they may feel that they need to do this in order to stay significant. Other nations didn't try to get the atom bomb because they were scared of our bombs, they tried to get them so that they could be considered significant in the world picture. And any increase in weapons programs and spending will increase global tension.

[icythaco]

Again I agree completely. Personally, I don't think the ABM system, or any kind of missile defense shield for that matter, would really make us that much safer. I mean, what country is desperate enough or so full of idiocy as to attack the U.S.? It might damage us a fair amount, maybe even slightly cripple us...but we'd still come down on said country like a 12-ton bag of asphalt (asphalt with guns). Its not like they can dessimate our entire military strength with one missile attack, or even a couple attacks: our forces are too spread out for that. Before we even cleared the debris we would send our own forces to the offending nation, whoever they may be, and settle the score (a.k.a. the complete obliteration of that country). To attack us is a death sentence for the offending country, and to attack us on purpose is just suicide.

My point is that this missile defense system is just an outlet for our increased paranoia since the 9/11 terrorist attacks; it's just a way for the government to keep are our collective minds at rest: It doesn't actually make us safer, it just makes us feel more secure. Because of the aformentioned reasons, no country in their right minds would send a nuclear missile down our way. In other words, this missile shield creates more problems than it solves...(as shown by Aerodynamichair above)

[Sithdarth]

Of course this all come down to the simple fact that we have to know the minds of those in charge of other countries. We don't know that, heck they migh not know that themselves. We thought Japan would never be stupid enough to attack us. Guess what happened and Pearl Harbor wasn't the only attack. It was the only successful attack but not the only one, even Germany got into the action and landed on the US shore. In short never say never cause you can't really guess the minds of other people. Even more so when their expirences are so far removed from your own. A unilateral missile defense system could be the 'Straw that broke the camels back' or it couldn't. Why give it the chance. Either share it or don't do it but don't rock the boat. That doesn't lead to anything good, usually.

[icythaco]

Let me give you this simple fact:

The revolutionary eventually becomes the standard...

This is recurrent pattern through-out history: Whenever countries or groups invent new technology or ideas in order to raise their status above everyone else's, these new advancements become the norm (despite their parent country's best efforts). So, before we built our missile shield, maybe we should have thought about whether or no we wanted other countries to have access to that same technology, because, despite anything we do to prevent it, they're eventually going to get their hands on it. When this happens, one of our largest military assets, our nuclear weapons, will become obsolete, and we will lose a dramatic amount of our authority in those countries that will inevitably build their own nuclear shields. I'm not rocking the boat; I'm just trying to say that maybe we should look at the consequences of our impulsive descisions for a change.

But that is an America-ccentric view point. From a global perspective, it is in humanity's best interest that they compete for dominance: That is how we advance and make progress; competition breeds new ideas and perspectives and progressively weeds out any flaws in the old ideas, allowing us to expand our knowledge and capibillities...