Missile Defence

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by GatoFiero

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]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

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]

Originally Posted by grthwllms

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

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

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...s/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...s/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...s/hist08z1.xls

PPPS:

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

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

almost forgot: You loose anyway

[icythaco]

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

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.

Originally Posted by ”Robot Jesus”

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.

Originally Posted by ”grthwllms”

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.

Originally Posted by ”grthwllms”

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.

Originally Posted by ”AJ the Third”

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.

Originally Posted by ”GatoFiero”

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.

Originally Posted by ”GatoFiero”

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.

Originally Posted by ”Toastburner B”

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.

Originally Posted by ”AerodynamicHair”

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.

Originally Posted by ”icythaco”

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.

Originally Posted by ”icythaco”

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?