Missile Defence

[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 for 2002 GDP information and 1999 Military Expenditures as a percent of GDP

For dollar amounts of US military expenditures, see my last post for the source
Thanks to the CIA World Factbook for the information on 1999 world military expenditures.
Military Personnel statistics

[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]

Originally Posted by Archbio

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.

Originally Posted by Toastburner B

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.

Originally Posted by Archbio

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...y-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. >_>

Originally Posted by Archbio

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.

Originally Posted by Archbio

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.

Originally Posted by Archbio

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--

Originally Posted by Archbio

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.