Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 09:58 AM

National Missile Defense is a huge threat to the security of the United States.

The sheer amount of money spent on NMD, if spent on other, more practical areas of the defense budget would result in a more capable military force for real-world operations. It is unfair to ask what if all that money had been spent on armored Hum-Vees and body armor. But it is fair to assess what the opportunity cost was for spending such vast resources on NMD.

NMD has marked the reduction in importance of the nuclear control regime. By abrogating on treaties in order to build this system, we have reduced our ability to lessen foreign arsenals of nuclear weaponry through negotiation and diplomacy.

NMD, in conjunction with a nuclear arsenal, poses a threat to the other powers of the world that they would be irresponsible to not respond to accordingly. For years, crazy as it was, we maintained nuclear detente through the system of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Noone could use a nuke without they themselves being utterly destroyed in return. Say what you want, but it worked.

Now the US has an awesome arsenal of nukes, and we are close to system that will at least reduce potential counter-strikes against us, giving us the theoretical ability to launch nuclear attacks without "Assured Destruction" in return. To not react to such a huge change in posture for the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet would be ludicrous, and so we have to assume that China, Russia, N. Korea, etc., will take the steps they deem necessary to counter our threat (for no nuclear threat, no matter how theoretical, can be ignored).

So we have started installing NMD. How has the world reacted?

Russia has changed its mind on its newest missile design, and instead of cancelling the program, it is installing these new missiles to replace aging ICBMs.

China has for the first time ever gone forward with installing MIRVs (multiple warheads) on their missiles. MIRVs are the simplest and most expedient way to counter missile defense, by overwhelming the defenses with quantity. This is especially distressing as prior to the US NMD program going beyond research, we had reached an end to MIRVs, instead having a one missile, one warhead regime. Thus Chinese MIRVing represents a huge step back from nuclear reduction. In addition, China will deploy a newly designed missile to replace its existing fleet, and expand its numbers overall.

China's nuclear missile force pre-NMD consisted of about 20 ancient (1960s) missiles with a single warhead each. Her post-NMD force will be about double in number and consist of modern missiles with multiple warheads.

Many NMD supporters poo-pooed these projections years ago, claiming that Russia and China couldn't afford build-ups and modernizations. China certainly can. Russia has a lot harder time of it. But regardless, it has been my experience that given a threat to their security or station, a nation will be willing to do what it feels necessary to meet that threat regardless of cost.

NMD is billed as a defensive system, but anyone fluent in military throught knows that such a system would definitely present a threat, especially when combined with a nuclear arsenal, and an active effort to develop 'usable' nuclear weapons. The nations of the world have taken note and are reacting accordingly.

Thanks, George!

07-26-2004, 09:58 AM	#8 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	National Missile Defense is a huge threat to the security of the United States. The sheer amount of money spent on NMD, if spent on other, more practical areas of the defense budget would result in a more capable military force for real-world operations. It is unfair to ask what if all that money had been spent on armored Hum-Vees and body armor. But it is fair to assess what the opportunity cost was for spending such vast resources on NMD. NMD has marked the reduction in importance of the nuclear control regime. By abrogating on treaties in order to build this system, we have reduced our ability to lessen foreign arsenals of nuclear weaponry through negotiation and diplomacy. NMD, in conjunction with a nuclear arsenal, poses a threat to the other powers of the world that they would be irresponsible to not respond to accordingly. For years, crazy as it was, we maintained nuclear detente through the system of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Noone could use a nuke without they themselves being utterly destroyed in return. Say what you want, but it worked. Now the US has an awesome arsenal of nukes, and we are close to system that will at least reduce potential counter-strikes against us, giving us the theoretical ability to launch nuclear attacks without "Assured Destruction" in return. To not react to such a huge change in posture for the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet would be ludicrous, and so we have to assume that China, Russia, N. Korea, etc., will take the steps they deem necessary to counter our threat (for no nuclear threat, no matter how theoretical, can be ignored). So we have started installing NMD. How has the world reacted? Russia has changed its mind on its newest missile design, and instead of cancelling the program, it is installing these new missiles to replace aging ICBMs. China has for the first time ever gone forward with installing MIRVs (multiple warheads) on their missiles. MIRVs are the simplest and most expedient way to counter missile defense, by overwhelming the defenses with quantity. This is especially distressing as prior to the US NMD program going beyond research, we had reached an end to MIRVs, instead having a one missile, one warhead regime. Thus Chinese MIRVing represents a huge step back from nuclear reduction. In addition, China will deploy a newly designed missile to replace its existing fleet, and expand its numbers overall. China's nuclear missile force pre-NMD consisted of about 20 ancient (1960s) missiles with a single warhead each. Her post-NMD force will be about double in number and consist of modern missiles with multiple warheads. Many NMD supporters poo-pooed these projections years ago, claiming that Russia and China couldn't afford build-ups and modernizations. China certainly can. Russia has a lot harder time of it. But regardless, it has been my experience that given a threat to their security or station, a nation will be willing to do what it feels necessary to meet that threat regardless of cost. NMD is billed as a defensive system, but anyone fluent in military throught knows that such a system would definitely present a threat, especially when combined with a nuclear arsenal, and an active effort to develop 'usable' nuclear weapons. The nations of the world have taken note and are reacting accordingly. Thanks, George! __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH