This Land.. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 07-23-2004, 03:05 PM

..and its missle defense system!

LINK

The quoted section below is just the "executive summary" -- the full content of the report can be read at this link (pdf).

Quote:

Missile Defense:
Defending America or Building Empire?

by Charles V. Peña
Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

The rationale for missile defense put forward by its advocates is often a "doom and gloom" picture: America and its citizens are defenseless against the threat of ballistic missiles, and missile defense is supposed to protect the American people. The administration's vision of missile defense is not just a global system that protects the United States against long-range missiles but a global system capable of engaging all classes of ballistic missiles to protect U.S. forces deployed worldwide, U.S. allies, and other friendly countries. Thus, the purpose of missile defense is extended well beyond protecting America and Americans.

Ultimately, the real rationale for missile defense is to protect U.S. forces so they can engage in military intervention throughout the world to enforce a Pax Americana—a strategy of empire by another name. But such a strategy is simply the old Cold War strategy run amok and without a Soviet enemy. And it ignores the obvious: the result will be increased resentment of and animosity toward what is perceived by the rest of the world as an imperialist America.

A better alternative—especially given the post–September 11, 2001, realities of the al-Qaeda terrorist threat—is for the United States to adopt a more restrained foreign policy. A more prudent security strategy would recognize that U.S. security would be better served by not engaging in unnecessary military deployments and interventions that fuel the flames of vehement anti-American sentiment.

Given such a strategy, a limited land-based ballistic missile defense system designed to protect the U.S. homeland makes sense. After all, that is the primary responsibility of the federal government.

I agree with the author that a working missle-defense system is a practical security need for the US but that accompanying it with an expansive "We Police The World" foreign policy is counterproductive. I think the technological advances made by a working missle defense system will improve and secure the lives of Americans and the BMD will end up "paying for itself" eventually. Now if only we can find out how to cause two terrorists to collide in mid-air.

Sparhawk · 07-23-2004, 04:48 PM

no comment, just happy it's not another jibjab plug. hallelujah.

KMA-628 · 07-23-2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

capable of engaging all classes of ballistic missiles to protect U.S. forces deployed worldwide, U.S. allies, and other friendly countries.

Oops, sorry [insert unfriendly country's name here], we must have missed that missile!

Paq · 07-23-2004, 09:37 PM

see...i reallyand honestly don't feel ICBM's from other countries are really a threat to the US. honestly, to spend the inordinate amount of money on something that has a 1% chance of happening just seems to be...well, stupid, quite frankly. I feel it is a clear case of pandering back to the far right as a throwback to the reagan club.

honestly, i'd MUCH rather have a safer border, more troops, more first responders, more...hell, you name it and we could easily fit it into the budget that is being allocated for this project.

actually..i just re-read the article...
wow, that's sick, to build something to protect troops...ok, so far so good, as they engage in military interventions across the world....ok, that is frankly troubling...I think the author has a point that it's cold war w/out russia...where does it end, honestly...we will keep expanding and finally crumble under our own weight.

scary

Journeyman · 07-24-2004, 12:36 AM

In spite of the very low odds of shit of any sort hitting any fans, if the shit hits the fan, I want an umbrella.

The Cold War solution to the USSR arming themselves with many a nuclear weaponry was to arm ourselves with many a nuclear weaponry, making any attack on either side be foolishly apocalyptic for everyone. Our best defense... was offense.

A missile defense system like this is just that: Defensive. There probably is a way to rig them to hit land targets, but the fact is that this is an item that isn't a problem in terms of invasive/offensive capabilities and still protects US soil. If I bring a kevlar vest to a gun fight you're looking to start, don't cry when you lose.

And my only response to the notion that we can walk our troops around in foreign nations and defend them against missile attacks with this system is that, well, I personally can't recall any nation we've been in that's had serious missile capabilities beyond personell-operated. But I don't know enough to discuss it in detail, so feel free to whack me out of the park on this.

Kadath · 07-26-2004, 04:52 AM

A working missile defense system would be okay to have, I guess, but I'd rather spend the money keeping people from driving bombs into the country, since not that many nations can afford a missile system that can reach our shores.

Superbelt · 07-26-2004, 05:09 AM

I'd like to have a working missile defense system too, but since it's impossible.... I'd rather put that money into securing america. Like ports and borders and airline security upgrades.

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!

Superbelt · 07-26-2004, 10:14 AM

Thanks for that jb2000.
I have said many of the same things recently. Especially about other nations developing tech that can either outperform our missile defense or simply overwhelming us with quantity. The technology of multiple warhead missles is a new one to me. Thanks for the info.

Wecome to the new age of the arms race. New and better missiles are on the horizon which will be able to kill you much more efficiently.

While at the same time we are still insanely vulnerable to a suitcase nuke getting shipped through Baltimore.

Journeyman · 07-26-2004, 10:20 AM

jb: What are the chances of using NMD as a new diplomatic tool of negotion, such as offering an agreement to sell China/Russia blueprints for the NMD system in exchange that they restrain from upgrading their nuclear capabilities?

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Journeyman
jb: What are the chances of using NMD as a new diplomatic tool of negotion, such as offering an agreement to sell China/Russia blueprints for the NMD system in exchange that they restrain from upgrading their nuclear capabilities?

It certainly is worthy of consideration, although it would have to be seen how far this could practically go.

We did outreach to Russia about a joint NMD system (they in fact pioneered the concept in the 1960s). However, a number of problems occured. One, Russia is hard-pressed enough to afford her own hardware, much less pay Western price-tags for cutting-edge equipment. Second, I don't think Russia ever trusted us to fully share the system, but instead let them in on a watered-down version of the system. Naturally, there was resistance to paying huge sums for a shield provided by the one biggest threat out there.

I think China would have even greater reservations, even if their ability to pay may be better. To get them to trust that we were sharing equal technology, and that we weren't just giving them a system that was good enough against Indian or Russian missiles but that we knew how to penetrate, would be a tough task. As far as I know, no such feelers have been put out to China, who probably most of any nation in the world feels affronted by NMD.

The US technological edge gives us the ability to cut through most advanced air defenses like butter. I think that China and Russia would not feel much more secure in an NMD system. The only true security they had was that their ownership of nukes, no matter how few or old they were, assured their place at the world table. NMD threatens that security. Even putting them 'under the umbrella' doesn't change that dynamic.

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

Wecome to the new age of the arms race. New and better missiles are on the horizon which will be able to kill you much more efficiently.

While at the same time we are still insanely vulnerable to a suitcase nuke getting shipped through Baltimore.

Well, quite. No nation that has ICBMs will launch them because of assured destruction. So long as destruction is assured, nuclear missiles are not going to be launched at America.

What about a crazy terrorist though? Would he hesitate regardless of retaliation? Nope. But terrorists don't have ICBMs (and sorry, they can't be passed of secretly either), but if they get ahold of a warhead and a Samsonite, they have a way. NMD is useless against that which is probably the only likely avenue of nuclear attack against us.

NMD makes us feel better because we feel like we are doing something about the threat. But we are only exascerbating it. We may be frustrated that despite all of our shiny spears in the deserts and plains of America, China holds us at detente with a few rusty ones. Can't we do something about them? So we build NMD and we don't understand that the world sees this as a bid for domination instead of detente, and more importantly, the world reacts accordingly.

Zeld2.0 · 07-26-2004, 05:17 PM

Great posts jb2000.

MAD worked all throughout the Cold War. It keeps countries honest in their dealings.

Even the craziest dictators of countries with ICBMs know this - America could create a ring of fire around the world if it wanted to. And no dictator wants to rule over the world's largest parking lot. No one. Dictators want power over people, and if there is no people, what good is he?

A nuclear warhead on a ship in a port like New York could easily kill millions and the anti-missile defense would be completely useless. Spend the money on intelligence, the military, and border defense, not on a system that is not proven or possibly unreliable.

And yes, China and even Russia have changed their minds given our sudden appreciation for a new missile defense system. If China does choose to expand its nuclear arsenal and employ MIRVs, simply flooding past the missile defense system would be possible.

Currently the U.S. has 18 SSBN-726 Ohio-class Nuclear Submarines. Each of these can carry 16-24 ballistic missiles (Trident II IIRC) and each of these has 5 or 6 MIRV warheads.

If they were all launched at a country, thats 18 x 24 x 5 or so - a TON (2160) warheads into a country. Unless that missile defense is pretty damn incredible and can destroy 2000 or so, it won't matter - a few get through, and millions die.

Luckily, the U.S. doesn't face such a possibility right now. And the fact is, touting a missile defense system will tell other countries to start making similar missiles with MIRVs. Send more up and just (in the great term of games).. Zerg the defense.

jb2000 · 07-27-2004, 08:19 AM

Thanks for the furtherance, Zeld. I think that US SLBMs have been de-MIRVed, but with us backing out of treaties at an alarming rate, it may be that some Trident MIRVs were retained. None-the-less, America has the ability to overwhelm and defeat any defenses in the world even if they existed.

America has spent $14B to increase world tensions and encourage the buildup of Chinese and Russian nuclear capabilities. I don't guess I see this as effective spending to make America safer.

07-23-2004, 04:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	no comment, just happy it's not another jibjab plug. hallelujah. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

07-23-2004, 09:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	see...i reallyand honestly don't feel ICBM's from other countries are really a threat to the US. honestly, to spend the inordinate amount of money on something that has a 1% chance of happening just seems to be...well, stupid, quite frankly. I feel it is a clear case of pandering back to the far right as a throwback to the reagan club. honestly, i'd MUCH rather have a safer border, more troops, more first responders, more...hell, you name it and we could easily fit it into the budget that is being allocated for this project. actually..i just re-read the article... wow, that's sick, to build something to protect troops...ok, so far so good, as they engage in military interventions across the world....ok, that is frankly troubling...I think the author has a point that it's cold war w/out russia...where does it end, honestly...we will keep expanding and finally crumble under our own weight. scary __________________ Live. Chris

07-26-2004, 04:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	A working missile defense system would be okay to have, I guess, but I'd rather spend the money keeping people from driving bombs into the country, since not that many nations can afford a missile system that can reach our shores. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 07-26-2004 at 11:05 AM..

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

07-27-2004, 08:19 AM	#14 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Thanks for the furtherance, Zeld. I think that US SLBMs have been de-MIRVed, but with us backing out of treaties at an alarming rate, it may be that some Trident MIRVs were retained. None-the-less, America has the ability to overwhelm and defeat any defenses in the world even if they existed. America has spent $14B to increase world tensions and encourage the buildup of Chinese and Russian nuclear capabilities. I don't guess I see this as effective spending to make America safer. __________________ "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

07-24-2004, 12:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	In spite of the very low odds of shit of any sort hitting any fans, if the shit hits the fan, I want an umbrella. The Cold War solution to the USSR arming themselves with many a nuclear weaponry was to arm ourselves with many a nuclear weaponry, making any attack on either side be foolishly apocalyptic for everyone. Our best defense... was offense. A missile defense system like this is just that: Defensive. There probably is a way to rig them to hit land targets, but the fact is that this is an item that isn't a problem in terms of invasive/offensive capabilities and still protects US soil. If I bring a kevlar vest to a gun fight you're looking to start, don't cry when you lose. And my only response to the notion that we can walk our troops around in foreign nations and defend them against missile attacks with this system is that, well, I personally can't recall any nation we've been in that's had serious missile capabilities beyond personell-operated. But I don't know enough to discuss it in detail, so feel free to whack me out of the park on this.

07-26-2004, 05:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'd like to have a working missile defense system too, but since it's impossible.... I'd rather put that money into securing america. Like ports and borders and airline security upgrades.

07-26-2004, 10:14 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Thanks for that jb2000. I have said many of the same things recently. Especially about other nations developing tech that can either outperform our missile defense or simply overwhelming us with quantity. The technology of multiple warhead missles is a new one to me. Thanks for the info. Wecome to the new age of the arms race. New and better missiles are on the horizon which will be able to kill you much more efficiently. While at the same time we are still insanely vulnerable to a suitcase nuke getting shipped through Baltimore.

07-26-2004, 10:20 AM	#10 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	jb: What are the chances of using NMD as a new diplomatic tool of negotion, such as offering an agreement to sell China/Russia blueprints for the NMD system in exchange that they restrain from upgrading their nuclear capabilities?

07-26-2004, 05:17 PM	#13 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Great posts jb2000. MAD worked all throughout the Cold War. It keeps countries honest in their dealings. Even the craziest dictators of countries with ICBMs know this - America could create a ring of fire around the world if it wanted to. And no dictator wants to rule over the world's largest parking lot. No one. Dictators want power over people, and if there is no people, what good is he? A nuclear warhead on a ship in a port like New York could easily kill millions and the anti-missile defense would be completely useless. Spend the money on intelligence, the military, and border defense, not on a system that is not proven or possibly unreliable. And yes, China and even Russia have changed their minds given our sudden appreciation for a new missile defense system. If China does choose to expand its nuclear arsenal and employ MIRVs, simply flooding past the missile defense system would be possible. Currently the U.S. has 18 SSBN-726 Ohio-class Nuclear Submarines. Each of these can carry 16-24 ballistic missiles (Trident II IIRC) and each of these has 5 or 6 MIRV warheads. If they were all launched at a country, thats 18 x 24 x 5 or so - a TON (2160) warheads into a country. Unless that missile defense is pretty damn incredible and can destroy 2000 or so, it won't matter - a few get through, and millions die. Luckily, the U.S. doesn't face such a possibility right now. And the fact is, touting a missile defense system will tell other countries to start making similar missiles with MIRVs. Send more up and just (in the great term of games).. Zerg the defense.