Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Alan Jones <alanvj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:49:47 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:04:02 GMT, henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
In article <5ijut257ubh8up8634islpcuff4smsru0r@xxxxxxx>,
Alan Jones <alanvj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Actually, lest we forget how this discussion started, the *safe* thing to
do is to equip yourself with the means to *intercept* small attacks, so
you don't *have* to make such a choice based on inadequate evidence under
intense time pressure. Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)
Intercepting a missile solves nothing.
Sure it does: it prevents the missile from hitting the US, which surely
is the US's single highest priority in the matter.
Sure, if you can. But you also have the risk that our commander in
chief, just says "Ha ha, we blocked your shot; we are great; we are
invulnerable; no harm, no foul." Meanwhile the US People have soiled
themselves, realizing that they just dodged a bullet. That is not
security. Neutralizing the enemy is security.
(Anyone who disagrees
has drunk the old MAD kool-aid to the point of being unable to think
rationally.)
We are not discussing a MAD situation here. What we have is
essentially a situation where a madman is losing, knows he can't win,
but he still tries to get in a sucker punch. (I don't expect that
sucker punch to even come from an ICBM launched from his homeland.)
A full nuclear retaliation solves "it" quite effectively.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Unless you melt the whole country down to slag
(which requires ridiculous numbers of warheads and has potentially-ugly
side effects, apart from involving mass murder of innocents on a scale not
even Hitler or Stalin ever achieved), there might still be a missile or
two hidden away somewhere... and the ones that were fired have hit the
US... so tell me, exactly what has that approach "solved"?
Increased US security by neutralizing an enemy. You do not have to
melt the whole country down to slag. You do not even have kill every
man, woman, and child. Obviously you must destroy their offensive
military capability. However, the neutralization can be taken further
to destroy the leadership, the religious ideology that spawned the
madman, the economy that enabled the offensive development, the
schools that educated the people enough to build offensive weapons,
the people who empowered the madman...
You're confusing ends with means. Trying to deter attack by threatening
devastating counterattack is only a means to an end. Moreover, it's not a
very good one... and if missiles have been fired, it has already failed.
No, the end is enhanced US security by neutralizing an enemy.
Deference, is not real security, but in the absence of madmen, it will
get you through the day. When neutralization is not possible, or
warranted, deference is the next best thing. Now, the madman may be
in his after life knowing that he sucker punched the US, but the
fruits of his actions will taste bitter knowing that they came at the
cost of his people, culture, and homeland. This realization may even
deter some madmen.
It is not my vision that the US should be the biggest, strongest, most
invulnerable, and most punitive nation on earth. Rather, we should be
loving, and peaceful, with concern for other people and nations, and
bolster security with stronger social and economic co dependance.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Jordan
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- References:
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Alan Jones
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Prev by Date: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Next by Date: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Previous by thread: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Next by thread: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
