Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 25, 9:49 pm, Alan Jones <ala...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:04:02 GMT, h...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article <5ijut257ubh8up8634islpcuff4smsr...@xxxxxxx>,
Alan Jones <ala...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

There is no system of defense _or_ deterrence which can provide
competent military leadership. At best, it can provide competent
military leadership the weapons and tactics needed to achieve victory.

Refusing to build ABM's in order to _ensure_ that enemy missiles hit
us, thus providing us with the motivation to strike back, is a
seriously bizarre and even suicidal policy. And you are ignoring the
likelihood that, in the absence of such strategic defenses, an
incompetent President would be frozen deer-in-the-headlights fashion
before _any_ enemy with _any_ nuclear ICBM capability, because he
would know that in an exchange the enemy would be almost _guranteed_
to do serious damage to our homeland.

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.)

In a situation where the losing madman tries to get in the sucker
punch, it is better if we block this punch than suffer its damage.
Such an attack would be far more likely to be achievable by ICBM
because a _losing_ madman might not have the time to dispatch a covert
action team, submarine, or surface missile ship before going down.
And regardless of the situation, we are better off with ABM capability
_and_ other defense capabilities than we would be with other defense
capabilties and _no_ ABM capability, because in the latter case we are
leaving open an obvious avenue of attack.

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...

Sure, _in the long run_. In the _short_ run, though, your problem
might be "the Iranians have just launched nuclear ICBM's," in which
case ABM's would work better for saving friendly lives than would any
long-term plan for occupation and reconstruction of their country.
One can always launch the ABM's, then continue prosecuting the war by
whatever means chosen -- it is not an either-or situation.

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. ...

We are, unfortunately, living in a world in which "madmen" have or are
very close to having both nuclear weapons and the means of delivering
them across long distances.

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.

.... and this is harder if we have ABM's, because ... ?

- Jordan

.

Relevant Pages