Last night, on the BBC World news, there was a segment on the "son of star wars" program.
This program, for those who don't know, is a plan to have a weapons system to protect the US against ballistic missile attack, including nuclear.
If this project comes to fruition, the old argument of Mutually Assured Destrucion (MAD) would no longer apply to the US. Under these conditions, will the US be less reticent to use the nuclear option on other countries?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe current and near future designs for missle defense will not eliminate MAD. There are simply not enough kil vehicles to stop a determined attack from a country that can launch thousands of missiles. A system that will do that is a long way down the road. I can't imagine we'll see that anytime in the next decade.
Last night, on the BBC World news, there was a segment on the "son of star wars" program.
This program, for those who don't know, is a plan to have a weapons system to protect the US against ballistic missile attack, including nuclear.
If this project comes to fruition, the old argument of Mutually Assured Destrucion (MAD) would no longer apply ...[text shortened]... these conditions, will the US be less reticent to use the nuclear option on other countries?
Were not going to war with Russia or China anytime soon anyway.
The short term versions of missile defense are for countries with limited arsenals. The kinds we would be most likely go to war with un the best twenty years.
Originally posted by MerkOkay, understood, but, with this defence system in place, how safe (form the US) do you think I'd feel as a North Korean, for example?
The current and near future designs for missle defense will not eliminate MAD. There are simply not enough kil vehicles to stop a determined attack from a country that can launch thousands of missiles. A system that will do that is a long way down the road. I can't imagine we'll see that anytime in the next decade.
Were not going to war with Russia or China ...[text shortened]... h limited arsenals. The kinds we would be most likely go to war with un the best twenty years.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would find it hard to feel any less safe than I do already if I was North Korean. Of course, I'm here in the states, not in North Korea eating grass and listening to the government propaganda news.
Okay, understood, but, with this defence system in place, how safe (form the US) do you think I'd feel as a North Korean, for example?
We shouldn't base our decisions concerning missile defense on how a dictator thugs are going to portray it to their people, so its not much of a factor. Those people have more urgent matters on their minds anyway, like finding something to eat.
Originally posted by MerkThat wasn't my point. My point is that once that system is in place, there will be no deterrent against the US using nuclear weapons against others, especially smaller states.
I would find it hard to feel any less safe than I do already if I was North Korean. Of course, I'm here in the states, not in North Korea eating grass and listening to the government propaganda news.
We shouldn't base our decisions concerning missile defense on how a dictator thugs are going to portray it to their people, so its not much of a factor. Those people have more urgent matters on their minds anyway, like finding something to eat.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think that nuking anyone is never going to be anything but a last resort for the US.
Everyone else.
Even with the idiot that is Bush, there is no way a US Pres. can justify the mass murder of millions, when there are so many other paths.
The international ramifications apart, the US simply is not capable of such an horrendous act.
MAD was always a dangerous way to guarantee peace, because of the first strike principle. The US was always trying to develop short range nukes, amazing tracking of soviet subs and stealth bombers/undectible cruise missiles etc etc.
International trade and links are the way to ensure peace.
Unfortunately the US policy tends to be to isolate and threaten, this is dangerous when dealing with loony dictators.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI think that nuking anyone is never going to be anything but a last resort for the US.
I think that nuking anyone is never going to be anything but a last resort for the US.
Even with the idiot that is Bush, there is no way a US Pres. can justify the mass murder of millions, when there are so many other paths.
The international ramifications apart, the US simply is not capable of such an horrendous act.
MAD was always a dangero ...[text shortened]... policy tends to be to isolate and threaten, this is dangerous when dealing with loony dictators.
And yet, they continue to develop "tactical" and "battlefield" nukes.
But what if MAD is taken out of the scenario, and they can attack anyone they want with complete impunity.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou seem to be playing a non-stop game of "what if?". You can do that forever and question everything EVERY country does in regards to aggressive actions. Not just the US...
[b]I think that nuking anyone is never going to be anything but a last resort for the US.
And yet, they continue to develop "tactical" and "battlefield" nukes.
But what if MAD is taken out of the scenario, and they can attack anyone they want with complete impunity.[/b]
I think you're overlooking the power of the American people. We're not going to tolerate the arbitrary use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country just because they "might" be a threat. Just look at the mess President Bush and the Republican party have gotten themselves into in Iraq. And that's a "conventional" war!
The American people will only tolerate the use of nukes if someone shoots one at us first.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThis may be so but you can forget any kind of real anti-missile defense in the forseable future, it's too easy to overwhelm any such defense. Of course one problem might be it the US THOUGHT it had a viable defense. That could make them reckless. The only real possiblity of a missile defense is some kind of ultra-high powered laser coupled with an accurate and fast aiming technology. That won't be around for 20 or 30 years though, if ever. Another possiblity is an array of killer satellites, lasers probably, aiming, control and all that would be faster if they are already in orbit but they would be sitting ducks too.
[b]I think that nuking anyone is never going to be anything but a last resort for the US.
And yet, they continue to develop "tactical" and "battlefield" nukes.
But what if MAD is taken out of the scenario, and they can attack anyone they want with complete impunity.[/b]HI
Originally posted by sonhouseGood point. The biggest mistake is thinking your defence is impregnable.
This may be so but you can forget any kind of real anti-missile defense in the forseable future, it's too easy to overwhelm any such defense. Of course one problem might be it the US THOUGHT it had a viable defense. That could make them reckless. The only real possiblity of a missile defense is some kind of ultra-high powered laser coupled with an accurate ...[text shortened]... and all that would be faster if they are already in orbit but they would be sitting ducks too.
It was the same with castles and seige weapons, Tank armour and armour. Sonar and subs etc etc etc.
MAD is not a sensible status quo.
It is like these stupid "Stand offs" you see in movies with two guys pointing guns at each other. In real life, the temptation to fire the first bullet and duck wins.
The Roman and British empire were great initial sucesses because they were built on trade. Attila, Ghengis, Hitler et al failed to learn this lesson. George W thinks threats win, he thinks only in the short term.
Originally posted by sonhouseI was thinking particle beams, not lasers. Particle beams don't need to sit on one spot for a period of time like lasers and so simple tricks like shiny rotating missiles won't stop them. Right?
This may be so but you can forget any kind of real anti-missile defense in the forseable future, it's too easy to overwhelm any such defense. Of course one problem might be it the US THOUGHT it had a viable defense. That could make them reckless. The only real possiblity of a missile defense is some kind of ultra-high powered laser coupled with an accurate ...[text shortened]... and all that would be faster if they are already in orbit but they would be sitting ducks too.