Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Well at least we know Bush is a man of his word. He said he would go it alone if necessary and hes done just that.

But looking at it in the setting of the current climate, does anyone else think that politically it seems like a strange time to do something that could easily create cracks within the socalled 'global coalition'?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

Thought about it, but you can turn it around and say there's no better time, given relations between the US and Russia have seemingly never been better. Putin knew it was coming.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by MstrG
Thought about it, but you can turn it around and say there's no better time, given relations between the US and Russia have seemingly never been better. Putin knew it was coming.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


true I guess. But the NMD can only be a success with European support as I understand it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

I wonder how long we will be without the ABM treaty or a viable NMD shield? In the best case scenario (ie, one where NMD works)? The worst case would be that it is not effective at all, I imagine.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

Rumsfeld made a good point today in his briefing ... consider the proliferation of weapons that took place during the existence of the treaty, a treaty in fact that would assure MAD. Yet in the matter of four face to face meetings, the US and Russia have managed, without a piece of paper, to agree to reduce their arsenals to between 1700 & 2200 missiles.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I wonder how long we will be without the ABM treaty or a viable NMD shield? In the best case scenario (ie, one where NMD works)? The worst case would be that it is not effective at all, I imagine.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1579

Just to start off with a little humor, anyone else notice that AMD (Anti-missle defense) could also stand for American Maginot Defense. I think there are very good parallels between 1930s France and 2001 USA.

1.) The ABM treaty allows both the US and USSR to develop two AMD systems, not to be placed within 500 miles of each other. Why aren't we developing one of those first, before abandoning the treaty?

2.) If in fact the goal of AMD was to defend against attacks from rogue nations, why not build it in secret? By building it so publically, you discourage rogue states from developing medium/long-rangeballistic missiles, nullifying the threat. If we built it secretly, rogue states would continue to waste resources making ICBMs, which we could easily counter. I argue that, since we are doing this all so publically, we are not attempting to build a missile defense against rogue states, that we are instead, trying to build a defense against Russia and China and all the rest. This is typical Cold War deterrence-style posturing. Putin and all the rest are right when they say we're trying to start a new arms race. If we were really concerned about rogue states, we'd try to establish an international effort to build missile defense as to avoid rekindling an arms race. What it comes down to is old school military strategists still thinking in Cold War terms. Just as French strategists (with the almost sole exception of deGaulle) planned for slow trench warfare when building the Maginot Line. DeGaulle was right in advocating quick-moving offensive capabilities and opposing cumbersome, costly defense systems. America is wrong-headed to pursue missile defense like this, when it should be focusing on building a police/peacekeeping component in the military (as the Europeans are), doing a better job of dealing with high-tech warfare, and with terrorism.

Bush is a fool; and Condoleeze Rice is worse. They're wrongheaded, and planning for Cold War scenarios.

Leakynips.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples

1.) The ABM treaty allows both the US and USSR to develop two AMD systems, not to be placed within 500 miles of each other. Why aren't we developing one of those first, before abandoning the treaty?

---

We did, and we are. In the 1960s, we actually deployed a limited system in the Dakotas, which was later scrapped. We have been radar in Alaska as the first step towards a ground-based system for several months. As for the Russians, they have had a theatre defense system around Moscow since the late Soviet era.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples

2.) If in fact the goal of AMD was to defend against attacks from rogue nations, why not build it in secret? By building it so publically, you discourage rogue states from developing medium/long-rangeballistic missiles, nullifying the threat. If we built it secretly, rogue states would continue to waste resources making ICBMs, which we could easily counter.

---

Er...you've done very well so far, but this is a strange, strange argument you're making here.

One of the primary purposes of NMD is specifically to deter proliferation of ballistic missile technology by rogue states. You do an excellent job of explaining exactly why it has that effect. The argument that we should secretly build NMD in order to goad these countries into an unsuccessful attack is one I've never, ever heard before by any NMD proponent.

The best argument I've heard for NMD is as an enabler of US action overseas. The US is remarkably reluctant to act against any nation which poses a real ballistic missile threat--Desert Storm would never have occurred, for instance, had Iraq been a nuclear power. Seeing this, many nuke states seek nukes simply to immunize themselves against US intervention. NMD takes this immunity away, and enables the US to act proactively against states with small ballistic stockpiles, nukes or no. It gives us the option of doing the right thing.

Those who see US hegemony as a bad thing see this as the main argument AGAINST missile defense, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples

I argue that, since we are doing this all so publically, we are not attempting to build a missile defense against rogue states, that we are instead, trying to build a defense against Russia and China and all the rest. This is typical Cold War deterrence-style posturing. Putin and all the rest are right when they say we're trying to start a new arms race. If we were really concerned about rogue states, we'd try to establish an international effort to build missile defense as to avoid rekindling an arms race.

---

This is a reasonable argument, the best response to which is that the systems being developed wouldn't be effective against a barrage with a bunch of missiles. Also: what earthly incentive would the US have to TRY to start an arms race? In what way does that suit US interests?

The international aspect is an interesting one, and there is a very real possibility, according to most of the literature, that the US will make the tech involved available to everyone--depending
on which system is built.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples

What it comes down to is old school military strategists still thinking in Cold War terms. Just as French strategists (with the almost sole exception of deGaulle) planned for slow trench warfare when building the Maginot Line. DeGaulle was right in advocating quick-moving offensive capabilities and opposing cumbersome, costly defense systems. America is wrong-headed to pursue missile defense like this, when it should be focusing on building a police/peacekeeping component in the military (as the Europeans are), doing a better job of dealing with high-tech warfare, and with terrorism.

---

There are some very obvious and well-demonstrated arguments against using the military in a police capacity, but that is another argument. I agree entirely on cyberwarfare and counterterrorism. But none of these are arguments against building missile defense; the advocates of NMD would simply respond to the need for these things by saying, "Yeah, let's do those, and NMD too."

To recap: I'm not particularly an advocate of NMD, but I'm playing one for the purposes of this discussion because it makes things more interesting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1579

A bit rambly, but...

The NMD/AMD isn't being designed for use against massive ICBM attack *yet*.

And as for my comment about a police force - you're absolutely right - military forces make HORRIBLE policemen. They're trained to kill, not keep the peace. That's why you create special police forces, as I think we should. I've got no problems with a hegemonic US, but if we're going to be a hegemon, we need to do it right, and that includes peacekeeping troops.

I didn't know about the AMD site in the Dakotas...

My point about NMD discouraging rogue states from developing missiles is that all NMD does is change the treat they pose to us. I'd rather have secret missile defense that will work when they shoot than have public missile defense and have rogue states focus on attacking in other ways. It is a kind of convoluted way to think of it, but if you know they're working on missiles, and you know you can stop missiles, then you can stop them. If they know that we can stop missiles, they won't build them, so they find other things that we have to worry about.

You're absolutely right about there being no good reason to start a new arms race - but you'r working on premise that all military leaders are rational actors... and that is not true at all. There are guys in the military who have been pushing for NMD since the 70s... now without a serious USSR threat, Presidents are willing to sign off on it, and I think that's a bad plan.

I certainly like the way you present the NMD as an enabler theory - just wish Washington was presenting NMD that way. It certainly does not seem that that is their goal. I'm fairly certain that we're going to build this thing with enough interceptors to block any attack short of a full-scale launch by Russia. And if we can, we're going to haggle Putin down to low enough stockpiles so we can defend against them too.

Leakynips.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

There is the issue/charge of selective multilateralism when it suits the US politically. How would the americans here respond to such a charge.

N.B. I am paraphrasing the Euroepan Parliament here btw.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1579

I totally agree... America is entirely selectively multilateral. Condoleeza Rice (bitch) is very vocally supportive of "selective engagement" as she calls it. But so is everyone else, given the chance. No one likes to have to be held back by other nations. Britain and Maggie T. whipped up on Argentina all by its lonesome - and why not? It's typical for nations to try to go it alone when they can. It's easier, and you get all the credit. If things start getting ugly, then call in the boys for back up.

The US just has a "big enough stick" to go it alone more often than most. Which is exactly why the EU keeps getting tighter and tighter.

leakynips.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples
No one likes to have to be held back by other nations. Britain and Maggie T. whipped up on Argentina all by its lonesome - and why not?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples
No one likes to have to be held back by other nations. Britain and Maggie T. whipped up on Argentina all by its lonesome - and why not

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
No one else wanted to send troops in to help us. Also worth noting that the Falklands was a much more standard conflict, an invasion of one nation's sovereign territory by another country's army. The U.S. gave significant logistical support, however.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


Might also be good to note that the Argentinian claim to sovereignty of the islands is more legal than ours. I could go into it, but I won't

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

OK this is for Smug. It is off the side of the thread a little. To start with, the reason that everyone accepts our sovereignty now is because we went to war over it and won. We could never give them up if we wanted to now because people would say 'why did you go to war over them?'

Historically, the Falklands issue was in negotiation between the UK government and the Argetina Junta since the days of Wilson. Now, I must admit my memory of the exact dates are not that good ok, but I can give a chronological sequence of events at least in the life of the Malvinas.

Spanish Conquest
Britain goes to war with Spain over the islands and wins.
Britain set up a small colony on Eastern island and claims sovereignty of both West and East.
British colony leaves East island and sim0ply put a plaque down saying somethign akin to : 'This Eastern island of the Falklands belongs to King George whoever'

75 or so years pass.

Argentina decide to colonise the West and East islands after the Spanish have left their mainland.
Britian comes back and beats the Argies up.
Britain settles colony once more to protect the sovereignty of the islands.

Now the key here is the 75 year gap. Under International Law (which existed back then too). Sovereignty can only be maintained if a presence is kept on the land, ie living presence of nationals and Governor etc. The law also says that if the land is left unihabited for more than 50 years the sovereignty is wavered and the land becomes 'open season' again as it were.

So argentina had international law on their side back in days gone by when they decided to colonise the islands after Britain left. It was us who illegally evicted them. You could argue that we at least had the right to the East Island as that was where the plaque was, yet we also kicked them off the West Islands back then too.

This never got printed in the Sun or any newspaper btw. The only reason I know it is because I had to write a long essay on the validity of the Falklands Conflict for International Relations.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1606

While I accept that many nations are opposed to The USA developing and deploying an effective missile defense program, I am still a little confused about what the reasonable complaints are. Why would anybody want for The US to not prepare to protect herself to the best of her ability? The only people who this should offend are the ones who were planning a missile attack against us. I can understand if they feel a little frustrated. Why would our allies be opposed to this? We would certainly use our technology and equipment for their defense as well.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

quote:

---

Originally posted by splAt
While I accept that many nations are opposed to The USA developing and deploying an effective missile defense program, I am still a little confused about what the reasonable complaints are. Why would anybody want for The US to not prepare to protect herself to the best of her ability? The only people who this should offend are the ones who were planning a missile attack against us. I can understand if they feel a little frustrated. Why would our allies be opposed to this? We would certainly use our technology and equipment for their defense as well.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

Oh, and that was interesting about the Falklands by the way.

Of course, by international law, Gibraltar should be ours, treatied to us as it was, but the UN decided that it was somehow unjust I think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

spalt: the other major issue is that people see it as the forerunner to a new arms race.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged