 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Missiles, again...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:47 PM I disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:14 PM "There cannot be a multi-tiered set of rules." Like one country ( Iran) violating the NPT, while all the rest of the signatories have to abide by it? This is why we need an equitable system of international justice. Because the US and Israel are both in violation of international treaty obligations as well as international law, and they are being allowed to get away with it. All countries would need to have the same standards applied to them. If the US was not posing a credible threat to Iran, Iran would not need to beef up its defensive capabilities. The treaty violations of the US precede those of Iran, so that is the issue that should be addressed first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:08 PM Sorry, CarolC. In general, people don't want JUSTICE- They want to WIN. The world court would generate more unhappy people than the US has. Gee, I'm really sorry to hear that. I guess that means you think we should give up our system of justice here in the US. Obviously the people who are pissed off with it are killing all of the ones who are not. What I have described is a system that would apply to the world the same democratic standards of justice that we have here in this country. It works here, and it can work in the larger context. And IF I wanted, I could certainly produce a WMD (chemical or nuclear). I have enough knowledge of chemistry and Physics to do so, easily. As do several tens of millions of other people. Not even including the 400 million or so that can follow "cookbook" directions. This is precisely my point. Your missile defense system CANNOT protect us from people like you. But you have said that if even one WMD is delivered against us or our allies, the world will be destroyed. So therefore, your system CANNOT prevent the destruction of the world. Would you like it if I said that the only way to make you happy was to kill all the Jews in the world? Well, you have said that before, and you were implying it when you said this: OK. I am unhappy with you because you ( seeem to) support people who want to murder people like me. And I didn't like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM "There cannot be a multi-tiered set of rules." Like one country ( Iran) violating the NPT, while all the rest of the signatories have to abide by it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:00 PM Fine . Lets start with Iran. Obviously this would not work. It's just more of the same one-sided system in which we can do whatever we want, and we get to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. The same standards would have to be applied to everyone... at the same time. There cannot be a multi-tiered set of rules. That's why so much of the world is unhappy with us right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:56 AM Sorry, CarolC. In general, people don't want JUSTICE- They want to WIN. The world court would generate more unhappy people than the US has. And IF I wanted, I could certainly produce a WMD (chemical or nuclear). I have enough knowledge of chemistry and Physics to do so, easily. As do several tens of millions of other people. Not even including the 400 million or so that can follow "cookbook" directions. "The only way to make you happy would be for me to kill all of the Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims in the world" This is a false statement, as I have said before. Would you like it if I said that the only way to make you happy was to kill all the Jews in the world? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM OK. I am unhappy with you because you ( seeem to) support people who want to murder people like me. Well, I accept that there are people in the world whose grasp of reality is essentially non-existent, as yours is, but they cannot destroy the world. A large nuclear arsenal is needed for that. How will you make me happy? Support the Wall in Israel, to keep them out? If you do that, the Palestinians will be unhappy with you. The only way to make you happy would be for me to kill all of the Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims in the world. Obviously, I can't and wouldn't do this. But that's why we need the world court. We set rules that are applicable equally for everyone, and then we apply them. In your case, and that of Israel, since the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and according to treaties that Israel has signed, the court would rule against Israel and, while Israel could still put up a wall, they would have to do it along the pre 1967 borders. Now, you might not be happy about it, but you wouldn't have the capability to destroy the world because of it, and even if you killed as many people as you are physically capable of doing, the law has provisions for people who commit such crimes. You ignore the fact that there are people in the world who hold opposing opinions. YOU CANNOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. Exactly so. Which is why your system cannot work. You are relying on a missile defense system to prevent the destruction of the world, which you have said will happen if even one WMD is delivered. And you yourself have said that it is not possible to prevent all WMD from being delivered. So therefore, you are advocating a system that is no more effective in preventing the destruction of the world than MAD. The only way to do that is to eliminate the nuclear arsenal, and to have a system of international justice that ensures equality before the law for all of the peoples of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:22 AM "So the only way to assure that the world will not be destroyed is to eliminate the nuclear arsenal." Fine . Lets start with Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:21 AM "If we stop harming them, they won't be unhappy with us." OK. I am unhappy with you because you ( seeem to) support people who want to murder people like me. How will you make me happy? Support the Wall in Israel, to keep them out? If you do that, the Palestinians will be unhappy with you. You ignore the fact that there are people in the world who hold opposing opinions. YOU CANNOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM Under MAD, even a single person can start a nuclear war, just by using a WMD on us, ( or our allies). So you are saying that if any WMD are used on us, whether or not they are delivered by a missile or by some other means, it will start a nuclear war. This is exactly my point. Time to get rid of the world's nuclear arsenal. By your own admission, we will not be 100 percent able to prevent a WMD attack, even if we have the missile defense system. And by your own admission, if even one WMD is delivered, even if it's not via a missile, and even if we have the missile defense system and we are not able to block all incoming missiles, the world will still be destroyed. So the only way to assure that the world will not be destroyed is to eliminate the nuclear arsenal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM Actually, yours does as well. Under MAD, even a single person can start a nuclear war, just by using a WMD on us, ( or our allies). No, mine does not. Mine is not MAD. Mine is eliminate the nuclear weapons, not use them as a deterrence. It still depends on what support they have from others- and I do not think that we can make EVERY nation happy with the US, regardless of how hard we try, or WHAT we do. Yes we can. The reason people are unhappy with us is because we are doing things that are harmful to them. Those are the people who are unhappy with us. If we stop harming them, they won't be unhappy with us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:32 AM "What we need to do is eliminate the behavior we ourselves are engaging in so that we do not create the kind of situation that causes people to have a negative view of the US. It's our own behavior that has created this situation." "Of course we can't remove ALL of the perceived injustices in the world. But we can stop spreading injustice ourselves, and that would take care of a large percentage of the injustices of the world, and we could rely on the World Court to take care of most of the rest. Nevertheless, what I am advocating doesn't need to be 100 percent effective in order to prevent the destruction of the entire world. Yours does. " Actually, yours does as well. Under MAD, even a single person can start a nuclear war, just by using a WMD on us, ( or our allies). "One person alone cannot do what you are saying the missile defense system will protect us from. If one person, or even a very small group of people want to deliver a nuclear weapon, they will not use a missile to do it. They will use some other means. And the missile defense system cannot protect us from that. " It still depends on what support they have from others- and I do not think that we can make EVERY nation happy with the US, regardless of how hard we try, or WHAT we do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:24 AM It seems to me that it will still be an issue as long as there is at least one person who perceives that the US is in the wrong. And I fail to see any realistic view that would say that everyone will ever agree the US acts correctly, rergardless of US actions or policies- SOMEONE will always be upset. One person alone cannot do what you are saying the missile defense system will protect us from. If one person, or even a very small group of people want to deliver a nuclear weapon, they will not use a missile to do it. They will use some other means. And the missile defense system cannot protect us from that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM To be fair, I will presume that YOU intend to eliminate ALL those with any negative view of the US- Otherwise, they would still be a threat."the only way to reduce the possibility of deaths due to nuclear attack from such groups is to work toward eliminating the injustices that result in the existence of terrorist groups in the first place." I know this one's going to be difficult for you to understand, beardedbruce, but I'm going to try to explain it to you anyway. I used the word "negotiate" in reference to what we do with people - ie: we negotiate with them. You can see the word "negotiate" used in context in some of my previous posts, in which you can see that I said we should "negotiate" with people. I used the word "eliminate" in reference to behaviors, not people. I know these kinds of subtle distinctions are way over your head, but I feel that it is important to try to help you understand them anyway. What we need to do is eliminate the behavior we ourselves are engaging in so that we do not create the kind of situation that causes people to have a negative view of the US. It's our own behavior that has created this situation. Do you think that we can remove ALL the perceived injustices in the world? How will you deal with opposing sides- Israel settlers Vs Palestinian terrorists- YOU claim you can get EVERYONE to agree the US is doing the right thing at all times? If not, YOU have no right to demand that a missile defense be 100% effective before it is worthwhile. Of course we can't remove ALL of the perceived injustices in the world. But we can stop spreading injustice ourselves, and that would take care of a large percentage of the injustices of the world, and we could rely on the World Court to take care of most of the rest. Nevertheless, what I am advocating doesn't need to be 100 percent effective in order to prevent the destruction of the entire world. Yours does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:36 AM re last : CarolC: "So if even one nuclear armed missile gets through, NO lives will have been saved by this system. On the other hand, if we do what is needed to make the world a less violent place, it simply won't be an issue" It seems to me that it will still be an issue as long as there is at least one person who perceives that the US is in the wrong. And I fail to see any realistic view that would say that everyone will ever agree the US acts correctly, rergardless of US actions or policies- SOMEONE will always be upset. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 06:53 AM CarolC, To be fair, I will presume that YOU intend to eliminate ALL those with any negative view of the US- Otherwise, they would still be a threat. "the only way to reduce the possibility of deaths due to nuclear attack from such groups is to work toward eliminating the injustices that result in the existence of terrorist groups in the first place." Do you think that we can remove ALL the perceived injustices in the world? How will you deal with opposing sides- Israel settlers Vs Palestinian terrorists- YOU claim you can get EVERYONE to agree the US is doing the right thing at all times? If not, YOU have no right to demand that a missile defense be 100% effective before it is worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM Unconditional as in without requiring Iran to meet the conditions of the NPT it signed and benefited from? As in, Iran didn't place any conditions on their willingness to negotiate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM " given that they want to attack Iran" THIS is a presumption I do not agree with. I do not see how you speak for those YOU claim are doing whatever for whatever specific reason. I do not consider thet you have the divine power to know anyone else's mind, as you keep claiming. "that they would rather suffer repercussions of a nuclear nature than not. " And I am sure that Iran would not "rather suffer repercussions of a nuclear nature ". so, that is proof they want to attack the US? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM >>>"We want to be able to attack Iran without having to suffer any repercussions of a nuclear nature. " Glad to know your opinion and desire- But I doubt if you speak for the US Government.<<< Bruce, I am sure that her opinions and desire is shared by pretty much every American including, I hope, you. I am sure that the US wants to have the option of attacking Iran without getting nuked in return. In fact Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are effectively expressing that desire now as they ratchet up their rhetoric on Iran. It is pretty silly for you to be suggesting that, given that they want to attack Iran, that they would rather suffer repercussions of a nuclear nature than not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM "Iran's offer of unconditional negotiations" Unconditional as in without requiring Iran to meet the conditions of the NPT it signed and benefited from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:58 PM I use the term "rogue state" to indicate a nation in violation of it's treaty obligations. N. Korea, Iran, and Syria are presently such. Two points. It doesn't matter how you use the term. What matters is how the US government uses the term. Secondly, we are a nation in violation of our treaty obligations. "We want to be able to attack Iran without having to suffer any repercussions of a nuclear nature. " Glad to know your opinion and desire- But I doubt if you speak for the US Government. Not my desire. The desire expressed by many in the US government as well as the think tanks that drive the foreign policy of the US government. And also the desire of the US government as can easily be deduced by their unwillingness to accept Iran's offer of unconditional negotiations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM I use the term "rogue state" to indicate a nation in violation of it's treaty obligations. N. Korea, Iran, and Syria are presently such. "We want to be able to attack Iran without having to suffer any repercussions of a nuclear nature. " Glad to know your opinion and desire- But I doubt if you speak for the US Government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:38 PM NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NOT DEFENSIVE. Great! If that's the case, I guess we can get rid of ALL of ours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:35 PM The TREATY obligations are that if the US or any treaty signatory is attacked with WMD, the US will reply with WMD. If 1 missile is launched, we have a very high likelyhood of being able to intercept it. If 25 are launced, we have a good chance to eliminate 10 - 20 of them, reducing the loss of life ( in the US or our ally) by 40 - 80 %. But you keep saying that if there is a nuclear attack, the whole world will be destroyed. Are you now saying that if a missile gets through our missile shield, and a city in one of the countries we have this treaty with is destroyed, it won't result in the destruction of the entire world? Recall that a single missile from a Nuclear power ( China, Russia, etc) can have 8 - 12 MIRV warheads, probably on the order of 250Kt each. A missile from a terrorist group or rogue nation would probably have one warhead, in the 20 -50 KT range. It seems likely that a rogue nation or terroruist group would have access to a limited number of systems, while the nations that you claim would be threatened because they would lose their deterrence would have the number to overwhelm the defensive system- Thus it DOES NOT destabilize the balance of power, just defend against rogue states and terrorist groups. This is wild speculation on your part, beardedbruce. It is far more likely that if a 'terrorist group' wants to deliver a nuclear weapon, they won't try to use a missile to do it, and that if we had the kind of system you are advocating, that would guarantee that they would use a non-missile way to deliver a nuclear weapon. So if 'terrorists' are the ones we are concerned about, the only way to reduce the possibility of deaths due to nuclear attack from such groups is to work toward eliminating the injustices that result in the existence of terrorist groups in the first place. The term "rogue state" is one that we use when we want an excuse to destroy a country and its sovereignty. We don't label countries "rogue states" because they pose a legitimate threat to us. In the case of Iran, for instance, if we had been concerned about a possible threat from them, we would have accepted their offer to negotiate. We are labeling Iran a "rogue state" because we need an excuse to attack them and destroy their country and their sovereignty. And this is why we want first strike capabilities against such countries. We want to be able to attack Iran without having to suffer any repercussions of a nuclear nature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM "The reason Iran is beefing up their defensive capabilities " NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NOT DEFENSIVE. ABM systems ARE. With nuclear weapons, one can only destroy the enemy. Since they ARE WMD, they are most effective agaist cities and civilian populations. ABM systems CANNOT be used against cities- they are specific to attacking MISSILES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN LAUNCHED. Claiming the ABM systems are aggressive, and nuclear-armed missiles are defensive is not a reasonable arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:16 PM "beardedbruce, you have said that if any babies are killed by a nuclear weapon, the US will be obliged to destroy the entire world. So if even one nuclear armed missile gets through, NO lives will have been saved by this system." The TREATY obligations are that if the US or any treaty signatory is attacked with WMD, the US will reply with WMD. If 1 missile is launched, we have a very high likelyhood of being able to intercept it. If 25 are launced, we have a good chance to eliminate 10 - 20 of them, reducing the loss of life ( in the US or our ally) by 40 - 80 %. "It's not useful against these people if they have more nuclear armed missiles than we would be able to shoot down, and there's absolutely no guarantee that such would not be the case" Recall that a single missile from a Nuclear power ( China, Russia, etc) can have 8 - 12 MIRV warheads, probably on the order of 250Kt each. A missile from a terrorist group or rogue nation would probably have one warhead, in the 20 -50 KT range. It seems likely that a rogue nation or terroruist group would have access to a limited number of systems, while the nations that you claim would be threatened because they would lose their deterrence would have the number to overwhelm the defensive system- Thus it DOES NOT destabilize the balance of power, just defend against rogue states and terrorist groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:12 PM "doing what is needed to make the world a genuinely safer place." What, you mean like holdin Iran to it's obligations under the NPT? No, I mean like negotiating with Iran as equals rather than rejecting their offers to negotiate so that we can fabricate a justification for using nuclear weapons against them as we are working on doing now. The reason Iran is beefing up their defensive capabilities is because they know we want to attack them. They tried to negotiate and we responded by rejecting their offer to negotiate, and putting them on our axis of evil list instead. The US has a history of attacking other countries, and it is behaving belligerently toward Iran. The Iranians have every reason to feel threatened by the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:00 PM "there really is no legitimate reason for building such a system" False- ANY lives saved would be worth it. beardedbruce, you have said that if any babies are killed by a nuclear weapon, the US will be obliged to destroy the entire world. So if even one nuclear armed missile gets through, NO lives will have been saved by this system. On the other hand, if we do what is needed to make the world a less violent place, it simply won't be an issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM "doing what is needed to make the world a genuinely safer place." What, you mean like holdin Iran to it's obligations under the NPT? I thought you objected to ANY effert to make the world a safer place??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM "there really is no legitimate reason for building such a system" False- ANY lives saved would be worth it. "no one can guarantee that this system can take out all incoming missiles from rogue states or terrorists, " NO-ONE can guarantee that police can stop ALL criminals- So YOU want us to stop wasting money on police? I though that reducing it would be enough to justify it. Since when has the complete guarantee of anything been required for it to be a better idea than burning babies? "You saying that there are terrorist groups capable of launching ballistic nuclear tipped missiles against Europe?" YES. Especially when covertly supplied by nations, such as Hezboallah is by Syria and Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:26 AM >>>IT IS ONLY USEFUL against terrorist groups<<< Bruce, You saying that there are terrorist groups capable of launching ballistic nuclear tipped missiles against Europe? And that we should be spending tax money to defend against this possibility? Such people only exist in James Bond movies. Surely if you believe in such villains you know that they can be easily thwarted by a good looking ladies man in the ten minutes they take to explain their plots to him before they launch the missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 08 - 12:49 AM IT IS ONLY USEFUL against terrorist groups, rogue countries in violation of the UN, and accidents. WHICH OF THESE are YOU supporting??? It's not useful against these people if they have more nuclear armed missiles than we would be able to shoot down, and there's absolutely no guarantee that such would not be the case (although your assertion that terrorists would have any nuclear armed missiles is pretty preposterous, so I think we're only talking about sovereign nations here). So the only effective way to prevent such an attack would be for us to behave in such a way as to promote justice around the world, instead of working so hard to spread injustice, as we are doing now. And since you keep saying that the US would be obliged to blow up the whole world if even one nuclear armed missile hits us or one of our allies, you are willing to put all of your faith in a system that you yourself have admitted may not be up to the task to try to prevent the destruction of the entire world, instead of doing what is needed to make the world a genuinely safer place. Since we have established that no one can guarantee that this system can take out all incoming missiles from rogue states or terrorists, and also since our government is actively working to create enemies wherever they possibly can, and where none need exist, there really is no legitimate reason for building such a system, and in fact, there are many very valid national security reasons for not building it. They are building it for first strike capabilities against countries who have a small number of bombs. And by the way, we are a rogue country in violation of the UN. I sure hope nobody uses this as an excuse to nuke us |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:50 PM NATO. FACT. The present system of ABM has a success rate of 12 out of 14 attempts. Hardlt useless. If you value a human life at even $100, the cost of the system is a bargain. YOU claimed things that are not true- I called you on it, and expect either some basis for your statement, or for you to admit you lied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM You started the thread. You should back up what you have said. Saying that you don't have to because you are experienced in the industry does not excuse your lack of facts. In fact is makes your baseless assertions even mores suspect. It shows that you have a vested interest and hints you are hiding knowledge you do have which would not help your case. Please tell us what treaty the US is a member to which requires it to blow up the world if an atom bomb falls on Europe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM CarolC, YTou did not read what I said: "Since the country we were attacking could not do that if we have a missile defense shield, we would have the ability to wage a first strike without having to worry about such a response. It prevents other countries from being able to defend themselves if we attack them, " I STATED "The LIMITED nature of the planned installations prevent it from ever being a "first strike" weapon: It can neither deal with large numbers of missiles, nor can it attack those missiles until they have been lainched- at which point I for one would consider them to be fair game, and to NOT try and intercept them would be stupidity of a greater order than I can imagine." Since I state that our abm system IS NOT DESIGNED to stop more than a few missiles, and any country that has them legitimately has more than a few. There is NO effect upon other countries being able to defend themselves. IT IS ONLY USEFUL against terrorist groups, rogue countries in violation of the UN, and accidents. WHICH OF THESE are YOU supporting??? If an ICBM is launched because of a technical failure, do you really want the ONLY option to be a nuclear war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:06 PM "If it can't deal with all of the nuclear armed missiles that another country sends our way, how can you possibly say that it would prevent the deaths of millions of babies? " The ones killed by nuclear missiles would not be killed by nuclear missiles- the ones that are killed by bombs brought in by car, truck, or boat I can blame on people like you that object toi the US enforcing UN requirements that signatories to the NPT NOT enrich uranium, o develop WMD programs. I would rather stop SOME than NONE, as you seem to wish to do. The fact is, the US was willing to share the ABM systems, ao that ALL nations would be protected. THAT is hwta the Russians object to- that THEY will not be able to threaten others with their WMD. I can't stop all car accidents, but I have insurance anyway. I can'tstop all theives, but I lock my door. By your standard, I am threatening everyone since I can go out and steal from them while my house is locked up. So, better leave your house unlocked, or the neighbors will know you are planning to steal from them |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:15 PM So I presume you never bother to lock your door, since it cannot prevent someone who wishes to rob you from breaking into your house. I definitely lock my door. But that cannot ever be perceived by my neighbors as a sign of an intent to behave aggressively toward them. If I had a rocket thrower and I put up a shield that would allow me to lob rockets at them while being able to block rockets that they were lobbing at me, my neighbors would take that as a sign that my intentions toward them were not peaceful, and they would probably ratchet up their defensive capabilities, and then I would ratchet up my own, and that would make us all less safe rather than more safe. So even if I could, I would not do something like that. You state that we are vunerable ( true, but not significant to the poit here) because it cannot stop ather means of delivery, then claim we are developing it as a " first strike " weapon, because it is so effective. According to you, it is effective in preventing the delivery of a nuclear weapon via a missile. If it is effective in doing so, then it would give us 'first strike' capabilities because a country that we were attacking with a nuclear weapon would most likely respond with a nuclear armed missile, being the quickest way to respond. Since the country we were attacking could not do that if we have a missile defense shield, we would have the ability to wage a first strike without having to worry about such a response. It prevents other countries from being able to defend themselves if we attack them, and we do have a history of attacking other countries. Assymetrical warfare is another thing, and that is something the US government is not trying to prevent. In fact, it is doing everything it can to try to encourage such activities. It gives them an excuse to wage their endless "war on terror". please pick one- If it is such a good first stike weapon, there must be some threat that it DOES prevent. I never claimed it will solve all the problems of the world- just the use of IRBMs, or ICBMs by a terrorist or splinter group, or accidental launch by human error. The LIMITED nature of the planned installations prevent it from ever being a "first strike" weapon: It can neither deal with large numbers of missiles, nor can it attack those missiles until they have been lainched- at which point I for one would consider them to be fair game, and to NOT try and intercept them would be stupidity of a greater order than I can imagine. You say that it would prevent the deaths of millions of babies because it would prevent the need for us to respond to a nuclear attack with one of our own. If it can't deal with all of the nuclear armed missiles that another country sends our way, how can you possibly say that it would prevent the deaths of millions of babies? Please pick one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:08 AM "It can't prevent the scenario I described, and for this reason, we know it can't prevent the incineration of babies by the millions. It can only prevent it from being accomplished by a missile strike. " Still seems worthwhile to me. You may think that it is not worth saving ANY if we cannot save ALL, but I will act to save as many as I can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:04 AM "only vested interest I have in this subject is the preservation of my life and that of my loved ones." Then you are failing in self-interest. IF a missile attack is ever made ( "the scenario I described") , you are accepting that the missile WILL impact ( since we will not have a way to intercept it and then decide, taking enough time to get it right, WHO to hold responsible) , and that the US WILL retaliate. This does not bode well for your, or your loved ones, survival. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:47 AM "The US government cannot guarantee that no-one, anywhere in the world, will ever be able to deliver and set off a nuclear weapon in the US. Right now, someone with a nuclear bomb could quite easily come into one of our ports in one of our major cities on a yacht or fishing boat. Your 'missile defense' program could not prevent this, and anyone who was seriously intent on destruction would simply find a way to get around it (it's very easy to do). " This statement I agree with. But, like the lock on your door, when a criminal can break a window and enter, I feel strongly that the anti-missiles are needed for those situations that they can prevent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:20 AM CarolC, "It can only prevent it from being accomplished by a missile strike. " Glad to see that you at least recognize this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:18 AM "* I * think that it is a way to prevent having to incinerate babies by the millions." A WAY, CarolC, not the only way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:16 AM Jack, "I haven't seen any facts from you. I've seen a big heaping pile of Bullshit. " MY point was that I had not seen ANY facts from you. If I started to talk about some aspect of playing accordian, I would suspect that someone who DID play would want me to back up my assertions, especially when they knew that I made no sense. Please back up your assertions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:13 AM CarolC, "It can't prevent the scenario I described, and for this reason, we know it can't prevent the incineration of babies by the millions. It can only prevent it from being accomplished by a missile strike. This is why it is not defensive in nature, but rather, is for the purpose of creating a first strike capability. This system cannot prevent someone with the desire to nuke this country from doing so if they are determined. The only thing this system can to is ensure that if the US nukes another country first, that other country won't be able to nuke us or the part of Europe covered by our system in retaliation, using a missile. " So I presume you never bother to lock your door, since it cannot prevent someone who wishes to rob you from breaking into your house. You state that we are vunerable ( true, but not significant to the poit here) because it cannot stop ather means of delivery, then claim we are developing it as a " first strike " weapon, because it is so effective. please pick one- If it is such a good first stike weapon, there must be some threat that it DOES prevent. I never claimed it will solve all the problems of the world- just the use of IRBMs, or ICBMs by a terrorist or splinter group, or accidental launch by human error. The LIMITED nature of the planned installations prevent it from ever being a "first strike" weapon: It can neither deal with large numbers of missiles, nor can it attack those missiles until they have been lainched- at which point I for one would consider them to be fair game, and to NOT try and intercept them would be stupidity of a greater order than I can imagine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:04 AM "For example would you please tell us under which treaty or treaties the United States is obligated to, using your words, "Blow up the World?"" Any treaty with allies that consider an attack upon them to be the equivalent of an attack on the US. NATO, SEATO, etc. Since OUR response to a WMD attack, as given by MAD, is to initiate ( or rather respond ) a devastating WMD attack upon whomever we perceive to be the attacker. Once we use WMD upon, say , Iran, I would suspect we would be attacked by other nations, and thus the entire world would be involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:59 AM "Would you also care to point us to a single incorporated entity in the "Hate America Industry"?" The Democratic Party ( probably not incorporated) Why does it have to be incoprporated? there is ample evidence of it's existance here, in many threads. Would you or Carol care to point out a single incorporated entity in the "missile defense industry"? Or do you include all those entities that are presently involved in providing the US with an alternative to incinerating babies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM On the other hand, * I * think that it is a way to prevent having to incinerate babies by the millions. ( Which is the entire basis of MAD) It can't prevent the scenario I described, and for this reason, we know it can't prevent the incineration of babies by the millions. It can only prevent it from being accomplished by a missile strike. This is why it is not defensive in nature, but rather, is for the purpose of creating a first strike capability. This system cannot prevent someone with the desire to nuke this country from doing so if they are determined. The only thing this system can to is ensure that if the US nukes another country first, that other country won't be able to nuke us or the part of Europe covered by our system in retaliation, using a missile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:34 PM beardedbruce, the US government had a perfect opportunity to negotiate with the government of Iran, before Ahmadinejad was elected president in that country. The US government undermined the moderate Khatami presidency by ignoring his offers of unconditional negotiations and by rewarding Iran's assistance in the war in Afghanistan by putting Iran on the axis of evil list. One would have to be pretty dense to not see what the US government's motives were for this behavior. And in fact, the evidence is much stronger for this argument than it is for the stupid argument that Iran wants to nuke Europe. 1. Then you are doing it for empty slogans Every time I think you have scraped the very bottom of the barrel of silly responses, you find a way to plumb even deeper. The fact of the matter is that the only vested interest I have in this subject is the preservation of my life and that of my loved ones. Those who make their livelihood in the missile defense industry cannot say that. Such people have a conflict of interest, and therefore have no credibility when they say they are doing it for the preservation of human life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:37 PM Bruce, Telling us you have experience is not the same as presenting facts. I haven't seen any facts from you. I've seen a big heaping pile of Bullshit. For example would you please tell us under which treaty or treaties the United States is obligated to, using your words, "Blow up the World?" Would you also care to point us to a single incorporated entity in the "Hate America Industry"? I'd love to attend a share holder meeting. LOLOLOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:15 PM CarolC " I haven't received even a penny from the "Hate America" industry." 1. Then you are doing it for empty slogans You made the statement "People who are attached to this missile defense stupidity are people who make their living in the missile defense industry, or who are being bribed by people who make their living in the missile defense industry." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:13 PM Jack, "come back to me with "Unproven statement." You make claims that I have not seen any reason to think are true- I am a little more aware than you are of our present ABM capabilities, present research efforts, and planned installations. If you want to make statements about something I know more about than you do, you had best provide some supporting FACTS besides you wanting it to be so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM CarolC, We disagree. You keep telling how the US is doing something to cause a nuclear war. There has been no nuclear war- Do you have a high level clearance, that you KNOW why the US is doing what it does? Can you see the future, that you KNOW it is to cause a war? "This system is nothing more than an attempt ..." On the other hand, * I * think that it is a way to prevent having to incinerate babies by the millions. ( Which is the entire basis of MAD) You rest assured in YOUR opinions, and I will rest assured, and work to make true, mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM Bruce Don't make up utter, stinking, silly bullshit like "Hate America Industry" and come back to me with "Unproven statement." Especially don't come back with bullshit like this. >>>We have treaty obligations that would cause us ( Under MAD, which seems so highly thought of) to destroy the world if any nuclear missiles hit our allies.<<< Come to the light Bruce. Come to the light. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:35 PM People who are opposed to this missile defense endeavour are people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry, or who are being bribed by people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry. They are risking all of our lives for money or empty slogans. What a bizarre thing to say, beardedbruce (and confirms my suspicion that you don't actually think about what you post before you post it). I am against this missile defense boondoggle, and I haven't received even a penny from the "Hate America" industry. They are also baby killers, who would rather see the entire world destroyed than admit that stopping a nuclear weapon from going off is a good idea. The best way to guarantee the destruction of the entire world is for the United States to continue along the path it's on right now. The US government cannot guarantee that no-one, anywhere in the world, will ever be able to deliver and set off a nuclear weapon in the US. Right now, someone with a nuclear bomb could quite easily come into one of our ports in one of our major cities on a yacht or fishing boat. Your 'missile defense' program could not prevent this, and anyone who was seriously intent on destruction would simply find a way to get around it (it's very easy to do). The ONLY way to minimize the possibility of the US being on the receiving end of a nuclear attack is for the US to approach its relationship to the rest of the world in a way that promotes justice rather than its current practice of spreading injustice. If you are opposed to Global warming, just think about the environmental impact of a nuclear war, and then tell me how we should not try to build methods that keep the nuclear weapons from being used. Well, the problem is that this system is not trying to build methods that would keep the nuclear weapons from being used. It is simply building more ways to enforce empire at the expense of the rest of the world. If the US really wanted to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, for instance, it would have accepted Iran's offer of unconditional negotiations shortly after 9/11. The reason the US did not do so is because they wanted a pretext for waging war against Iran (using nuclear weapons in the process). This is the oppositeof preventing nuclear weapons from being used, and is the most likely of any scenario, of creating a nuclear war that could destroy the world. I tend to think that the US wants this "missile defense" program because it would like to be able to nuke any country it wants to without having to suffer any kind of nuclear response. This system is nothing more than an attempt to create first-strike capabilities for the US. That, and it's also a way to further enrich the war profiteers at the expense of the US taxpayers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM "so called missile shield is nothing more than just a money pit." False statement. "It is not protecting our interests and it is pissing Russia off for no good reason." Since it does protect our interests, I could care less if Russia is pissed off. "Let Europe defend themselves if they think they need such defense." We have treaty obligations that would cause us ( Under MAD, which seems so highly thought of) to destroy the world if any nuclear missiles hit our allies. "It would totally defy logic and common sense to think that Iran would lob nuclear tipped missiles at Europe." Totally unproven statement. "For one thing. They don't have any." False statement- we don't KNOW if they have the warheads, they do have the fissionable material to build them, and the DO have the missiles already in operation- DIdn't youy notice that had launched a satellite? "For two, it would serve them no strategic purpose " So, anything that does not serve strategic purpose will not happen? I claim that the Iranians have a percieved strategic purpose. "and for three it would lead to the total and immediate destruction of their government and military." Not if they don't think we would respond to a missile launched with "plausible deniability"- ie, by some non-government group such as the Guard ( You know, the ones who kidnapped the British navy personnel) "You don't really think that Iran's leaders are braver than the Neocons do you? The Neocons are afraid of the political fallout from using WMD. The fallout the Iranian's fear would be much more concrete. " Bravery has nothing to do with it- IF the PERCEPTION is that they can get away with it, the possibility exists they will try it, and we would be idiots to NOT try to be prepared for the situation. Unless you want us to invade Iran, in order to keep them from ( finishing) the development of WMD????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:04 PM >>>People who are opposed to this missile defense endeavour are people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry, or who are being bribed by people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry. They are risking all of our lives for money or empty slogans.<<< The "Hate America" industry? The so called missile shield is nothing more than just a money pit. It is not protecting our interests and it is pissing Russia off for no good reason. Let Europe defend themselves if they think they need such defense. It would totally defy logic and common sense to think that Iran would lob nuclear tipped missiles at Europe. For one thing. They don't have any. For two, it would serve them no strategic purpose and for three it would lead to the total and immediate destruction of their government and military. You don't really think that Iran's leaders are braver than the Neocons do you? The Neocons are afraid of the political fallout from using WMD. The fallout the Iranian's fear would be much more concrete. Bruce, you seem to be confusing liberalism with common sense. I can see where that might be an easy mistake for you. But it is my conservatism that tells me that Bush's little Star Wars is a mistake. Because it is unnecessary and because it is a waste of money. It's just the neocons using fantasies, trying to scare us into giving them more money and power. Come to the light Bruce. If you are smart enough to make missiles, you are smart enough to do some good in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,lox Date: 17 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM uh huh ... (?!?!?!?!?!?!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM My post disappeared: I will presume it was not removed by someone with a political motive. People who are opposed to this missile defense endeavour are people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry, or who are being bribed by people who make their living in the "Hate America" industry. They are risking all of our lives for money or empty slogans. They are also baby killers, who would rather see the entire world destroyed than admit that stopping a nuclear weapon from going off is a good idea. If you are opposed to Global warming, just think about the environmental impact of a nuclear war, and then tell me how we should not try to build methods that keep the nuclear weapons from being used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Barry Finn Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:48 AM Agreed Carol,,,,if aggressive countries kept their dogs of war within their own borders & on shot (I didn't mean short) leash & let the rest live they saw fit, we'd be part way to where we'd eventually like to be. The other part would be to trade with all the cards on the table, nothing secretly marked, no underhanded dealing, no cheating, no ganging up & playing both ends against the middles & keeping our CIA's, MI5's, Mossad's, Hamas's, Hezbollah's, Fatha's, PLO's, Al-Qaeda's all penned, caged up & locked out & out from under the porches & back yards of other nations that would also go along way. A bit of a good jester (pun intended) once & a while & a lending hand here & there would be absoultly shockingly positive in the way of mending fences because at the rate we're all going we'll be building walls & fences around our ponds & gopher holes & arming the jack rabbits & assholes with anything from flame throwers to blow darts & they'll be hiding behind every tumbleweed & wishing well & wishing that they could just once put a bullseye on the neighbor across the street because their eyes are of a different color/slant/shape than that of their mother's (half word here). But that's foolish of me when I think of all the fear we can strike into the heart of a nation & all the capital we can squander & of the resources that can be plundered & the enviorment that can be destroyed in the name of personnal & corporate gain. We sell fear as if it were food & treat the earth as if she were our whore & we fall hook, line & sinker, well as we become the fish food we will become just as scarce as the same fish we eat. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: CarolC Date: 15 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM Suicide terrorism is a product of real or perceived occupation by foreign powers. Remove the occupations, and suicide terrorism will end. Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare waged by the weak against the powerful when the weaker side is unable to get justice from the more powerful side. End the empire (in both economic as well as military terms), and the injustices and the terrorism will go away. Strengthen the world court (in the US, this would mean becoming a member) and the world will become a much safer place. Military approaches (by the powerful) to the problem of asymmetrical warfare are for stupid people who want to die. However, on the subject of the "rogue states", like Iran, the US had an offer of unconditional negotiations from Iran shortly after 9/11, and the US responded, not by engaging in negotiations, but by putting Iran on the US' "Axis of Evil" list. It's not the Iranians who are crazy and suicidal, it's the US government who fits that description. People who are attached to this missile defense stupidity are people who make their living in the missile defense industry, or who are being bribed by people who make their living in the missile defense industry. They are risking all of our lives for money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:45 PM reread my post. Or if you prefer, go the whole hog and suggest that I call myself lox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:43 PM lox, MAD DEPENDS on the fact that 1. BOTH sides are sane and will not act self-destructively 2. The group setting off the WMD can be determined. Are you willing to bet the survival of the world on the sanety of people who put hadicappped people into suicide vests? Are you willing to destroy entire regions in reaction to a WMD attack on the US? In Cuba, at least we knew where ( and at who) to aim the missiles at. I lived in DC at that time- it is not a situation that I would reccommend for anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:11 PM Could make an interesting art project. Two paper men made of newspaper clippings in some kind of stop motion animation ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:52 PM Cut and pastes - or preferably links - can be validly used as reinforcement for an argued position. But without the argued position they are a bit defective. I start to imagine a thread made up wholly of cut and pastes squabbling. A bit like two answer phones talking to each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,lox Date: 14 Mar 08 - 07:42 PM God I hope you're all wrong. But in response to bruce, there is evedence that MAD works. The cuban Missiles crisis ended when Kruschev realised that Kennedy wasn't going to back down. He was prepared to risk being a big brash bully, but not to actually take the plunge and call kenedy's bluff. He pulled out. Why? Because it would have been suicide not to. I think only the most egotistical intellect would bother rebutting this view and I would have little patience to engage with such a rebuttal. The issue now is deluded kids who think they represent Islam and thnk they have a relationship with God that means that the purpose of their life should be to commit suicide and kill as many random people as possible in the process because they will be rewarded for it. In which case I agree that the threats of the future may come from small devices smuggled over borders or manufactured in secret labs in the ountry they are intended to destroy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:27 PM "I rather expect that nuclear weapons -- probably small fission weapons -- will be used against the United States and other countries within the next ten years or so" As a realist, I predict by July or August 2009, if the Democrats win. 6 - 10 years later, if McCain wins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 14 Mar 08 - 04:39 AM Six years ago, President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and our intention to deploy defenses against emerging threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. Contrary to prevailing expectations, the sky did not fall. Six years ago, Russia was still weak. Now, thanks to soaring oil and gas prices and having a third of the world's reserves, they have weight they can throw around, and the desire to do so. This is in part thanks to the broken economic model imposed in the early 1990s at the behest of neocons, which resulted in the pauperisation of much of the Russian population, along with the massive enrichment of a tiny elite. Now the odious Putin is merely establishing himself and his cronies as the elite of the elite. It's difficult to defend Europe from Iran or Korea if your interceptors are along the Polish border, and both Bush and Putin know what they are really for. (For Korea they'd be in Norway; for Iran in Bulgaria or Austria). Islamic militancy, Russian neofascism... it's payback time for the Empire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:25 PM Yep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:23 PM But it was simultaneous with not having one, also... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:10 PM "The ONLY way to win a nuclear war is not to have one- the present "liberal" view that MAD will stop a nuclear war is sadly lacking in any support from reality." Well, I'm a liberal/Liberal, and that is not my view. That aside, MAD seems to have worked for years--decades, actually. Didn't like it, didn't see it as a good thing, but it worked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: Rapparee Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:06 PM I rather expect that nuclear weapons -- probably small fission weapons -- will be used against the United States and other countries within the next ten years or so. It is unlikely, although not impossible, that they will be delivered by missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM I have stated previously that I support the limited anti-missile systems to protect our "allies" and the EU from WMD equipt IRBM and ICBM in "rogue" states ( or even just those that are in violation of the UN obligations they have benefited from.). The ONLY way to win a nuclear war is not to have one- the present "liberal" view that MAD will stop a nuclear war is sadly lacking in any support from reality. Just MY opinion. Now, try asking the people you agree with about their cut-and-pastes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 08 - 07:30 PM Presumably bruce has an opinion about this cut and paste, and he really ought to share it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missiles, again... From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:49 PM Well the issue of what do do about the threat of Nuclear terrorism in the unimaginable event that it should arise is a mind bogglingly difficult one to prepare for and deal with. The stakes would be just too high for even the smallest slip up. I think I'll just go and put my head in the sand ... no I'll go play guitar for a while ... ... woke up this morning ... my city was gone ... |
|
Subject: BS: Missiles, again... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM Washington Post Moscow's Missile Gambit By Robert Joseph and J.D. Crouch II Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page A17 Six years ago, President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and our intention to deploy defenses against emerging threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. Contrary to prevailing expectations, the sky did not fall. Moscow's response, delivered in a statement by President Vladimir Putin, expressed disagreement with the U.S. decision but emphasized that U.S. defenses were not a threat to Russia and that Russia would make major reductions in its strategic offensive forces -- a striking rebuke to the myth that ending the ABM Treaty would lead to an arms race. Today, the United States and Russia find themselves in opposition on the issue of deploying 10 missile interceptors and supporting radar to Europe -- an act of much less strategic consequence than abandonment of the ABM Treaty. Bush and his national security team have explained the concept, in considerable detail, to Russia's national security elite. Moscow objects by citing a threat to its own deterrent (an argument it knows has no merit) and the stationing of American forces near its borders (which reminds it of the painful loss of empire) and denies the existence of an Iranian missile threat. Russia's stance reflects its increasing assertiveness as a major player on the international scene, helped by the price of its energy exports. Moscow is eager to regain its great-power status and thinks the path to success requires painting the United States as the threat. The United States, as a prominent former Russian official once told us, is the threat Russians love to hate. With equal determination, the Bush administration has sought to change Russian perspectives. Over five years, the United States has made proposal after proposal to work with Russia's military and industry on missile defense. We have both been involved in these initiatives, offering modest cooperative activities, such as activation of a joint early-warning center, and projects that would be more technically, and politically, challenging. Each time cooperation has been deflected or rejected. Russia's offer of the use of its radar in Azerbaijan, for example, came with a string attached -- that the United States forgo building an interceptor site in Europe. Undaunted by Moscow's lack of interest, the United States recently proposed seeking agreement on criteria to define the emergence of the Iranian missile threat -- criteria that would need to be met before the United States began operation of the site in Europe. But even the former head of the Russian Strategic Missile Troops, noting the capabilities of a recent Iranian "space vehicle" launch, predicted that Iran would have "ballistic missiles with a range of 3,500-4,000 kilometers or even more," possibly in the next few years. Washington reportedly offered Russia access to sites in the United States and, pending agreement with host governments, access to our missile defense facilities in Europe. The result has been to confound our allies, including Poland and the Czech Republic, and signal a lack of resolve to defend against the Iranian threat. Instead of trying to persuade Russia to do something that it does not perceive to be in its interest, the United States should redouble its efforts to advance the two initiatives sponsored by Bush and Putin that do enjoy widespread support in both countries. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism has grown in a little over a year from 13 partners to more than 60. Russia has been a good partner because it is concerned about this threat. Similarly, Moscow has worked to put in place new approaches to expand the use of nuclear energy in a manner that meets energy and environmental goals and reduces the risk of proliferation. These joint efforts may provide a basis for building cooperation in other areas, perhaps setting a positive tone for the new Russian president. On missile defense, the United States must move forward, just as Russia does when its vital interests are at stake. We should continue to be respectful and transparent about the need for our deployments but make clear that the United States will proceed without Moscow's cooperation. Going beyond current proposals for cooperation would encourage Russia to be even more intransigent, playing to its instinct to drive wedges between the United States and its allies, and would foster the Kremlin's policy to run out the clock in the hope that the next U.S. administration will abandon the effort in Europe. On issues where we have mutual interests, such as proliferation and nuclear terrorism, there is more to do with Russia. But waiting for its cooperation on missile defense will only delay us further and re-create the form, if not the substance, of our Cold War antagonism while taking energy from opportunities to work together in areas vital to international security. |
