BS: Re missile defense

Subject: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM

From The Washington Post:

The Arms Race Myth, Again
By Richard N. Perle
Monday, March 3, 2008; Page A17

With a stridency reminiscent of the Cold War, outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin charged last month that with U.S. plans for a limited defense against ballistic missiles, "a new arms race has been unleashed in the world." He vowed to field new weapons, which have been under development for years, "in response." The same day, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he anticipated "hundreds of thousands of missile interceptors all over the world . . . in the foreseeable future."

Both claims are wrong. Despite a near universal belief to the contrary, the "action-reaction-upward-spiraling strategic weapons race" of the Cold War never really happened. And Lavrov's hundreds of thousands of missile interceptors won't happen either.

The idea that the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in an arms race that led to reciprocal increases in nuclear weapons, steadily rising strategic budgets and an escalating danger of nuclear war was widely accepted during the Cold War. Its most vivid metaphor was spun by Paul Warnke, Jimmy Carter's director of arms control, who portrayed the United States and the Soviet Union as "apes on a treadmill," mindlessly piling weapon upon weapon. Warnke and others called for arms control treaties to control the "mad momentum" of the race.

But as is often the case with conventional wisdom, little serious research was done to establish whether it was true. The most important exception was the work of the late Albert Wohlstetter, America's preeminent strategic thinker, who approached the subject with his customary rigor. In a 1976 article -- "Racing Forward? Or Ambling Back?" -- Wohlstetter demonstrated that U.S. and Soviet strategic weapons programs were largely independent of each other and that the number, explosive power and cost of American nuclear weapons had peaked 15 years earlier (under Defense Secretary Robert McNamara) and had been declining ever since, even as Soviet programs had expanded significantly.

Using the same data that had been available to the many academics and politicians who unquestioningly accepted the existence of a deadly arms race, Wohlstetter argued that it would be foolish in principle for us to respond in kind to every Soviet development -- and that in practice we had not done so. He argued for building only the strategic forces we needed, reducing their number and explosive power, and making them as precise as possible. He believed that nuclear weapons had only a limited, defensive role to play in a carefully designed strategic posture and that a policy of seeking safety in threats to destroy whole countries in retaliation was neither credible nor moral.

With his rhetoric, Putin hopes to excite the opponents of a limited U.S. missile defense system and those politicians here and abroad who will be unnerved by Russian threats of a new "arms race."

They -- and he -- should relax. For one thing, the greatly diminished American nuclear force still has many more weapons than it needs. Far from responding in a way that lends credence to Putin's false claim, we should be looking for ways to reduce our nuclear forces still further. We should greet Russian threats to race with amusement and a big yawn: They would be competing against themselves. If Putin wishes to pour petro-rubles into building more missiles, our response should be limited to sympathy for the ordinary Russians whose taxes will be squandered, much as they were with catastrophic consequences during the Cold War.

As for Lavrov's "hundreds of thousands" of missile interceptors, dividing by a thousand would be a reassuring start. U.S. plans call for a modest number of interceptors, dozens at first, a hundred or so later, maybe 200 or 300 after that. The program is limited because the threat is measured in tens of missiles, not hundreds and certainly not thousands. With North Korea and Iran building ballistic missiles with significant and increasing range, a modest defense is a prudent first step toward countering a known threat.

Without any missile defense -- our current situation -- we are vulnerable to any country or movement that manages to obtain even a single missile capable of reaching the United States. Our allies and troops abroad are in greater jeopardy because shorter-range missiles, which are already available, can reach them. In a future that may well include several new nuclear-armed states or perilous changes to existing ones (can we be certain that Pakistan's missiles will not wind up in extremist hands?), containing the spread of nuclear weapons will be as difficult as it is urgent. Possession of even a limited defense should be a powerful discouragement to would-be proliferators -- and if they persist, well, I'd rather see a missile shot down than feel it land.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM

2 points.

Our current missile defense technology is not effective and therefor a waste of money.

Bush and his cronies are antagonizing the Russians for no better reason than to drive up the price of energy.

Certainly building missile bases in former Soviet satellites has no value in protecting United States soil.

Certainly the opportunity cost of the billions spent is huge. We could be building infrastructure or enhancing homeland security.

Given the retaliatory capability of the US and difficulty of building an accurate ICMB without a full fledged space program the odds of serious damage to you or anyone else from such and attack is infitesmal.

You usually make more rational decisions. Could it be that your interests are more personal? Do you some way personally benfit from the manufacture of such weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM

Richard N. Perle, long an advocate of American Imperialism, has the habit of trying to rewrite history.

He much prefers waving a big stick to talking softly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

"Our current missile defense technology is not effective and therefor a waste of money."

False. In TESTS, which are not expected to always work, the USN has a success rate of 12 out of 14 attempts- prior to the intercept and destruction of the recent dead satellite ( which was successful in spite of being beyound the parameters of the system.



"Bush and his cronies are antagonizing the Russians for no better reason than to drive up the price of energy. "

False. The attempt is to provide those nations with some degree of security from the KNOWN IRBMs that are in the region.



"Certainly building missile bases in former Soviet satellites has no value in protecting United States soil."

So you believe that if a goup launches a nuclear misslie, we should just destroy the entire world? IF we have treaty obligations to a country ( such as we have with NATO) we should take those steps needed to protect them from a expected risk.



"Given the retaliatory capability of the US and difficulty of building an accurate ICMB without a full fledged space program the odds of serious damage to you or anyone else from such and attack is infitesmal. "

1. And who do we wipe out, if a rebel group or political party launches a missile? The entire nation that they are in? Everyone who looks like them? The entire world?

2. Difficulty????????? You need to read up- the IRBMs that are the expected targets of the anti-missile system are presently in operation in a number of countries, and have been available for a number of years. Iran just launched a satellite: ANY country that can put up a satellite can use that vehicle as an ICBM.

3. Far from being infinitesimal, the danger is great.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:02 PM

Don,

You attack the person, rather than the points being made. Could it be that maybe YOU are wrong in this instance?

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

Hmmmm We are spending hundreds of billions building missile defense in Europe NOW for protection of "our allies" against attacks from Iran for the if and when they may develop a bomb and an accurate missile capable of carrying it.

That's not quite the dumbest thing I've ever read. But it is the biggest waste of money.

I'm sure the Russians don't think we are that stupid. That's why they think the missile defense is aimed at them.

If rocket scientists are so smart, why are they the biggest per capita recipients of welfare?

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:15 PM

"an accurate missile capable of carrying it."

Iran has already demonstrated this.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:23 PM

Did you even bother to read the first post? The Russians have MORE missiles NOW ( after the SALT reductions) than 100 times the proposed number to EVENTUALLY be placed in Europe. The anti-missile system is ONLY useful against small numbers of vehicles- such as a terrorist group, or rogue nation, NOT against a major power such as the US, Russia, or China.

"The program is limited because the threat is measured in tens of missiles, not hundreds and certainly not thousands. With North Korea and Iran building ballistic missiles with significant and increasing range, a modest defense is a prudent first step toward countering a known threat. "

But I guess the idea of saving human lives is something to be objected to at every opportunity. Especially if it means that the US fails in it's treaty obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM

From the article ( because I have to assume that some here have reading problems):

" a policy of seeking safety in threats to destroy whole countries in retaliation was neither credible nor moral. "

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM

BB, I've long been familiar with Richard Perle and his writings. I read the article and saw that it was just more of the same kind of thing he's written many times before.

Discount what I say if you wish, but frankly, I have neither the time nor the patience to go through the article point by point. Even if I did that, I don't think it would mean anything to you anyway, and I don't care to get involved in yet another nit-pick fest.

Just ignore what I posted above. Let others judge for themselves.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:29 PM

We are spending hundreds of billions building missile defense in Europe NOW for protection of "our allies" against attacks from Iran for the if and when they may develop a bomb and an accurate missile capable of carrying it.

Given the time required to develop, test, manufacture, and deploy any new reasonably complex system, if we "might need" a defensive missile ten years from now, we should hope that someone has started very serious plannning to get started about (at least) five years ago. (And that's assuming an extremely optimistic schedule.)

Typical time from "first contract" to "first flight" runs on the order of 12 to 15 years, for any program with reasonable hope of success. In most cases the first contract comes only after some builder has spent two to five years developing a "concept" worth putting up for consideration.

It ain't done with Erector Sets^®

John

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:37 PM

If all nations stopped spending money on weapons and re-invested in developing countries, maybe we wouldn't need the war toys.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:03 PM

John,

I have been working on SDIO/BMDO programs since 1986. But the experts here keep telling me that

a. It will never work
b. It will scare everyone so much that they will all attack us
c. It is better to insure that ANY launch/attack on us with WMD cannot be stopped, so that we can blow up the entire world instead of just shooting down a terrorist or launched in error missile.

Of course, these are all true simultaneously.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:10 PM

Gosh, this is good to read. All the protest songs I used to sing in the 60s are given new life, which will save me struggling to learn new songs at my advanced age.

And again I can use the threat of imminent extinction to spark the deepest instincts of womankind: to have offspring. I can sing the protest songs and offer to rush to my bedroom, where, briefly, our minds will be taken off the impending disaster.

And so the circle goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:28 PM

Bingo, dianavan!

Don Firth

P. S. I'm waiting for Gort to come back and put us out of our misery.

Subject: RE: BS: Re missile defense
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:44 AM

Well there is one thing for certain, come November 2008 and January 2009 whoever actually wins the Presidential Election they will not scrap or cut back on this programme one iota.

As for Dianavan's comment Don, once there is a Democrat Candidate that is something the Republicans should put to them.