Icbm shield

[Prune 0]

I noticed in the papers the Americans are doing quite well with their ABM System.

Presumably the ABM Treaty does not apply to them any more. Are any of you worried this could spark another arms race (e.i. with China)?

Also, isn't it a big waste of money? The chance of nuclear attack is minimal. Meanwhile the 'intelligence' agencies lack people with the proper language skills. I think they need to get their priorities straight.

[Guest]

I agree that it is a tremendous waste of money. If 9/11 has shown something, it is that the threat doesn't come from countries with nuclear weapons.

[Antichrist 0]

ICBM shield is probably most useless thing US ever tried to do, it can only stop maximum of 90% of the nukes, so US gonna be fucked anyway

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Apart from the fact that the shield would be sitting around doing nothing, it is actually quite difficult if not impossible to get it to work.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

maybe its just there in preparation of something much bigger. say america nuking the entire world for some reason eg to promote peace in taiwan and china or something, where retaliation may damage the states. Or it could be to discourage any attacks on america. either way its pretty stupid. Its probably just there to take up some funding and give some people something to do in their spare time.

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Presumably the ABM Treaty does not apply to them any more. Are any of you worried this could spark another arms race (e.i. with China)?

<span id='postcolor'>

That's is correct. Bush oficially announced the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty 2 days ago.

[Paratrooper 0]

The "misslie shield" only means that a vast number of warheads will be used to overwhelm the defence, making a catastrophic situation planet destroying!

[Prune 0]

If any other country suddenly decided not to follow a certain treaty anymore, all hell would break loose.

However, as this is the US they can get away with pretty much anything. Mr 'Poodle' Blair certainly doesn't care.

This programme has been going on for years. If the US had no intention of following the treaty, why did they sign?

[LordZach 0]

Bush didn't sign the treaty

[Renagade 0]

I DID,GODDAMMIT !!!

Having a shield as such would unbalance the whole nuclear detterant thing if it proved to be effective unless the US decided that china was full of terrorists or whatever and blew the whole place sky high before they had a chance to launch an effective counter-attack

[Prune 0]

I didn't mention Bush. However, he could have honoured the treaty and stopped the programme. I do blame Reagan for starting it, though.

[LordZach 0]

Just pointing out that just because Bush decided to disregard it doesn't neccesarily mean the administration that signed it did.

[Prune 0]

The world would be a very dangerous place if agreements were ignored by successive regimes.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

This can be seen in a post cold war context (something perhaps you have missed), sure theres Chinas nukes, but as much as anything

The USA wants the nuclear option without having to sweat about the retaliation,

And this includes nuke retaliation to chemical/biological attack for added deterrant effect against the US 'axis of evil',

Bush wants to be able to use nukes if he deems it necessary for national survival (whereas now it would be detrimental to survival to use nukes)

He wants the deterrant effect for all opponents not just nuclear powers......

...

[ralphwiggum 6]

I really don't understand why Bush is letting the treatie go. The missile defense system that they are testing has failed mostly and don't see putting money into it as worthwhile project. basically the shield is supposed to protect you by hitting another incoming missile. very hard to do so i guess.

but i also see international communities's reason for criticism against the shield less than credible. they say that it'll unbalance nuclear power tug-of-war since if it suceeds, US will have better defense against nukes and that will make nuclear power shift unbalanced.

to me, it seems like they are more intersted in stopping US from testing cause they don't have resource to do same thing.

[Guest]

I think it is more a question of government intertia. It gives people work and supports the American defense contractors. They have already thrown away shitloads of money on that project and it would have really been a waste of money if they dropped the project now.

As for the strategic threat it is obvious that there is none from so called 'rogue' countries like Northern Korea or Iraq. Buhs may not be the smartest fellow on the block but he has competent advisors that are not stupid. They know very well that the shield is useless but continue the development of it because of political & economical reasons.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 16 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but i also see international communities's reason for criticism against the shield less than credible. they say that it'll unbalance nuclear power tug-of-war since if it suceeds, US will have better defense against nukes and that will make nuclear power shift unbalanced.

to me, it seems like they are more intersted in stopping US from testing cause they don't have resource to do same thing.<span id='postcolor'>

That is the same thing as making it unbalanced. The logic goes like this: Russia is under domestic and international pressure to mirror USA's nuclear weapon capabilities. Now if USA takes one step further in the development, then Russia must follow. Russia can't afford, so they cut money that was supposed to be domestic support and give it for weapons research. Less money to the people = more upset citizens = more unstable country. Spice that with having a large amount of strategical nuclear weapons and you won't be in a happy place.

[ralphwiggum 6]

that gov't inertia is a part of explanation. they are testing craps just for the kick/job of doing it.

but unfortunately, North Korea is now capable of developing long-range missile. more like across pacific. just a few years ago, they tested a missile that flew over japan that outraged surrounding countries. if they study long enough they might reach alaska. so there is some threat factor involved in too.

[Guest]

Just because they have the capabilities doesn't mean that they have intent. And their dictatorship is one of the more stable regiemes in the world. UK also has Trident medium range missiles, and USA doesn't consider them a threat.

Countries that develop nuclear weapons have all reached a certain level of maturity. North Korea could never outgun the US, and they are not suicidal. It is for the same reason that the India-Pakistan conflict won't go nuclear. Just because those are not western countries doesn't mean they are stupid.

Naturally a complete ban of nuclear weapons would be the best solution, but I doubt that it will happen during our lifetime.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Sure job creation/military-industrial finance complex has a role in this system, not to mention that its fashionable to invest in defense in the US at moment (for fashionable read popular) and in homeland defence measures etc

I dont really have a great problem with it to honest, although it would be a nice gesture if the US increased international aid by the amount invested in the anti missile shield. The message seems to be , we'll be safe so fuck the rest of you

(not too far off post sept11)

It seems like the US public has decided that international aid has failed as a tool of international relations

so turn to defence

(a mistake perhaps- i hope Bush decides to make a conciliatory gesture......not likely)

[Prune 0]

Is it worth reducing your international credibility and upsetting several nations just for some pet project?

It's going to take a lot more money to get the system anywhere near useable. Besides, countries may develop nuclear capabilities, but they will still be just as hesitant to use them. The so called 'axis of evil' are incorrectly branded.

[Paratrooper 0]

A "missile shield" won't protect from an ICBM assault or from a suitcase bomb attack. It is an expensive waste, but it's Americas waste, so let them get on with it.

[Guest]

The problem is that it destabilizes Russia economically by forcing them to develop own countermeasures. That was a brilliant move by Reagan with the first Star Wars project. The cold war has however ended now and Russia is no longer the enemy. A destabilization of Russia is obviously not desirable.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"Countries that develop nuclear weapons have all reached a certain level of maturity. North Korea could never outgun the US, and they are not suicidal. It is for the same reason that the India-Pakistan conflict won't go nuclear.  Just because those are not western countries doesn't mean they are stupid."

im sorry but that seems like a rather old fashioned and complacent view,   the idea that a country that has nukes has suddenly reached a level of 'maturity' seems farcical to me,

all it means for North Korea, is that they squandered all resources for long enough on getting nukes to the exclusion of other tasks (eg feeding the population)

(not very mature if you ask me)

And how the fuck do you know what a Stalinist dictatorship will do in the future? (-Especially if when the great dictator dies there is chaos)

If Osama Bin Laden acquired a nuclear weapon (maybe purchased from a friendly Pakistani general)

would that make him 'mature'?

Pah

i dont actually think Russia will try to create a missile shield of its own, Russia knows its not the USSR anymore and is now well aware of its limitations.(at least the upper echelons are)

i seem to remember there was actually some talk of the missile shild incorporating Russia~

[ralphwiggum 6]

international aid is not the answer to root out terrorism.

ideally that would work, but if you examine closely it is irrelevant if not counter productive.

just yesterday, i read from CNN that some aid workers in Afghanistan were robbed and a female aid gang raped in region controlled by Dosthum. So aid is doing realy a great wonder, huh?(ok..sarcasm off)

if you collect what those terrorists and anti-US supporters say, they all have one thread in common. 'Don't come to our country, US'. They want to have US stay the hell away from their yard.

unfortunately, it's the same ppl that wouldn't mind going to McDonalds after protesting US's action. These ppl are having serious problem in hypocracy.

furthermore, from what I heard, detainees at Camp X-Ray were shocked to learn that there was a muslim cleric in US military. they had no idea that muslims were in US military. in other words they are prejudiced and has no understanding or narrow view of world.

is that going to be changed by giving more aid. No. they will see this as more diabolical scheme of US trying to come into their back yard.

in other word, US's isolation from rest of the world would be answer to this. but this will not happen thanz to the fact that when US conservatives herald isolation, world suddenly changes their stance and syas US should not exclude itself from international stage. see the problem here? they want US out of stage, yet they don't want that to happen.

this seems more like same hypocritical reaction that US is accused of if not greater. they want US not to do anything in international stage, yet when US wants out since it's not doing anything they yell that it's wrong, despite the fact that it was international community themselves that were isolating US.