Should US Have Missile Defense?

[maximdewinter]

Back before 9/11 when the Bush presidency was new George Bush did something that had me applauding. He looked at our anti-ballistic missle treaty (ABM) with the USSR and declared it null and void since the USSR did not exist anymore. He started funding for ABM technology again.

Why was I applauding? Because I firmly believe that there will be a situation in the future involving missiles aimed at American cities. The technology for offensive missiles has been becoming more and more available around the world and there is no indication that this trend is declining. Not only that, I believe that there may be scenarios involving missiles in Europe where it would be nice to have a defensive capability too.

What sensible person could have a problem with a technology that could only be used in a defensive manner and could only save lives? ....Barry Obama does:

YouTube - Obama on Missile Defense

[Matt W]

As did most of Europe....unilaterally pulling out of a treaty did the US reputation no good whatsoever.

[Gods_Mercenary]

There is a certain sense of threatening, if a successful missile defense system is deployed, that one country has just declared itself immune from the doctrine of MAD. Being invulnerable to a missile attack is just as threatening as having missiles while another nation doesn't. This is the reason why the soviets feared it during the 80's. Another factor for foreign dissapproval is that if only the U.S possesses this technology, it may not feel the need to put the pressure it has in the past against rogue states getting nukes. Granted, none of these countries really can get ICBMs in the near future, but still. My assertion is that this completes the offensive function of the U.S.'s already vastly superior nuclear arsenal by assuring that aging and easily destroyed or small and less fearsome arsenals like those in Russia and China will be swatted out of the sky if they even are allowed to get off the ground. This essentially creates a vacuum where one nation is guaranteed to come out on top in the case of a nuclear strike.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary There is a certain sense of threatening, if a successful missile defense system is deployed, that one country has just declared itself immune from the doctrine of MAD. Being invulnerable to a missile attack is just as threatening as having missiles while another nation doesn't.

As someone online said, "there is a strong correlation between being listened to and
having lots of long range nukes." What happens when a nuclear nation gets too powerful, trades arms across the globe, arrogantly pushes other nations around and hypocritically condemns others who develop weapons? We're finding out.

Grandpa h.

[Derek Wolff]

We want to be on top and we should be on top if we can.

What happens when a nuclear nation gets too powerful, trades arms across the globe, arrogantly pushes other nations around and hypocritically condemns others who develop weapons?

Most the nations I've seen criticized are ones we have expressed fear of war with. I don't recall us complaining about countries in the UK developing nuclear weapons.

[Gods_Mercenary]

We want to be on top and we should be on top if we can.

But there are consequences, granted, I won't be complaining if and when some wacko decides to launch. But we should also understand why others have reason to fear this "completely defensive" system.

[Derek Wolff]

What fruit will this fear bear? War? Or will they wish to avoid war and yield to US authority? Although both are bad I believe the second may be the lesser of two evils. I wonder if people debated this when nuclear weapons were first created and America was the soul holder of their power.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Generally strong nations acting out of fear is not good, we have the Cold War to tell us what happens when powerful countries fear each other. Do you really think that Russia or China will yield to U.S. authority? Bullying can work with weak nations, but not nations too proud to submit to anyone.

[oades11]

Quote by: maximdewinter Back before 9/11 when the Bush presidency was new George Bush did something that had me applauding. He looked at our anti-ballistic missle treaty (ABM) with the USSR and declared it null and void since the USSR did not exist anymore. He started funding for ABM technology again. Why was I applauding? Because I firmly believe that there will be a situation in the future involving missiles aimed at American cities. The technology for offensive missiles has been becoming more and more available around the world and there is no indication that this trend is declining. Not only that, I believe that there may be scenarios involving missiles in Europe where it would be nice to have a defensive capability too. What sensible person could have a problem with a technology that could only be used in a defensive manner and could only save lives? ....Barry Obama does: YouTube - Obama on Missile Defense

Wow. You really must not be that aware of how much nuclear deterrence is an international stability mechanism. The further into the future we get, the less we are exclusively American citizens, and the more we are Earth's citizens, part of the global order. We will still be Americans, but our dependence on other nations is going to be more and more evident as the inevitable globalization continues. We are dependent on other nations, economically, and in the future, probably militarily as well. This dependence, like it or not, is a good thing for global stability. It ensures that no nation can overstep their bounds, and that a democratic type of system must exist before one country can prematurely or preemptively invade another country without just cause and a plurality of acceptance in the international community.

The system we currently have in the United States is supposed to be one of checks and balances, to ensure one aspect of government does not have too much power. The international system will eventually have to work this way out of sheer necessity, but our current unilateralism and neoconservative attitude will not be soon forgotten. If we do not stop our economic and milaristic intervention, it is us that will eventually have to pay for it, because the international community as a whole will be hesitant to forgive.

A unilateral step towards an independent missle defense is a dangerous move, because it threatens to imbalance the international stability that so many other countries currently rely on, not only for their own peace of mind, but for the actual security of their citizens. Many people already do not trust our government, and I think that pushing a move like this forward too vigourously will cause more countries to unite against us. We can no longer afford to think so selfishly about our own security as an individual country, when the ramifications for doing so affect the international system as a whole far greater than what the defense alone may be worth.

If a missle defense would be considered, we would have to share it with other developed countries, like the UK and others.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: maximdewinter What sensible person could have a problem with a technology that could only be used in a defensive manner and could only save lives? ....Barry Obama does:

It's pretty cool. Although, it sounds like pork spending to me. Didn't they just shoot something out of the sky recently? A satelite or something? So, they already have the technology and such, what more do they need?

[another day]

I think a better solution to the oncoming threat of missiles aimed at the united states is to stop the foreign policy that is making this threat a possibility. Stop invading countries. Stop encouraging and inciting hatred of the United States in the world. To me that is a much more sane and sustainable method of "Missile Defense".

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Compugasm It's pretty cool. Although, it sounds like pork spending to me. Didn't they just shoot something out of the sky recently? A satelite or something? So, they already have the technology and such, what more do they need?

That was 2002, although there have been a few tests since then.

DefenseLink News Release: MISSILE INTERCEPT TEST SUCCESSFUL

As I recall there was criticism as to whether the decoys they used were realistic and doubts about its use in actual war, although the source for that piece of information is flagged as prone to talking through his hat.

We should build more of these if we want to be imperialists. If we don't and we're content with MAD and international stability its a colossal waste of money. Are we conquering the planet or not?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: oades11 We can no longer afford to think so selfishly about our own security as an individual country, when the ramifications for doing so affect the international system as a whole far greater than what the defense alone may be worth. If a missle defense would be considered, we would have to share it with other developed countries, like the UK and others.

I am very impressed with your post. Your selflessness is admirable. Now how can we arrange that your town is attacked and you are at ground zero?

[Matt W]

Well, if the US wants to set up a missile defence system that involves making others targets, then perhaps an element of selflessness would be appreciated, hmm?

[The Dunedan]

The problems with "missile defense" are these:

1: It doesn't work. The only time a "Star Wars" theatre-level ABM system has scored any hits at all, the hits it scored were on target warheads which had tracking devices added to them in order to guide the kill vehicles into the target. Kiinda like "winning" a shooting-match in which your bullet is electronically guided to the target. Under realistic conditions, nothing developed so far is even remotely workable.

2: It makes MAD less effective, or totally ineffective. This puts -us- in the position the Russians were in circa 1980; we're now convinced we can win a nuclear war instead of being annihilated (see #1 above).

3: Any country its' in becomes a target. Ask the Czechs and Poles how much they love the idea of U.S. missile defense...after all, it's what put Prague and Warsaw back on Russia's "Blow This Stuff Up" list.

Basically, "Star Wars" is one of those ideas that only Americans could come up with or consider practical or desireable. Would I like to be able to shoot down ICBMS? Sure. Is it workable? Not even remotely. Everyone else in the world sees this, and understands that it is at -absolute- best a colossal waste of time, money, and effort. To the Czechs and Poles, for instance, it's a "friend" painting a big bullseye on their backs and then making them poke the neighborhood drug-dealer (Russia) with a pointy stick. Potentially disastrous, idiotic, and not terribly "friendly" on our part.

As for "Global citizen"...pssh

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: another day I think a better solution to the oncoming threat of missiles aimed at the united states is to stop the foreign policy that is making this threat a possibility. Stop invading countries. Stop encouraging and inciting hatred of the United States in the world. To me that is a much more sane and sustainable method of "Missile Defense".

That may reduce the overall hate quotient, (or it may not, you never can know) but all you need is one group with access to nukes, and there will always be a group of people that hate you, no matter how nice you are, especially if you want to maintain a powerful economic and leadership presence.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Compugasm It's pretty cool. Although, it sounds like pork spending to me. Didn't they just shoot something out of the sky recently? A satelite or something? So, they already have the technology and such, what more do they need?

The technology still probably needs more fleshing out, and at any rate you'd have to build the thing and train the people.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Matt W As did most of Europe....unilaterally pulling out of a treaty did the US reputation no good whatsoever.

The US has a tradition of sorts with Presidents pulling out of treaties. Jimmy Carter unilaterally terminated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan yet Taiwan remained under the same one party rule from 1949 to the late 80's In the case of Bush pulling out of the 1972 ABM treaty it had a provision for self termination of six months which he complied with by notifying them in december 2001


Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.
A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances.

Now I would say that having the standing government (the one you inked the treaty with) completely collapse would be grounds to consider that a fundamental change in circumstances had occurred. In fact, European powers in 1992 understood that they had to renegotiate conventional arms agreements with the former Soviet bloc states because they considered the agreements with the Soviet Union and the bloc nations to be null and void. I as an American didn't care what it did to their reputation.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: The Dunedan The problems with "missile defense" are these: 1: It doesn't work. The only time a "Star Wars" theatre-level ABM system has scored any hits at all, the hits it scored were on target warheads which had tracking devices added to them in order to guide the kill vehicles into the target. Kiinda like "winning" a shooting-match in which your bullet is electronically guided to the target. Under realistic conditions, nothing developed so far is even remotely workable.

Patriot PAC-3 missiles had a astonishing success rate in Iraq in 2003 (compared with 1991 in the UN Gulf War.)...all based on "Star Wars" technology. This technology is not perfect but if you look at the trend line it is improving exponentially since it depends on software-- and with software advancement along with processor speed it is IMO a sure bet for the future.

2: It makes MAD less effective, or totally ineffective. This puts -us- in the position the Russians were in circa 1980; we're now convinced we can win a nuclear war instead of being annihilated (see #1 above).

MAD was a policy between the US and the USSR and between the US and China. The USSR is gone and China is our biggest trading partner. What MAD are you talking about? We don't have a stated MAD policy with anyone.
If the US wanted to engage in a nuclear war they didn't need an advancement in ABM technology. After the USSR collapsed they could have done it at any time. To find this supposed constituency in the US that is "convinced we can win a nuclear war" one would have to go to internet BBs

3: Any country its' in becomes a target. Ask the Czechs and Poles how much they love the idea of U.S. missile defense...after all, it's what put Prague and Warsaw back on Russia's "Blow This Stuff Up" list.

PAC-3s are mobile. Even if they weren't the whole point is national defense. So you're saying that in light of recent history of being overrun and occupied by foreign powers that Poland and Czechs would not be interested in a national missile defense?

Basically, "Star Wars" is one of those ideas that only Americans could come up with or consider practical or desireable. Would I like to be able to shoot down ICBMS? Sure. Is it workable? Not even remotely.

Any other predictions you would like to make about future technology?

[another day]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That may reduce the overall hate quotient, (or it may not, you never can know) but all you need is one group with access to nukes, and there will always be a group of people that hate you, no matter how nice you are, especially if you want to maintain a powerful economic and leadership presence.

This is just fear mongering that the military industrial complex uses to keep furthering it's interests. We just keep building more and more military infrastructure, more bombs, more weapons, more more more. The problem is that people have such a warlike perspective on the world. Peace, peace peace peace peace. It should be the ultimate goal of civilization to work towards a world without war, and yet everyone falls into the same traps of fear and distorted logic that have seen us repeating history's mistakes year after year.