🚀 go-pugleaf

Che Guava wrote:
> 
> Brian wrote:
> 
> > Gregory Toomey wrote:
> > >
> > > The federal government looks like it will take part in the new anti-missle
> > > defence system.
> > >
> > > In the mid 1980s, one of the biggest proponents of Star Wars, David Parnas,
> > > became one of its biggest critics based not on political but technical
> > > grounds. I remember him on his Australian lecture tour.
> > >
> > > Parnas' argument was that the software for such a system is untestable. Just
> > > develop tens of millions of lines of code, add a few "fighting mirrors" and
> > > lasers on satelites, and bingo you have missile defence. All you need to to
> > > test this is get China to send up a few missiles and a couple of hundreds
> > > decoys. The software has to immediately identify the real missiles from
> > > fakes and get the lasers to shoot them down.
> > >
> > > But China isn't going to help, so the largest software project in history
> > > cannot be tested. There is only one chance for this to work for your
> > > trillion dollar investment.
> > > For more info see: http://www.nctimes.com/news/042600/k.html
> > >
> > > In reality, this project is being pushed by the defence contractors. Naive
> > > politicians will believe anything, especially Bush, Howard and Co. Ridding
> > > the world of missiles is a great idea, but this is not the answer.
> >
> > Welllllll, while I actually I agree with your sentiment, I think what
> > you're talking about WRT China is pretty silly, as they don't have very
> > many ICBM's and thats the point.  The Son of Starwars isn't intended to
> > defend against thousands of incoming warheads or decoys but rather the
> > supposed "rogue state" which has one or two and lobs them in a fit of
> > irrational pique.
> 
> It would have to be irrational, massive retaliation would be certain.
> The American nuclear arsenal is immense.

Of course it would but like many such instances, the US politicians seem
to forget that they have that immense arsenal.  Makes their entire
strategic rationale screwy at the best of times but nuclear stategy is
without a doubt IMO the screwiest conceptal framework in which one can
operate.  I once left a seminar on Nuclear Strategy and suddenly
realised that I'd been calmly talking about "megadeaths" as being an
acceptable level of destruction for a country to sustain.  It was quite
scary.

> > Now, while the publicity is on defending the continental USA, in reality
> > the system is centred primarily around defending US forces overseas,
> > when deployed in facing down this "rogue state" in a Gulf War type
> > scenario.   Its intended to be a "theatre" defence system, rather than a
> > continental one, for many of the very reasons which you've outlined
> > above.  However, in order to sell it to the politicians and the more
> > gullible of the US's allies upon which the system will rely because of
> > its need for satellite downlinks (ie "us"), its being sold as something
> > it isn't.
> >
> > This concentration on defending the US from the one of two possible
> > "rogue states" which might contemplate doing something as stupid as
> > firing a ballistic missile equipped with a NBC warhead at a US city,
> > does though, make one question as to why the US has its massive
> > preponderance in strategic nuclear forces.   If they aren't there now to
> > deter such a move, as they have always claimed to be there to be doing,
> > then why are they there?
> >
> > Strategically it makes little sense.  Why not simply make the threat
> > that if someone does this stupid act, then their country gets turned
> > into radioactive slag (ie the strategy of "massive retaliation")?  It
> > worked quite well for a good part of the Cold War for both the fUSSR and
> > the USA.   While the US government might claim that the likes of Saddam
> > Hussein or Qaddafi might not be deterred by such a threat - they forget
> > that the primary consideration for such dictators is not striking at
> > their enemy but the preservation of their powerbase.  Something which is
> > rather difficult from inside a fallout bunker.
> 
> Now, if deterrence operates in this manner, the missile defence is
> unnecessary.

See above.  What the US military fears is that the politicians are as
wishy-washy as they believe and that if one nuclear warhead goes off,
they'll not retaliate.  The Politicians are frightened of the public's
response if one nuke goes off - they either show "strong leadership" and
nuke the rest of the world or they get damned as being "wishy-washy"
when the chips are down.
 
> But if built, it would be inadequate.
> 
> Before moving into politics General Lebed was responsible
> for tracking down unaccounted Soviet suitcase thermonuclear
> devices.  40-60 ( I don't recall the precise number, neither
> apparently do the Russian military) went missing during
> perestroika/glasnost.

I doubt that many were ever built.  What is considered a "suitcase"
nuke, Che is in reality an 152mm artillery shell (which is about the
smallest package you can make them realistically outside of Hollywood
special effects studios).  They aren't small and they aren't
lightweight.   Several nuclear warheads, for various tactical missile
systems did go missing - most in the accounting system rather than in
reality but a few did turn up in quite alarming places - there was one
case reported in the papers here of a warhead having been taken home by
its guards for safekeeping, rather than resale.
 
> The suspicion was that impoverished and greedy armed forces
> personnel had flogged them on the international arms market.
> Russian society and government is basically organised crime with
> a capitalist face.
> 
> If tonnes of narcotics are smuggled into the continental United
> States with impunity, a suitcase represents no problem.

See above.  Don't think think "suitcase", think "steamer trunk". 
However, basically you're right.
 
> You cannot level a rogue state if you don't know which one is
> responsible for the unusually high radiation count in Downtown,
> USA.

As much as I deploy Clancy normally, he did actually write a reasonably
good novel on that problem.  I'd recommend reading it.  The end result
was the US President being relieved of his duties as C-i-C Strategic
Nuclear forces because his response to a terrorist incident with a nuke
at the Rosebowl was to in turn nuke Qom and a lot of other Iranian
cities, despite there being no evidence that the Iranians were
involved.  Turned out in fact to be a breakaway faction of the PLO who
used a captured Israeli nuke which in turn had used stolen American
fissile material.   As I said, Clancy can write a far-fetched story but
the basic rationale is sound - US over-reaction is a real possibility
and a fear IMO.
 
> In the era we are entering, it will ultimately be seen that every
> nations security depends on rigorously enforced global
> non-proliferation,  global monitoring and global policing.

Yes, but that means it needs to be given some real teeth and no one,
particularly the yanks won't want that.
 
> The USA will rue it's white anting of the UN, because
> the only security for it's citizens is if it, and every other nations
> citizens are participating in a total ban, and control over the development
> of nucleur weapons, and the global community acts
> collectively to ruthlessly crush recalcitrants.
> 
> But the most absurd aspect of US policy in developing missile
> defence, is that it's greatest threat is from it's own citizens.
> 
> Mr McVeigh and his ilk, and the nations schoolchildren, have killed
> more Americans than have died in attacks by foreign terrorists within
> the continental USA.
> American casualties were greater in the Civil War, than any foreign war.
> 
> They literally are their own worst enemy.
> 
> Mr Bush would achieve more cost effective security if he spent the money
> on domestic health education and welfare, in an effort to improve
> national well-being..
> 
> Alternatively he could nuke the shite that passes for American TV.
> 
> > Then we have the problem of developing true ICBM's which would be
> > capable of threatening US cities - not an easy task and not one which is
> > usually given away.  Such beasties are rare and far between outside the
> > fUSSR, France, China and the USA.  Therefore we are again forced to
> > wonder what this thing is in reality intended for.
> >
> > No, its more than likely intended to actually produce something which
> > can shoot down a SCUD type SRBM or IRBM, rather than PATRIOT which was
> > shown to be singularly incapable of doing so in the Gulf War.
> 
> I just want a field tactical weapon with which to deal with the traffic in LA.

I'd recommend the obsolete Davy Crockett, tactical nuclear missile,
Che.  Small enough to be carried on a Jeep and fired by one man. 
Unfortunately, it had one major drawback, which is why it was eventually
abandoned and declared obsolete by the US Army - its range was shorter
than its lethal radius.  ;-)