🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <itsd1-0107962200000001@ip-pdx20-31.teleport.com>,
Thomas L. Billings <itsd1@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <31D86560.6BF0@fas.org>, John Pike <johnpike@fas.org> wrote:
>
>> Thomas L. Billings wrote:
>> 
>> > ... effects on U.S. policy were successful when the Soviets had a VERY
>> > small ballistic missile capability compared to later.  If I remember
>> > correctly, there were only a few tens of operational Soviet ICBMs during
>> > the Cuban Missile crisis.  A similar capability to this early Soviet
>> > force, in the hands of any of the countries mentioned above, could have
>> > very restrictive affects on U.S. actions.
>>
>
>> While we might argue about the details of case studies, I think that you
>> are absolutely correct in identifying the key issue, namely the extent
>> to which US freedom of action might be constrained in the face of the
>> deterrent capabilities of potential adversaries.
>> 
>
>It is those constraints that have cost the lives of so many during the
>last 50 years of cold war, as the "socialist camp" killed tens of millions
>under their control.

nice if it meant anything.  The US sat around and did nothing in bosnia
while ten's of thousands of people lost their lives, long after the russians
had ceased to be meaningful.  The US sits around and does nothing while
the indonesians exterminate the timorese.  the US says nothing
about Tibet.  

If the Us concern to human life extended to anything past soviet bashing,
perhaps this argument would have more credibility.

>> 
>> But the fundamental question here is whether the US would be able
>> to escape this deterred frame of mind by deploying a BMD system.
>>
>
>Those who don't think something is worth fighting over, whether with
>clubs, rifles, tanks, or nukes will NEVER escape that frame of mind.  They
>didn't really care abut how many were dying during"containment", and
>wouldn't now that others will be on the liquidation lists.  The only real
>question is, 'How many can they drag into a panic with them?'

Nice, but not relevant.  REal people, especially in real governments
behave in brutally rational manners, especially over the long term.
Even truly strange characters like Qaddafi still try and follow the rules
at least enough to avoid retaliatory strikes.

>> In the event that North Korea tried to grab South Korea, how many US
>> casualties would it be worth for us to stop them? 

Dead silence on this.

>>Is there any prospect that
>> any BMD system can guarantee that *NO* warheads will get through??
>> Not the last time I checked.
>
>
>There is NO foreign policy, pacifist, academic, militant, or rational,
>that can in fact make such a perfect statement of certainty that we will
>not be hit with nukes.  One of the things that a multi-layer BMD can do is
>make it obviously LESS worthwhile for many countries to build those first
>few nuke/missile combinations, since they would be dealt with at a very
>high level of confidence.  The chances of them getting one through a 5
>layer BMD system (the space-based layers are the THIN justification for
>this on sci.space.policy) are piddling small with less than a hundred
>warheads.  

Is it worth spending the equivalent of another Navy without hte
existing commercial supports?

>Among other things this will do much to ameliorate the spread of panics,
>such as apparently occured among Kennedy's academic advisers during the
>Cuban Missile Crisis.  It will make cowardice far less repectable.

As if Bosnia was nothing but Rampaging Cowardice among the Bush and
Clinton policy teams.???  I'm sorry, but cowardice is hte watchword
in washington.  

>
>> > Strategic defenses will make it more possible for the U.S. to intervene in
>> > the future in areas where opponents have nukes and the missiles to put
>> > them on a U.S. or allied target.
>> 
>> Yes, I think that you have identified ex
actly what is at issue *here*, with
>> far greater clarity than what passes for a political debate on this stuff
>> in Washington.
>> 
>
>Thanks, that's more than I ever got out of some Oregon Peace Institute folks.

SHould we be angaged globally or just at the most vital places is
a constant debate.

>
>>What I would suggest is that I think
>> that there is little identifiable US national interest in fighting a
>> nuclear war with anyone, least of all these dinky little jerkwater countries
>> like North Korea that are the current bogeymen.
>
>
>What IS in the U.S. interest is in making it clear to other countries that
>a fully deployed global ballistic missile defense system makes it
>IMPOSSIBLE for them to fight a nuclear ballistic missile war with the
>U.S.  The ONLY result would be to make themselves nuclear targets!  

But most countries are interested n fighting nuclear wars with their
neghbors, not the US.  India is concerned about fighting pakistan
and china,  not america.  Iran fought Iraq, not the US, despite much
personal interest.  Israel is going to fight syria, egypt, jordan
or iraq.  none of these will fight us.  The koreas fought each
other not us,  same with vietnam.  china will fight one fo
the russian border states not us.


>Extending conventional deterrence to the nuclear/ballistic missile level
>will mean fewer such militant challenges to the U.S., and to the freedoms
>it is willing to defend ( I HOPE!) in the future.  That will mean fewer
>U.S. casualties in general.   The academic arguements that "it cann't be
>done" haven't impressed me at anytime in the last 35 years.

gee, how amazingly this worked in vietnam and afghanistan.

>It is also in the interest of the U.S. to make it clear to most, and
>possibly all such countries, that the U.S. defenses would defend them
>against attack by 3rd country nuclear ballistic missiles.  At the moment
>that would give the opponents of deploying, say, the Agni missile in
>India, a lot more talking points.  The need to deterr Chinese nuclear
>actions would shrink drastically.  The same goes for Pakistan, etc. 

as if INdia will trust the security of their nation to these damned
unreliable americans?

>The number of states moving into the near-nuclear club (actually, NBC-W in
>general) continues to grow, and my confidence in the MTCR to do any real
>good shrinks every time we hear another report from the U.N. on Iraq's
>lack of compliance with it's 1991 obligations.

So maybe we should have a global nuclear dis-armament.?

--
Overbreeding leads to weakness, it is a slow death -- Major Katsunagi -