🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

I would note in passing that in practice it seems that nuclear weapons
have consistently proven more effective for deterrence than for compellence,
and thus the concern would seem to be more what, say, North Korean nukes
might do in terms of discouraging the US from marching on Pyongyang than
from how the Dear Leader might compel the US to "leave South Korea or else."

But the fundamental question here is whether the US would be able
to escape this deterred frame of mind by deploying a BMD system.

Let us speak very frankly here -- the US was prepared to suffer on the
order of half a million deaths to keep Hitler and Tojo from taking
over the planet and enslaving everyone [or at least so we thought at
the time, but that is a different thread entirely]. We were more
or less prepared sorta kinda to suffer a tenth this level of casualties
to keep South Korea and South Vietnam outta the hands of the International
PostWar Communist Conspiracy to Sap and Impurify all of Our Precious
Bodily Fluids [OPE, POE, or something to that effect]. We were prepared
to suffer about a dozen casualties in Somalia and then it was bugout
time.

In the event that North Korea tried to grab South Korea, how many US
casualties would it be worth for us to stop them? How many nuclear
weapons would have to land on American soil before folks decided that
it was bugout time in Korea? I am kinda guessin that you could count
that number on the thumbs of one hand. Is there any prospect that
any BMD system can guarantee that *NO* warheads will get through??
Not the last time I checked.

> 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 exactly what is at issue *here*, with
far greater clarity than what passes for a political debate on this stuff
in Washington.

> FAS wants that intervention, and the strategic defenses that will make it
> less risky, STOPPED.

Not really -- Desert Storm made a lotta sense, Vietnam didn't -- I would
take this on a case-by-base basis. 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.


-- 
John Pike
Federation of American Scientists  http://www.fas.org/
 Public Eye                        http://www.fas.org/eye/
 Intelligence Reform Project       http://www.fas.org/irp/
 Space Policy Project              http://www.fas.org/spp/

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
  - Jefferson