🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3r7ka6$kqp@amhux3.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu 
says...
>
>Andrew Cott (cott@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3r5f72$aip@news.cais.com>, birdhaex@cais2.cais.com says...
>: >Andrew Cott (cott@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
>: >: Heck, if Hussein had an ICBM and *no* nuclear warhead to 
>: >: mount on it, why shouldn't he mount a chemical/biological/explosive 
>: >: payload on it and point it at Central Park?  
>
>There are a lot of easier ways to mount this kind of attack.  And they
>have the advantage of obsuring the attacker which significantly
>reduces the change of retailation.  

Easy is sitting in your panelled truck, pressing the "fire" button, and 
driving away.  But, I will reiterate, *again*, the point I am trying to make 
which is an organization with the capability to drop a warhead on the US has 
leverage over our foreign policy, limiting our degrees of freedom.  Why give 
it to them?  When we say "don't point that at us or we'll bomb you back to 
the stoenage (yeehah!)" all they have to say is "oh, this silly thing?  We 
wouldn't think of aiming this at *you*."  

>
>: We wouldn't do it. It's that simple.  
>
>I think we would.  If I were President, I sure would.  You have to
>establish the idea that if you mess with the US, you're going to get
>worked over real bad.  As for the innocent civilians, it's too bad.

I just can't agree with this.  No way.

>But taking care of Iraqis in the job the Iraqi government, not
>ours. As a matter of policy, you can't let other countries hold their
>own people hostage.

And taking care of the American people is the job of the American 
government.  Sitting back while the ability to threatent the US from a 
distance spreads to hostile people whilst boasting "we'll blast 'em" is not 
my idea of caring.  We need foresight or, like I said, the music will stop 
and we'll be standing.  

And as I said before, it's quite easy to say "Bomb 'em!" from your armchair, 
but if you risk Crimes Against Humanity, at least, and the inability to 
sleep at night for the rest of your life (if you have a concience), at most, 
the world is a very different place.  

A colleague of mine once mentioned to me an observation he's made that the 
disposition of every president he can remeber changed visibly soon after 
taking office.  He said: "that's when they take him into a room and say: 
'ok, now here's what really is going on.'"  The point he's making is the 
point I'm making.  Just look at the "before" and "after" photos.  "Too bad," 
indeed.  

>The exact scale of the response would very with the size of the
>attack, but it would be disproportional to the damage they did.  There
>is a lot of ground between doing nothing and turning a country into a
>glass parking lot.

Why does this sound so much like the Red Coats being slaughtered in their 
ranks by the rebels in the woods?  Is that what conflict in foreign affairs 
should be all about?  Punch each other harder and harder until one side 
falls?

>
>: Not for long.  I do not want to sound doom-and-gloom here.  That's not my 
>: intention.  But, realistically, the bombing in OK has demonstrated it can
>: be done.  (Strictly speaking, the World Trade Center demonstrated that
>: first.) Once foreign organizations have the capability to inflict damage
>: *at a distance*, the music stops and we're still standing.  
>
>I don't see your point.  OK was domestic.  And the WTC was never
>linked to a specific country well enough to launch a reprisal - the
>reason why that type of attack is much more likely than an ICBM.  The
>moral problem with wasting a lot of civilians go up when you have
>trouble proving that their even from the right country.

The point was in the last sentence you quoted.  I'm trying to demonstrate 
the shrinking of our somewhat violent world.  Those countries and 
organizations who've disliked us for decades now know their brand of 
intimidation can work here.  Once they can threaten us with the ease of 
distruction of an ICBM, they don't even have to *do* anything to get 
concessions.  Force at a distance.  I'm looking two steps ahead here.

>: >Diplomacy is involved by
>: >making sure that your adversary knows what your interests are _before_
>: >trouble starts.  
>
>And requires the ability to back it up with force.  "Diplomacy is
>saying "Good Doggie" while looking for a rock".  Sorry, I can't remember
>the source.  I think it attributed to Tallyrand.

If you've somehow surmised I am some sort of pacifist, you are mistaken.  
Development and deployment of a TMD system should in no way diminish any of 
our other defense capabilities.  

>: Certainly, but we cannot be on military alert 24 hours a day, worldwide. 
>: It is important to note that rocket technology is spreading quite 
>: quickly.  
>
>Where were you during the cold war :-)

Watching McHale's Navy reruns after school, mostly, why?  ;-)

[snip]

>
>: In the current climate, I agree with that 100%.  My point is that the 
>: capability to inflict serious damage at will is increasing daily, and I 
>: fully expect to be alive when "terrorist" (for lack of a better term) 
>: countries have it. 
>
>They have it now.  You don't see it because it's hard to use without
>leaving fingerprints and deterrence works most of the time.

We're talking rockets, here.  If, in fact, you mean rockets, I'm going to 
have to ask you to demonstrate your assertion.  

>: An operational TMD system is still some years down the road; we can't put 
>: off the development work until the rockets are aimed.
>
>: TMD does not have a prayer of putting that 
>: genie back in the bottle (though some argue that an SDI system could not 
>: possibly stop a massive attack completely, yet then cry out about 
>: destabilization; figure that one out...).
>
>I am opposing a nation with SDI.  I have enough missiles to get
>through the defense if I fire first.  If he fires first, however, my
>surviving force will be too small - you beat SDI with numbers as much
>as anything.  Therefore, I can not afford to let you fire first,
>ergo, I am motivated to launch.  If he didn't have SDI, my surviving
>force would be sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage.  I have
>confidence in my deterrent and have no motivation to launch.

This belongs in another thread.  And the sentences of mine you edited out 
demonstrates that quite clearly:  

  "But is it responsible for us to rely on that genie as 
  our only means of defending against terrorist attacks from the air?  That 
  is what TMD hopes to deal with."

T-T-T!  Theater-Theater-Theater!  My little SDI comment above was meant as 
an aside, demonstrating the feverishness of some anti-BMD folks. As I said 
in my previous post, the anti-BMD folks appear to be behind the times.   The 
world is a complicated place and with 5 billion people, ideas and behavior 
evolve quickly.  We have to keep up.  

>: Sorry for the length of these posts, but it's a very interesting issue 
>: and a surprisingly civil discussion for usenet! :-)
>
>Wouldn't happen again. ;-)

Well, we'll try to continue setting an example!

>
>--
>Paul Chapin

-- 
Andrew Cott              MIT Lincoln Laboratory              cott@ll.mit.edu