🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Cott (cott@ll.mit.edu) wrote:

[substantial editing to improve readability; I've cut to what I think are 
the salient points]

: >Why do you think we would not retaliate?  You may be confusing general
: >concepts of morality with strategic thought, two very different animals. 

: Well, laying waste to a country is not quite "strategic thought."  

Put in those terms, perhaps not.  But there is a great deal of _thought_ 
behind ultimately performing that action.

: We're obviously talking about two different things, here.  I'm not 
: suggesting we wouldn't or shouldn't respond.  I'm saying all Saddam (or 
: anyone else) has to do is demonstrate his capability of dropping a warhead 
: on the US and the game changes to our detriment.  

I would not argue that we would be happy about Saddam having nukes.  What 
I am arguing is that the utility of those nukes for Saddam vis-a-vis the 
U.S. is _extremely_ small.  Actually, if there were a Ronnie (and I'm 
not implyiong I agreed with his policies) in the White House, I would argue 
that Saddam having nukes would be substantially to his detriment, not 
ours.  I doubt that we'd have "nuked" him, but I do think we would have 
done something akin to the sanction situation in place now even had 
Saddam not attacked Kuwait.

ac wrote:
: >: "More than..."  You're going to have to be a bit more specific, for the 
: >: point I am making is that it is easy to inflate our national breast and 
: >: claim: "If you transgress the unwritten law (chem/bio/nuke) we will lay 
: >: your country to waste."  The problem is *actually doing it*.  Are you, 
: >: personally, willing to unleash our nuclear arsenal on someone (e.g. 
: >: Hussein) 

: Come on, answer the question...;-)

Well, gee, what an opportunity.  If Saddam nuked us _anywhere_, I would
most likely drop one on Bagdad (or wherever Saddam was).  If my intell 
was good enough, I'd also go after any facilities used to make them with 
conventional weapons.

: I'd certainly retaliate, but that's after the damage has been done.  I'm 
: looking to deal with the *threat* of a rocket delivery system.  

And one deals with that, again, by making sure Saddam knows that if you 
use it, YOU lose everything.  BMD is not necessary to communicate that 
thought.

: >: Having a TMD system in place does not remove our option to inflict 
: >: massive force.  It does make it far less likely that we would have to do 
: >: it in the wake of an attack on our home soil.  A sense of detached 
: >: security makes less and less sense as the days pass.  The Atlantic and
: >: Pacific oceans are becoming nuisance parameters.

: >But my point is having a TMD is unnecessary if your adversary understands 
: >that launching will be counterproductive to his interests.

: Nah, he does not *have* to launch to influence our decisions.

I need some further clarification on what you mean here.

: I guess I should have been more direct in the paragraph above.  The point I 
: was making is in the last sentence.  Attacks on the US will increase.  Once 
: it can be done at a distance, pushing US foreign interests in desired 
: directions is greatly facilitated.  

U.S. foreign policy is influenced in all sorts of ways.  The trick is to 
ensure that the twists and turns of international relations at a minimum 
do not affect negatively our interests.  A foreign power haviong the 
ability to commit national suicide is something we can do next to nothing 
about.  Assisting them in understanding the rationality of living, if you 
will, is fairly easy.   A huge heaping helping of (credible) negative 
reinforcement is one way to educate these folks.

: Why shouldn't solutions be persued for both the domestic terrorist threat 
: *and* ICBM defense?  Are they somehow at odds?  

Not at odds.  If money were not an issue, then maybe, but only maybe, 
would some limited defense be acceptable.  But money is an issue, and I'd 
rather spend it where it will do the most good against the most likely 
threats.  BMD ain't it, in my mind.

: And what work should we do?  I ask because if someone wants to build a 
: bomb *here* and detonate it, they can.  If they are suicidal, they can do it 
: *easily*.  How do you propose to stop that?  That's a rhetorical question, 
: because we are discussing two different things.  The domestic threat is 
: real and nearly impossible to stop (but I'm open to suggestions).  The 
: rocket threat is more powerful because one does not have to wage war to 
: influence us.  TMD may be able to stop that.  I say "may" because I am fully 
: aware that it's new development.  

All I'm saying, again, is the knowledge that it would make absolutely NO 
SENSE to nuke us because of the horrendous costs involved gives us the 
protection you seek.

: Sorry, I don't quite follow that.  Are you saying TMD should be used 
: in the field but not domestically?  If not, could you rephrase?

TMD is not likely to be useful in the US unless you envision some 
terrorist group perhaps going through the trouble to get a Really Big 
Platform[tm] somewhere out at see AND somehting like a cruise missile.  
THese folks have financial constraints too, and, in any case, why go 
through taht trouble when Mr. McVeigh ahs made it clear there is a better 
and cheaper way.

: Yes, that is another topic, and, sure, I'd like to check it out.  

Check out "The Star Wars Controversy" put out by the good folks at 
International Security up at MIT.  Pehaps you've heard of this small New 
England college;)?

: Yep, we're talking two different things.  If Saddam is "capable" of putting 
: one rocket here without our being able to stop him physically, he gets alot 
: more stature in the world than he deserves.  The threat of massive 
: retaliation still has it's value.  But it won't stop him from persuing 
: rocket delivery systems.  I feel we need both a ready arsenal and a credible 
: defense in the not-too-distant future.  

I think, as I hinted before, saddam might get a lot more attention than 
he wants.  In any event, however, I doubt he's suicidal, and that's all 
it takes to keep him from doing something silly.

regards

--
David Birdsey | "Don't rejoice in Victory. For while you've killed the
              |  Beast, the bitch that bore him is in heat again." 
                                                      -Bertholt Brecht
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html