Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I happen to like toys, and view the march of technology as unavoidable. In a world where MAD prevails, SDI could upset the equilibrium and make the world more dangerous; I'm not sure MAD prevails anymore.
|
It obviously ended with the Cold War. It was a strategy used with the Soviet Union. Builing a missile defense system today will not "destablize" anything.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Reagan's star wars program was, for the most part, a conscious rejection of MAD and a switch to a concept of winnable nuclear war; that made about as much sense as the Rumsfeld Doctrine, especially given the time and technology. But, as I said, the march of technology is unavoidable, and we're not in a MAD world, and this is technology that will progress somewhere. And, in retrospect, I'd give Star Wars this bit of credit -- spending like a drunken sailor on defense played some small role (less than many would claim, but still some) in the break-up of the Soviet Union.
|
Once the Cold War was over MAD was no longer the strategy. So ever since the end of the Cold War MAD has not been relevent to the discussion of SDI.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy But if I'm budgeting, I'm expecting the rogue country to bring in the nukes via suicide bomber, since the delivery mechanisms to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific are probably a tougher thing to build these days than the bomb itself. And that would affect my priorities.
|
Does that mean you would end research on SDI? Don't you prepare for both options? In addition, nuclear bombs have to be armed. Bringing a nuclear weapon that is not "armed", arming it in the United States and then setting if off is extremely hard to do. Every panel I have seen on this issue the experts always say the suitcase bomb scenario is extremely difficult to pull off. A dirty bomb is much easier, but that would do infinitely less damage.
In addition, bringing that much radioctive material into the US is hard to do undected. It is not as easy as it sounds. Also, it is hard to threaten to use a suitcase bomb. Once you make the threat then the US could prepare for it. Without SDI there is no way to prevent a nuclear missile from hitting the US. Therefore a missile is a much more effective tool for threats and extortion than a "bomb in a suitcase" (unless of course if you already have it here).
There is simply no rational or reasonable argument for ending funding on missile defense. Yet many Democrat Congressmen and Senators argue for just that. It is just sour grapes from the Reagan administration.
