Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
But the threat of American reprisals is still, and always will be, the only real constraint on the behavior of N.K, Pakistan and Iran.

When it comes to SDI, we are not talking about making countries do what we want them to do. Right now our military policy is mostly about "extending our interests" etc. Yes that changed some what with 9-11, but I still see that our forces are mainly used to project our interests more than they are there to protect US citizens from harm. But if one of these powers can deliver a nuclear missile onto our mainland the whole scenario changes from theoretical US interests to protecting millions of our citizens from annihilation. That is why I see SDI as so much more important than the rest of the military budget.

Yes it is nice to have ten (thirteen?) carrier groups (at twenty billion each) sailing around to make us look tough, but they are not really there to help stop US citizens from getting killed. Those carriers aren't going to seem very useful once someone tries to lob a nuclear missile into the US, where any sort of SDI system is going to be worth its weight in diamonds when something like that happens.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said SDI ended the cold war. I never even implied that it contributed to the end of the cold war. I just pointed out that the MAD strategy ended with the cold war, so the argument that we shouldn't pursue SDI because it might destabilize the MAD scenario became invalid after the end of the Cold War.

* Continuing, if momentary, reading comprehension issues - I think I've had some of what Spanky's having.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The debate isn't over "whether" they worked, the debate is over "how well" they worked.

Now try telling me something I don't know.

The whole argument against SDI is that it is a pipe dream that can never work.

No. That's one argument. Another argument is that if SDI works 75% of the time, and it's cheaper to build more missiles, you've fueled an arms race instead of protected yourself.

And there are others.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
Ah, yes, I agree. MAD means little to the U.S. right now, given that there isn't anyone out there that is a credible threat to our existence. But the threat of American reprisals is still, and always will be, the only real constraint on the behavior of N.K, Pakistan and Iran.

In the case of Iran, I think they're more worried about those crazy Israelis (who are more worried about those crazy Iranians). And Pakistan is more worried about India. I don't think either believes the US would push a button on them.

North Korea, on the other hand, has some more legitimate fears.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. That's one argument. Another argument is that if SDI works 75% of the time, and it's cheaper to build more missiles, you've fueled an arms race instead of protected yourself.

And there are others.

Arms race? Did you get the memo? THE COLD WAR IS OVER. We are not going to get into an arms race with North Korea, Iran, or any other rogue nation that gets a missile. They can't afford it.

There may be other stupid arguments, but none that hold any water. In an age when rogue nations are obtaining the ability to deliver nuclear tipped missiles into the US, there is no reasonable reason for us not to try and FURTHER our ability in being able to shoot them down.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Arms race? Did you get the memo? THE COLD WAR IS OVER. We are not going to get into an arms race with North Korea, Iran, or any other rogue nation that gets a missile. They can't afford it.

On a tangent, I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss Russia as a potential threat. I think Condi and some of the other thinkers in the Administration take them very seriously.

Russia' relative economic weakness may not last forever, and Putin's bunch are not our friends at all. It is very hard to predict what will happen with that state.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On a tangent, I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss Russia as a potential threat. I think Condi and some of the other thinkers in the Administration take them very seriously.

Russia' relative economic weakness may not last forever, and Putin's bunch are not our friends at all. It is very hard to predict what will happen with that state.

S_A_M

Even if they are not our friends, I just don't see why it would be in their interest to nuke us. Unless a total nut job took over that country they just have no possible interest in nuking us.

The best argument against the deployment of SDI (not researching it )was that it destablized MAD and thereby fueling the Arms race. Russia is not going to get into another arms race with us. They just can't compete with us financially.

If their economy grows, that means they will become more developed and stable, more financially intertwined with us, giving them even less of a reason to nuke us. If they get poorer and less stable, they will have more of a reason to nuke us, but less ability to enter into an arms race. In todays world, the only way that countrys can become more powerful is to sustain continued economic growth. In order to do that they need to liberalize their economies and become intertwined with the world economy and the US. If they do that, their incentive of going to war with the US deccreased geometrically. The only countrys we have to worry about are the ones that stay poor and underdeveopled. The only thing those countries can do is obtain a few missiles with nuclear tips.

Deploying SDI is not going to put us into an arms race with a country that will matter to us. The only nuclear threat we are going to face is from countrys that can't enter into an arms race. So there are no more negatives to deploying SDI. But the positive of stopping a rogue nation from hitting us with one or two missiles is still there, and the threat gets worse (and therefore the need) grows all the time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
The best argument against the deployment of SDI (not researching it )was that it destablized MAD and thereby fueling the Arms race. Russia is not going to get into another arms race with us. They just can't compete with us financially.

I don't think so - I think the best argument against missle defense is that our money is better spent elsewhere -- that the real battles these days need other tactics (conventional forces particularly), and surveilance and field-oriented technology (drones, fuel cells, web monitoring technology, robotic units, teenage mutant ninja turtles, etc.). But, I'm fairly aggressive on tech spending, perhaps because it fuels my livelihood, and think at least seeding technology in a wide range of areas makes sense.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On a tangent, I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss Russia as a potential threat. I think Condi and some of the other thinkers in the Administration take them very seriously.

Russia' relative economic weakness may not last forever, and Putin's bunch are not our friends at all. It is very hard to predict what will happen with that state.

S_A_M

But they're also not real fond of radical Islamic terrorists. We have some common interests.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

SDI incents other countries to build more missiles, to build missiles without warheads, to build submarines carrying cruise missiles, to build anti-satellite weapons, etc. Many -- if not all -- of these things can be done for much cheaper than building SDI. So while no one can match us straight up in an arms race, they don't have to.

I don't really feel like debating this, and started posting only to correct your misstatement about the Patriot missile in the first Gulf War.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't think so - I think the best argument against missle defense is that our money is better spent elsewhere -- that the real battles these days need other tactics (conventional forces particularly), and surveilance and field-oriented technology (drones, fuel cells, web monitoring technology, robotic units, teenage mutant ninja turtles, etc.). But, I'm fairly aggressive on tech spending, perhaps because it fuels my livelihood, and think at least seeding technology in a wide range of areas makes sense.

But I don't see all that other military expenditures as dealing with stuff that is such a direct threat to the lives of US citizens. Our conventional forces, in general, are not fighting against direct and immediate threats against the US citizenry. SDI is designed to stop missiles, that if not stopped, will directly kill US citizens. Perhaps millions of US citizens.

Most of what our military does is really in further of our "national interest" not direct "security interests". SDI deals with the direct security of the citizens of the US (most importantly me, because NK can potential nail me with one of their missiles).

So if the money goes anywhere, the first priorty, it seems to me, should be SDI. Once we have secured the lives of US citizens then we can start dealing with other "national interests".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really feel like debating this, and started posting only to correct your misstatement about the Patriot missile in the first Gulf War.

You are so full of it. Correct a mistatement? What mistatement?

I said to Adder:

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you one of those people that think the success of the patriot missiles in shooting down the SCUDs in Israel in the first Gulf War were actually staged?

And you said:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
With regard to the "successes" of the SCUD missiles in the First Gulf War, people with much more relevant credentials than yours or mine have disagreed about how well the Patriots worked.

How is that correcting a misstatement of fact? I only asked Adder a question. If he actually thought that the missiles were shot down. If he thought what happened in the gulf was really a success? There were no facts to dispute.

What is it with you guys? I quote the Economist directly, with no words of my own, and Fringy accuses me of making a misstatement of fact. I ask if a certain story is true about whether a General asked the producer of 24 to stop torture stories and Taxwonk accuses me of making a misstatement of fact. I ask Adder if he thinks the SCUD interceptions in the gulf war were staged and you accuse me of making a misstatement of facts.

I make no assertions of facts, and yet I am accused of being a liar. In fact all three of you are lying about what I said. The three liars are calling the one person who did not lie a liar.

Don't you guys think it is time to try and elevate your posts? Before accusing someone of making a misstatement of facts, make sure they were at least alleging something?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
SDI incents other countries to build more missiles, to build missiles without warheads, to build submarines carrying cruise missiles, to build anti-satellite weapons, etc. Many -- if not all -- of these things can be done for much cheaper than building SDI. So while no one can match us straight up in an arms race, they don't have to.

What countries are you talking about? Why do you speak in generalities? Is it because only mythical countries fit your description? What countries are pursuing arms that they would otherwise not pursue if we were not engaged in SDI? You don't want to talk about this anymore because you have made some ridiculous statements and now you dont want to back them up.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think war with China is ever going to happen. We are just to intertwined economically.

I agree with you, and I think it should be our explicit policy to encourage that interconnectedness to keep it that way.

The system is for a country that just has a couple of missiles. But that list of nations grows all the time, and the possiblity of a lunatic getting a hold of a long range balistic missile or two grows all the time.

Actually, the number of countries that have developed ICBMs in the last, oh, twenty years or so stands at 0 doesn't? Iran can't reach the U.S. N.K. can't reach the U.S. I can't think of anyone who has developed this capability in the recent years.

That said, the technology can't be THAT hard to get, so, yeah, it is reasonable to assume that someone will get there eventually. Personally, our foreign policy should be directed toward preventing the development of the techonology, but yes, I agree, it will happen eventually.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What countries are you talking about? Why do you speak in generalities? Is it because only mythical countries fit your description? What countries are pursuing arms that they would otherwise not pursue if we were not engaged in SDI?

China blew up one of its own satellites recently. Both China and Russia have non-negligible numbers of ballistic missiles, and could build more if we seemed to be developing something that worked. Other countries seem unlikely to try to develop ICBMs at all, saving North Korea, which is run by irrational nut jobs.

You don't want to talk about this anymore because you have made some ridiculous statements and now you dont want to back them up.

I don't want to talk about this any more because I would rather chill than deal with you on this one, since you seem to be in a particularly overbearing frame of mind. The other people disagreeing with you can have my proxy.