09-06-2004, 06:53 PM
"Ask Kaiser Wilhelm, turn of the century, about an arms race in re the German High Seas Fleet. You are confusing Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD, and well named), the intercontinental missiles and bombers, with tactical nukes -- which can of course lead to escalation to MAD if used, under the rubric of "Hey, he used it first!""
No, don't ask those people. They lived in a time where both sides could use maximum force, with no need for scaling, and neither side would be completely annhilated.
Once the US reaches the level where any target, from a city block to the entire planet, can be blown to pieces without much trouble, the US (or any similarly armed power) must play games unrelated to total strength. Sure, cat and mouse with smaller payload tactical nuclear weapons. But what will that lead to? Does having more power help you in those confrontations? Not really, since any sane person would have to acknowledge that you have vastly more destructive power than you are unleashing, on both sides.
Of course, you could always adopt the Israeli strategy, and cultivate a touch of insanity. That might help. But more weapons? Not really. If you wanted your target dead, they'd be dead a thousand times over. Soon, it won't even matter what size the target is.
"In case you forgot, about 20 months ago, President Bush and Putin signed the accord that will see both powers reduce their nuke arsenals by 70 percent over the next 10 years. Were you "no blood for oil" to loudly to notice?"
Uh, I don't recall having actually said that at any point. Nor have I participated in a single protest in my life. Or was that more a rhetorical question?
First, nobody actually ever really follows through on promises that drastic. But, even if they did, what of it? What nation could ever stand against even 30% of either the US' or Russia's arsenal? That's kinda my point; once you cross the threshold of MAD, there's not really anywhere left to go.
"Absent that sort of grudging understanding, the need to defend against nuclear weapons is very real if you don't want to be liable to nuclear blackmail or significant destruction. THAT is why the missile defense scheme is being pursued."
"Please don't add to that principled stance an ignorance of how power is manipulated, and how threat is used and will continue to be used in geopolitics. Geopolitics is played by jungle rules. The UN is a nice facade over a very dirty and below the belt game."
Of course Geopolitics is dirty. Duh. But "let's have a mutual annhilation" dirty? Nobody who seeks power wants to commit suicide. Attacking with less than MAD power is even dumber, since it means "AD" without the "M". Sure, it can be used for blackmail. But is there any way around that? I think 9/11 (and a thousand terrorist attacks prior) proved that there's no way to stop everything. Want a "silver bullet", that theoretically solves all problems, but in reality just makes you complacent? Try the Missile Shield. Boat a nuke into a harbour. Truck it across from Mexico, or Canada. Build it with 5th column agents inside the target location. Find a way to blind the system for the required three seconds. Cause a distraction. Build a better nuclear-tipped mousetrap. Who knows, there must be a million possible ways to detonate a nuke (or 20) without any chance of "star wars" stopping it. If an enemy has a nuke, they can blackmail you. Period. If you don't like it, you have the threat of your own arsenal. If you want to call their bluff, I hope you like your steak well done.
Invincibility in a nuclear world is impossible, as of current technology. As I said, I can't see any technology that could stop every (or even most) ways of getting nukes to their targets. Conventional forces are as useful against nukes as ants are against the magnifying glass. "Star Wars" only helps if they're stupid enough to attack in the way you're equipped to defend, a la Maginot Line, and that seems to be presuming a great deal more than is reasonable. This is *especially* true in a multilateral world where nukes are easy to build and the strike could come from anywhere (and may not even be traceable). People play dirty. If you spend all your cash on a helmet, they're going to aim for the nuts.
Where is the hope here? What can increased funding do? How is it going to solve the fundamental issues? Are you just hoping people won't attack you if your power goes from "superlative" to "superlative plus"?
Jester
No, don't ask those people. They lived in a time where both sides could use maximum force, with no need for scaling, and neither side would be completely annhilated.
Once the US reaches the level where any target, from a city block to the entire planet, can be blown to pieces without much trouble, the US (or any similarly armed power) must play games unrelated to total strength. Sure, cat and mouse with smaller payload tactical nuclear weapons. But what will that lead to? Does having more power help you in those confrontations? Not really, since any sane person would have to acknowledge that you have vastly more destructive power than you are unleashing, on both sides.
Of course, you could always adopt the Israeli strategy, and cultivate a touch of insanity. That might help. But more weapons? Not really. If you wanted your target dead, they'd be dead a thousand times over. Soon, it won't even matter what size the target is.
"In case you forgot, about 20 months ago, President Bush and Putin signed the accord that will see both powers reduce their nuke arsenals by 70 percent over the next 10 years. Were you "no blood for oil" to loudly to notice?"
Uh, I don't recall having actually said that at any point. Nor have I participated in a single protest in my life. Or was that more a rhetorical question?
First, nobody actually ever really follows through on promises that drastic. But, even if they did, what of it? What nation could ever stand against even 30% of either the US' or Russia's arsenal? That's kinda my point; once you cross the threshold of MAD, there's not really anywhere left to go.
"Absent that sort of grudging understanding, the need to defend against nuclear weapons is very real if you don't want to be liable to nuclear blackmail or significant destruction. THAT is why the missile defense scheme is being pursued."
"Please don't add to that principled stance an ignorance of how power is manipulated, and how threat is used and will continue to be used in geopolitics. Geopolitics is played by jungle rules. The UN is a nice facade over a very dirty and below the belt game."
Of course Geopolitics is dirty. Duh. But "let's have a mutual annhilation" dirty? Nobody who seeks power wants to commit suicide. Attacking with less than MAD power is even dumber, since it means "AD" without the "M". Sure, it can be used for blackmail. But is there any way around that? I think 9/11 (and a thousand terrorist attacks prior) proved that there's no way to stop everything. Want a "silver bullet", that theoretically solves all problems, but in reality just makes you complacent? Try the Missile Shield. Boat a nuke into a harbour. Truck it across from Mexico, or Canada. Build it with 5th column agents inside the target location. Find a way to blind the system for the required three seconds. Cause a distraction. Build a better nuclear-tipped mousetrap. Who knows, there must be a million possible ways to detonate a nuke (or 20) without any chance of "star wars" stopping it. If an enemy has a nuke, they can blackmail you. Period. If you don't like it, you have the threat of your own arsenal. If you want to call their bluff, I hope you like your steak well done.
Invincibility in a nuclear world is impossible, as of current technology. As I said, I can't see any technology that could stop every (or even most) ways of getting nukes to their targets. Conventional forces are as useful against nukes as ants are against the magnifying glass. "Star Wars" only helps if they're stupid enough to attack in the way you're equipped to defend, a la Maginot Line, and that seems to be presuming a great deal more than is reasonable. This is *especially* true in a multilateral world where nukes are easy to build and the strike could come from anywhere (and may not even be traceable). People play dirty. If you spend all your cash on a helmet, they're going to aim for the nuts.
Where is the hope here? What can increased funding do? How is it going to solve the fundamental issues? Are you just hoping people won't attack you if your power goes from "superlative" to "superlative plus"?
Jester