09-07-2004, 09:36 AM
A nation's security includes what to do about, how to deal with, security problems large to small. The AD part of MAD is still possible, though low probability; the "significant emotional event" is still with us; and the "significant emotional nuclear event that is not the end of all creation" is still with us.
Your reasoning borders on the absurd. The maturity of missile technology has lent itself to an uneven risk-loss equation in the multilateral geopolitics power puzzle, where nuclear warheads are concerned. For a few decades, risk loss balance was reasonably equal for two parties, and all others had to live with it. Now, there are more players at the table. That adds to instability and risk, it does NOT decrease it. What is an easier problem to solve, Jester, a two variable problem, a five variable problem, or a 25 variable problem?
As to the "Missile Defense Shield" and other money sinks.
If one protects against the boat in the harbor nuke rather than the missile nuke, one is open to anyone who can lob a missile at you. If you protect against the missile rather than the boat in the harbor, the boat in the harbor can blow you up. You have to deal with both, not either-or. If you assert that the boat is being ignored, than I can only suggest that you are ignorant of how our governmental agencies interact to deal with secutiry threats. Is any funded to a zero defects standard? Nope, and neither is yours in Canada. Risk: how much can you stomach?
Is the missile shield, if it works, or if it ever works, a good answer? Don't know yet. Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you? A treaty is a different kind of, and quite possibley part of a menu of, security arrangement. The North Atlantic Treaty is one such.
Given the instability and general skullduggery of geopolitics, any sovereign nation who does not take control of its security posture is ASKING FOR TROUBLE. The ability to destroy is increasing on the conventional side. Setting aside nukes, I suggest, yet again, that you ask Kaiser Wilhelm about the problems of a conventional arms race. It is alive and well today. The risk is, on many sides, that no one really wants to use a nuke. At least, pretty much nobody does. That's the kicker. No unanimity of intent.
I will also point out that your appear ignorant of how American and NATO security policy are crafted and put into play. The structure and decision apparatus requires and has a full spectrum of capability, from advisory, foreign assistance, Non Combatant Evacuation, presence, threat, or significant armed intervention as capabilites available. Scalable, and the US has a scalable security posture that is the envy of the entire world. We can use as light or as heavy an approach as the policy makers desire and a situation warrants. You seem to be focusing on the overwhelming threat of the nukes, whose proliferation is indeed a risk, while ignoring the graduated response we make to every security situation we run across. Embargo and Southern Watch were a graduated response. UN sanctions are part of a graduated response. How far will someone call someone else's bluff? Ask anyone in Poland, 1939, about bluffing, which the French and Brits did.
My comment to Minionman in re the arms race being driven by cost was based on what happened post WW II, since nukes were dollar for dollar the best bang for the buck when destroying things was the object. That is hardly the aim under current security policy. What is true is that anyone wants an edge. A nuke is an edge, or so some folks just getting them may perceive.
Knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss. Don't get too happy, you may be staring through a soda straw, and it may poke you in the eye.
Occhi
Your reasoning borders on the absurd. The maturity of missile technology has lent itself to an uneven risk-loss equation in the multilateral geopolitics power puzzle, where nuclear warheads are concerned. For a few decades, risk loss balance was reasonably equal for two parties, and all others had to live with it. Now, there are more players at the table. That adds to instability and risk, it does NOT decrease it. What is an easier problem to solve, Jester, a two variable problem, a five variable problem, or a 25 variable problem?
As to the "Missile Defense Shield" and other money sinks.
If one protects against the boat in the harbor nuke rather than the missile nuke, one is open to anyone who can lob a missile at you. If you protect against the missile rather than the boat in the harbor, the boat in the harbor can blow you up. You have to deal with both, not either-or. If you assert that the boat is being ignored, than I can only suggest that you are ignorant of how our governmental agencies interact to deal with secutiry threats. Is any funded to a zero defects standard? Nope, and neither is yours in Canada. Risk: how much can you stomach?
Is the missile shield, if it works, or if it ever works, a good answer? Don't know yet. Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you? A treaty is a different kind of, and quite possibley part of a menu of, security arrangement. The North Atlantic Treaty is one such.
Given the instability and general skullduggery of geopolitics, any sovereign nation who does not take control of its security posture is ASKING FOR TROUBLE. The ability to destroy is increasing on the conventional side. Setting aside nukes, I suggest, yet again, that you ask Kaiser Wilhelm about the problems of a conventional arms race. It is alive and well today. The risk is, on many sides, that no one really wants to use a nuke. At least, pretty much nobody does. That's the kicker. No unanimity of intent.
I will also point out that your appear ignorant of how American and NATO security policy are crafted and put into play. The structure and decision apparatus requires and has a full spectrum of capability, from advisory, foreign assistance, Non Combatant Evacuation, presence, threat, or significant armed intervention as capabilites available. Scalable, and the US has a scalable security posture that is the envy of the entire world. We can use as light or as heavy an approach as the policy makers desire and a situation warrants. You seem to be focusing on the overwhelming threat of the nukes, whose proliferation is indeed a risk, while ignoring the graduated response we make to every security situation we run across. Embargo and Southern Watch were a graduated response. UN sanctions are part of a graduated response. How far will someone call someone else's bluff? Ask anyone in Poland, 1939, about bluffing, which the French and Brits did.
My comment to Minionman in re the arms race being driven by cost was based on what happened post WW II, since nukes were dollar for dollar the best bang for the buck when destroying things was the object. That is hardly the aim under current security policy. What is true is that anyone wants an edge. A nuke is an edge, or so some folks just getting them may perceive.
Knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss. Don't get too happy, you may be staring through a soda straw, and it may poke you in the eye.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete