Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5607

Note: The newspaper, author of the article, and author of the book are all liberal, I suspect. But, relative to this article, that doesn't mean anything. If you (

Spoiler

Ripclawe, Makura, et al

) are going to be critical, then attack the argument or particular information that the argument relies on.

Even though I strongly suggest reading the entire article, for those too lazy:

Since [the Reagan administration], only a tiny fraction, in the range of two percent, of the nearly 100 attempts to strike a target missile with an interceptor--a feat often likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet--have resulted in anything resembling complete success.

And even these figures must be considered optimistic at best, given the severe tilt in most of the playing fields used in the trials. A 2001 long-range test of the hardware for George W. Bush's proposed system, for example, was applauded by administration and Pentagon officials as proof that the old bugs had finally been worked out, even though the kill vehicle's accuracy had been guaranteed by a global positioning satellite beacon installed in the target missile. Other recent tests have been similarly rigged or scripted, with information about the target's flight characteristics, appearance, and altitude being supplied beforehand to those in charge of aiming the interceptors.

For these and other reasons, the NMD program has drawn sharp criticism from some surprising quarters. It's not only organizations like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*based Union of Concerned Scientists that dismiss National Missile Defense as a system with "essentially no defense capability". It's also the group of 49 retired U.S. generals and admirals who, in March of this year, composed an open letter to President Bush characterizing the NMD system as profoundly misguided. Even Canada's own Department of National Defence has weighed in, calling NMD useless against far more likely scenarios for rogue missile attacks involving low-flying cruise missiles or unmanned drones. All of these critics and more, including the Federation of American Scientists and even the Pentagon's top tester of weapons, Thomas Christie (who admits that NMD's inadequate record in tests "would limit confidence" in the current Bush plan), are quoted at length in Rushing to Armageddon.

And yet the National Missile Defense program remains the centrepiece of the Bush administration's response to the prospect of nuclear terrorism, and it is by far the most expensive item in its already gargantuan defence budget. For the fiscal year of 2005 alone, the administration has asked for $10.2 billion to be invested in the program, the largest such request for any weapons system in history

"They look at this system, they look at the American expenditures, which are now $10 billion a year...and they know that it doesn't work," Hurtig explains. "And they say to themselves, 'These people are not stupid. So there must be something else they have in mind.' And the something else they have in mind is the weaponization of space and the domination of the world through the control of space."

"The Russian and Chinese militaries," Hurtig explains, "understand that if the damned thing doesn't work as a defence mechanism, why are the Americans doing it? And the answer is pretty simple." NMD is the first step in what will eventually become "an offensive missile system" based in space, he says. As a result, these nations are now anticipating the threat by developing "new ballistic missiles and more powerful multiple warheads, new cruise missiles, new submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles and cruise missiles".

The U.S. Air Force's Transformation Flight Plan, updated in February of this year, places the Bush administration's taste for unilateral force in new light by including in its 176 pages a list of proposed space-based military hardware, from radio-frequency energy weapons to the extraordinary "hypervelocity rod bundles"--sometimes referred to, in a morbid joke, as "rods from God"--involving a network of space platforms capable of dropping guided metal projectiles onto targets anywhere on the planet. This often bizarre document merely expands upon principles outlined in other works such as the United States Space Command's "Vision for 2020", a 1996 brochure endorsed by a posse of U.S. generals that explains how "an ability to deny others the use of space, the fourth medium of warfare", relies on "robust negation systems and space-based strike weapons".

Let me know if I included more than is acceptable. I'll trim it down.

There's also a whole lot about Canada (Martin, Harper) considering the NMD for economic and strategic purposes, for those interested.

 

[xabre]

Let me sum all that up with the general consensus most people of reasonable intellect have already reached - 'The shit just doesn't work people'.

 

[Socreges]

Let me sum all that up with the general consensus most people of reasonable intellect have already reached - 'The shit just doesn't work people'.

Read the article. They explain that, then go beyond.

 

[Ripclawe]

Nothing new though slanted as this big horrible deal by the writer. Wired had a piece on the Air Force plans.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62358,00.html


I'm all for it, keep advancing, making sure no one gets close, the next big deal is space travel and defense.

 

[Warm Machine]

The old fricken laser system was stupid. Many of these plans have to do with the missile going into orbit. Nothing out there is going to protect a nuke being loaded onto a boat and detonated off shore of a major city. If any nuclear capable country out there wanted to use a nuke on foreign soil they could.

 

[xabre]

Other recent tests have been similarly rigged or scripted, with information about the target's flight characteristics, appearance, and altitude being supplied beforehand to those in charge of aiming the interceptors.

Never mind that a real incoming warhead would quite possibly be MIRV capable, and be equipped with inexpensive countermeasures as a defence. Even simple missiles with one warhead employing the use of such countermeasures could defeat such a missile defence system that, as the quoted piece mentions, is wholly reliant on information about the missiles position, speed and trajectory; information I hardly think enemies will be too willing to provide. And these are just single missiles, if the Chinese or Russians decide one day to rain nukes down on the US then trying to stop this with this missile defence system would be like trying to stop a downpour with a tennis racket. The whole concept of hitting a missile with a missile sucked from the start, and 20 years of technological advancement hasn’t really done much to change this (accurate) perception.

 

[Socreges]

Nothing new though slanted as this big horrible deal by the writer. Wired had a piece on the Air Force plans.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62358,00.html


I'm all for it, keep advancing, making sure no one gets close, the next big deal is space travel and defense.

The article takes a position on the matter and justifies it quite well. Please do the same. If you don't see it as a "big horrible deal", then what? Do you think that this is a good thing? That the United States remarkable attempts to secure their position in the world is only, at this moment, serving to aggravate other powerful countries? That they have plans to essentially hold the world at gunpoint to make certain that nothing goes outside of America's interest?

 

[Phoenix]

The only way it will ever work is to employ a system (like a laser or similar) that can get multiple chances at the target. The problem with missle for missle systems at that distance is that if you miss, you don't really have a whole lot of time for a second try. During the gulf war pt. 2, many patriot batteries were firing multiple warheads at a single inbound transient just to improve their chances of a kill. The more you can shoot at it, the better off you are.

The interceptor program isn't ill-conceived, its just a very very very difficult problem. Its not one that is impossible to solve (physics suggests that its doable), its just one that may take more time to sort out than we've given the problem.

 

[xabre]

"They look at this system, they look at the American expenditures, which are now $10 billion a year...and they know that it doesn't work," Hurtig explains. "And they say to themselves, 'These people are not stupid. So there must be something else they have in mind.' And the something else they have in mind is the weaponization of space and the domination of the world through the control of space."

NMD is really designed to be an offensive weapon as opposed to a means of defence. If it actually did work, the ability to deny the enemy the ability to strike back would give the US freedom to conduct unrestrained offensive military operations abroad without fear of reprisal. A very dangerous precedent and one of the reasons I am opposed to this system. The militarisation of space has long been a sought after military strategy of US, the technology used to develop this NMD system will lend itself to pursuing such goals a few decades from now.

 

[Warm Machine]

What is to stop an enemy missile from being mirror coated to refect the beam?

 

[xabre]

What is to stop an enemy missile from being mirror coated to refect the beam?

Yes, exactly what is to stop them? Impecable strategy, you're smart.

 

[Dilbert]

The interceptor program isn't ill-conceived, its just a very very very difficult problem. Its not one that is impossible to solve (physics suggests that its doable), its just one that may take more time to sort out than we've given the problem.

I think it's ill-conceived. Under what scenarios does a hostile fire a very small number of highly-damaging missiles at the U.S.? If China or a former Soviet republic get pissed off enough to start lobbing nukes at us, it isn't going to be a few of them inbound. Most countries don't have the ICBM technology to strike us at home.

I can see theater missile defense as making some sense, since some of our allies might need a shield at some point (South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). But in the event of an imminent crisis, how would we get those systems there in the first place?

 

[xabre]

I can see theater missile defense as making some sense, since some of our allies might need a shield at some point (South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). But in the event of an imminent crisis, how would we get those systems there in the first place?

Never mind the political ramifications of moving such systems into potentially volatile areas like Taiwan and South Korea. Sure fire way to spark an arms race.

 

[Crag Dweller]

For those interested, there is a good Frontline program about this at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/

 

[Loki]

NMD is really designed to be an offensive weapon as opposed to a means of defence. If it actually did work, the ability to deny the enemy the ability to strike back would give the US freedom to conduct unrestrained offensive military operations abroad without fear of reprisal.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. So now even improved defenses are "offensive weapons"? Sure, let's not protect ourselves at all, lest speciously reasoning kooks think that we're trying to make ourselves immune to reprisals in order to further our imperialistic ends and ensure our continued international hegemony. <rolleyes> I guess people see what they want to see...


I'm not suggesting that NMD is in any way feasible (technically), or even beneficial-- after all, the biggest threat to America going forward is going to be asymmetrical warfare, not attacks by whole nations. Still, your comment strikes me as absurd in its prejudice.

 

[Dilbert]

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. So now even improved defenses are "offensive weapons"? Sure, let's not protect ourselves at all, lest speciously reasoning kooks think that we're trying to make ourselves immune to reprisals in order to further our imperialistic ends and ensure our continued international hegemony. <rolleyes> I guess people see what they want to see...


I'm not suggesting that NMD is in any way feasible (technically), or even beneficial-- after all, the biggest threat to America going forward is going to be asymmetrical warfare, not attacks by whole nations. Still, your comment strikes me as absurd in its prejudice.

I don't know if his language was the most clear, but I think he makes a valid point. If your skin was made out of metal...you'd be FAR more likely to start a knife fight, knowing that it would turn out much worse for your opponent than yourself.

Put it another way -- at the height of the Cold War, if we had the guaranteed ability to destroy 99% of the Soviet ICBMs before they could strike U.S. soil, don't you think it would have been tempting to nuke the hell out of them?

Obviously, no defense can be THAT good, so in practical terms, it's not a very good argument for why a strong defense is likely to lead to offense. But I think the principle is sound. I mean, would we REALLY have invaded Iraq if their technology was comparable to ours? Hell no. The LAST thing the U.S. wants is a fair fight.

 

[Socreges]

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. So now even improved defenses are "offensive weapons"? Sure, let's not protect ourselves at all, lest speciously reasoning kooks think that we're trying to make ourselves immune to reprisals in order to further our imperialistic ends and ensure our continued international hegemony. <rolleyes> I guess people see what they want to see...

I'm not suggesting that NMD is in any way feasible (technically), or even beneficial-- after all, the biggest threat to America going forward is going to be asymmetrical warfare, not attacks by whole nations. Still, your comment strikes me as absurd in its prejudice.

I thought xabre was addressing the same thing as the article. That the NMD, as you conceded, is a fruitless venture by itself, and it's become more of a means to a mysterious offensive, rather than simply protecting the mainland.

As for imperialistic ends and continued hegemony, that is exactly what I suspect is the driving force behind "securing the homeland" in this manner. Though some people see it as security by itself in that nations such as Russia and China will potentially try to topple America.

 

[Loki]

I don't know if his language was the most clear, but I think he makes a valid point. If your skin was made out of metal...you'd be FAR more likely to start a knife fight, knowing that it would turn out much worse for your opponent than yourself.

Put it another way -- at the height of the Cold War, if we had the guaranteed ability to destroy 99% of the Soviet ICBMs before they could strike U.S. soil, don't you think it would have been tempting to nuke the hell out of them?

Obviously, no defense can be THAT good, so in practical terms, it's not a very good argument for why a strong defense is likely to lead to offense. But I think the principle is sound. I mean, would we REALLY have invaded Iraq if their technology was comparable to ours? Hell no. The LAST thing the U.S. wants is a fair fight.

I understand the point he was trying to make; as you note, there is some philosophical legitimacy to it, which I'm not dumb enough NOT to see -- I just think that his immediate ascription of nefarious motives is a bit biased. I mean, what nation doesn't desire to protect itself to a greater degree, and what nation doesn't look after its own ends? To single us out for doing so is selective reasoning, as I feel that any nation would do so if they had the technology and the funding. Further, to adopt such a view is to commit oneself to military stagnancy, since any measure-- defensive or otherwise-- can be seen as being used to advance imperialistic ends.


Now, I'm the FURTHEST thing from a military proponent, but if there's a choice between an arms race and a race to develop more effective defense systems, then I'd take the latter any day. Ideally, obviously, we'd do neither (and neither would any other nation)-- but we know that that's never going to happen, so what are our options?


Again, this is to say nothing of the efficacy or even the practicability of such a missile defense system. I just feel that making such statements as he did leads one into something of a philosophical conundrum, as I alluded to above. Obviously, if one is advocating a policy of demilitarization across the board, then at least that's consistent (however unlikely a proposition); to single us out for continued development along these lines due to mere conjecture as to our motives (though less conjectural than in years past, given our current administration's policies, but still) is a bit too prejudiced for my tastes.


I understand the point he's making, and he's actually correct, ultimately. I was more talking about how these things would play themselves out in the real world; I think you'll admit that it's unlikely that worldwide demilitarization is going to be undertaken in our near future. What to do, then? Like I said, if it's a choice between building nukes or bolstering our defenses, I'll take the latter for several reasons, not least of which is this: assuming, for a moment, that we did have all these devious ends in mind in developing these defensive measures, then for our offense in any endeavor, we'd have to be all the more reliant on manpower as opposed to improved artillery (since funding would have been diverted away from offensive weapons to defensive strategies). As we all know, it is MUCH more difficult to commit your country's men to war than it is to selectively launch a few long-range missiles (though not too difficult, I suppose, given the spurious basis on which our current mideast imbroglio rests ). Consequently, I think there'd be a tendency to be less "trigger-happy" and gung-ho about military endeavors than if you poured all that money into offensive weaponry. After all, defensive measures don't make for good talking points by former generals on Fox News-- but they sure love to talk about their Daisy Cutters.


My point is that A) military development, either offensive or defensive, will never stop (though I wish it would, at least to some extent), and B) in light of this, what can we possibly do that will not be construed as being part of our self-serving hegemonic aspirations by people such as Xabre. Seems our hands are a bit tied, no? That was the point I was trying to get at, though perhaps my wording was even less clear than his was.

 

[Dilbert]

...given the spurious basis on which our current mideast imbroglio rests.

Did you just say...imbroglio?

 

[fart]

I think it's ill-conceived. Under what scenarios does a hostile fire a very small number of highly-damaging missiles at the U.S.? If China or a former Soviet republic get pissed off enough to start lobbing nukes at us, it isn't going to be a few of them inbound. Most countries don't have the ICBM technology to strike us at home.

I can see theater missile defense as making some sense, since some of our allies might need a shield at some point (South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). But in the event of an imminent crisis, how would we get those systems there in the first place?

jinx is really hitting the nail on the head (rdrr) in a way that phoenix misses. this is not only a technological problem (yes it is an interesting problem in that way) but a social issue. 2 questions arise:

1) is this a tractable problem

2) is it worth pouring national resources into the problem?

whoever it is that pointed out that missile defense is an offensive weapon also made an extremely good point. i do believe that was the original concept behind missile defense was offensive - since superior firepower wasn't going to end the cold war, the ace in the hole was some way to invalidate all the superior firepower already out there. nowadays it's a bit of an artifact, but it's an artifact that a lot of people have a lot of power and a lot of money invested in. this makes it important because those people are set to lose a lot if it goes out of vogue. it's a bit like oil in that sense.

if you think the majority purpose of missile defense is to shield the populace though, i think maybe you're a little off. instead i would claim that the reason no one cares if it really works or not is because it doesn't matter if it ever does.

 

[Ripclawe]

The article takes a position on the matter and justifies it quite well. Please do the same. If you don't see it as a "big horrible deal", then what? Do you think that this is a good thing? That the United States remarkable attempts to secure their position in the world is only, at this moment, serving to aggravate other powerful countries? That they have plans to essentially hold the world at gunpoint to make certain that nothing goes outside of America's interest?

This is wrong how? China, Russia, even the EU is not going to say" well, if America doesn't do anything we won't either." If you are dominate you continue the domination, you do not let up.

 

[fart]

This is wrong how? China, Russia, even the EU is not going to say" well, if America doesn't do anything we won't either." If you are dominate you continue the domination, you do not let up.

yes, and that will definitely work, because change is unheard of in the world, both in theory and in practice.

 

[Loki]

Did you just say...imbroglio?

:lol

Oh stop playing dumb.


I should have said "conflagration"-- at least then you'd have had a bitch of a time finding the corresponding hot chick pic.


<looks above>

What's this? A substantial, well-reasoned post by fart? What's the world coming to. I think that's the first time in months that I've seen you offer up anything more than some quip or one-liner. A decidedly pleasant surprise. You should try it more often-- based on that post, it suits you.

 

[G4life98]

i always thought a ground based laser system or whatever directed energy weapons they have would be more effective once the tech is more developed.

i wonder if ancient armies freaked out when the sheild was first employed.

 

[Socreges]

This is wrong how? China, Russia, even the EU is not going to say" well, if America doesn't do anything we won't either." If you are dominate you continue the domination, you do not let up.

I guess we differ in our perceptions of what is excessive and unnecessary. Insofar as it will accelerate conflict, as if it's inevitable, instead of just securing America's status.

 

[Warm Machine]

Any nuclear capable country that has a domestic airline could be used as a weapon. All they need to do is load a nuke onto the airliner, have it pass whatever security no questions asked, and upon getting close to landing in whatever destination just detonate the weapon. A nuke needs not the ground to detonate from. A jet with a nuke half a mile over a city is going to do some very significant damage.

Its shit like this that make "clean" warfare defense pretty useless. If it ever comes to nuclear war anywhere in the world you can be sure that the first strike won't be launched from any silo anywhere.

I think the best defense anyone could come up with would be some kind of EMP charge. I think a nuke needs an electric current to detonate with. If the target area gets EMP'd before the weapon lands the electronics on board the weapon would be rendered useless and all you have to deal with is a 2 ton missile landing on the ground somewhere. I'm sure people would have no problem replaceing their stereos and TV's after the fact if this sort of defense was necessary.

 

[fart]

i think you'll live if i continue to use the board as a recreational outlet loki.

 

[Phoenix]

I think it's ill-conceived. Under what scenarios does a hostile fire a very small number of highly-damaging missiles at the U.S.? If China or a former Soviet republic get pissed off enough to start lobbing nukes at us, it isn't going to be a few of them inbound. Most countries don't have the ICBM technology to strike us at home.

I can see theater missile defense as making some sense, since some of our allies might need a shield at some point (South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). But in the event of an imminent crisis, how would we get those systems there in the first place?

There is absolutely nothing saying that if the NMD interceptors actually worked that we wouldn't produce them in mass quantities (that's why its not ill-conceived - the deployment can be scaled UP if necessary). In terms of getting theater missle defenses in place, ask Israel - they have a nice laser-based missile defense system sitting next to their nuclear facilities. Its far too large (fuel wise) for it to be carted around.

The airborne laser seems to lack common sense from a deployment perspective (you have to be orbitting over hostile space, looking for missiles), but who knows.

 

[Phoenix]

jinx is really hitting the nail on the head (rdrr) in a way that phoenix misses. this is not only a technological problem (yes it is an interesting problem in that way) but a social issue. 2 questions arise:

1) is this a tractable problem

2) is it worth pouring national resources into the problem?

It is an easy problem to solve or manage (def. tractable)? Obviously not. Firing a cruise missile halfway around the world and floating it through a window wasn't the easiest thing in the world to do either. People debated whether or not it was worth pursuing when we had ass loads of bombers that could do the same job without the additional burdon. That didn't mean that it wasn't worth doing, even after the years and years and years it took to build the guidance systems to accomplish.

So yes, I think that its worth doing and I hope they do it well so that we can learn how to do that job and over time other countries will learn how to do that job and eventually ICBMs won't be as big an issue.

 

[Loki]

i think you'll live if i continue to use the board as a recreational outlet loki.

Bah!

substantial fart > recreational fart


But hey, I guess we all gotta do what we gotta do.

 

[fart]

It is an easy problem to solve or manage (def. tractable)? Obviously not. Firing a cruise missile halfway around the world and floating it through a window wasn't the easiest thing in the world to do either. People debated whether or not it was worth pursuing when we had ass loads of bombers that could do the same job without the additional burdon. That didn't mean that it wasn't worth doing, even after the years and years and years it took to build the guidance systems to accomplish.

So yes, I think that its worth doing and I hope they do it well so that we can learn how to do that job and over time other countries will learn how to do that job and eventually ICBMs won't be as big an issue.

i know you work(ed) in defense phoenix, so i'll just say that i think you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

[retardboy]

Heh, my dad works on the missle defense program an actually has classified clearance. He originally always believed that it didn't work worth crap, but now when I ask him he says its looking more positive. Haha whatever... It pays the bills. W in '04!

 

[Dilbert]

So yes, I think that its worth doing and I hope they do it well so that we can learn how to do that job and over time other countries will learn how to do that job and eventually ICBMs won't be as big an issue.

I guess I still don't understand why ICBMs are a "big" issue. There aren't many countries who can threaten us with them...and if the world situation gets to the point where they ARE threatening us, we have much bigger issues than missile defense. I think it makes far more sense for the money being spent on NMD to be allocated to other national defense projects which would make FAR more of a difference in protecting our citizens at home. (For example -- how are those commerical airline defenses coming along?)

 

[xabre]

I mean, what nation doesn't desire to protect itself to a greater degree, and what nation doesn't look after its own ends? To single us out for doing so is selective reasoning, as I feel that any nation would do so if they had the technology and the funding.

The point is you ARE doing so, that is developing a defence system designed to protect against any potential foreign threats (say China or Russia) which sounds quite legitimatise against the 'perceived' threats out there, but at the same time allowing you the ability to project power without fear of reprisal. And that would obviously be a most welcome capability, to say that 'we don't have to worry about a nuclear deterrent, because we can hide behind our shield'. Thus the defensive shield becomes an offensive weapon, gone are the days of MAD or the ability of your opponents to check and balance your power, you are free, with minimal limits bar political or moral, to do practically what the fuck you please. And the fact is that placing such power in the hands of one nation WOULD lead to much more bold and aggressive attitudes toward other countries and one only needs to take a history lesson and see this repeated over and over in the past.

This is really a commentary on the human condition itself as opposed to this claim of 'only the US will do such things' bias as you say. History tells as that power inevitably corrupts, and while I'll quite happily say that the US administration is corrupt and has been for years, make no mistake that ANY nation with such a capability would use its advantage to its own imperialistic ends, no doubt about it. Simply put, do you want a world with one invincible power with the ability to do as it pleases running rampant and swatting who and whatever it doesn't like? Or do you want a world where multiple countries can freely act as a means of natural balance and check excessive grabs of power by each other?

It's understandable that nations (not just the US) will want this power, and they'll justify it as a method of defence against a terrible and demonic enemy, but that doesn't mean they should have such power, and anyone seeking such power should be opposed on the same basis that we oppose monopolies in business. Essentially, concentrating too much power in the hands of one is detrimental to all others.

 

[Socreges]

**applause for xabre**

And now I can't help but expect a terribly long response from Loki that will only serve to complicate matters.

 

[G4life98]

The point is you ARE doing so, that is developing a defence system designed to protect against any potential foreign threats (say China or Russia) which sounds quite legitimatise against the 'perceived' threats out there, but at the same time allowing you the ability to project power without fear of reprisal. And that would obviously be a most welcome capability, to say that 'we don't have to worry about a nuclear deterrent, because we can hide behind our shield'. Thus the defensive shield becomes an offensive weapon, gone are the days of MAD or the ability of your opponents to check and balance your power, you are free, with minimal limits bar political or moral, to do practically what the fuck you please. And the fact is that placing such power in the hands of one nation WOULD lead to much more bold and aggressive attitudes toward other countries and one only needs to take a history lesson and see this repeated over and over in the past.

This is really a commentary on the human condition itself as opposed to this claim of 'only the US will do such things' bias as you say. History tells as that power inevitably corrupts, and while I'll quite happily say that the US administration is corrupt and has been for years, make no mistake that ANY nation with such a capability would use its advantage to its own imperialistic ends, no doubt about it. Simply put, do you want a world with one invincible power with the ability to do as it pleases running rampant and swatting who and whatever it doesn't like? Or do you want a world where multiple countries can freely act as a means of natural balance and check excessive grabs of power by each other?

It's understandable that nations (not just the US) will want this power, and they'll justify it as a method of defence against a terrible and demonic enemy, but that doesn't mean they should have such power, and anyone seeking such power should be opposed on the same basis that we oppose monopolies in business. Essentially, concentrating too much power in the hands of one is detrimental to all others.

Anti-aircraft weapons, anti-tank weapons, body armor, depth charges

There has has always been a move and counter-move mentality when it comes military tech both offensive and defensive and it is no different with ICBM's. Its about time we found a viable countermeasure instead of just building more nukes and going with the genius doctrine of MAD. Whenever the nmd is actually finished and deployed, some nation will figure out a way to counter it..

No defensive or offensive device is 100% or cant be countered. War is not free and no matter how good the defence of the homeland is...it would be a pratical imposibility to wage war with impunity.

It has always been weird to me that people look at nmd and go crazy? but ignore all our other military projects, both offensive and defensive?

the developments in ucav alone should be worrisome...if people are so worried about countries being able to attack without consequences.

 

[Loki]

No Socreges, actually I'll keep it short and sweet, just for you.


I'd simply advise him to read my long post above and then explain how he would go about putting an end to increased militarization across the globe. In a perfect world, I think it's quite easy for us to agree that militarization in any sense, be it defensive or offensive, would be proscribed by either law or custom. My point is that it's never going to happen, the same way that a communist utopia will never happen (to use a similarly unattainable goal), and so it's folly, in a sense, to argue on behalf of these ideals when there's not the slightest chance of their realization. And it's not just that there's no chance of it coming to fruition because people all believe that "it will never happen", but rather because certain aspects of human relations and society are intrinsic to our nature-- indeed, are outgrowths of the unalterable fiber of our constitution as human beings. We can only work within the confines of human nature, however flawed; we can never hope to surmount these barriers-- these settled proclivities and predilections-- and become some purely idealistic, altruistic beings. It's just not gonna happen, and that's coming from as idealistic a person as you're going to find (yes, me ).


As a fellow idealist, I realized long ago that part of not going insane over the state of affairs in the world is to realize these very facts and realities that I speak of and accept them, even as you strive to effect change within the paradigm it restricts you to. Anyway, to bring this back to the topic at hand, my point is that you're never going to change this aspect of our social order (military development)-- it's been going on since time immemorial and will go on long after we're all dead and gone. In light of that, how can you justly criticize one nation for making strides (or at least trying to make strides) with its defensive programs when every other country with the means to do so is doing likewise, and those without the means would do so in a heartbeat if they had them. Point being that it does no good to posit some treacherous ulterior motive on our part when every other country is doing the same thing to one degree or another, be it with defensive measures, or armaments, or what have you.


My argument runs like so:

1) Increased militarization is inevitable, even if there's not an ostensible "arms race" as there was in the 70's and 80's; even if increased militarization is avoidable, global demilitarization is largely a pipe dream, as much as we might wish otherwise.


2) As a result, to single out one nation for condemnation on the basis of its military expenditures is to basically admit your bias against that country, justified or not; to ascribe ulterior motives to that militarization (beyond the common defense) is to engage in selective reasoning in a sense, because those same motives can be imputed to anybody.


3) In addition, such a rationale would pretty much doom a nation to military stagnancy if they are to allay the concerns of their critics, whether the initial criticism (re: imperialism) is valid or not. Any military action or development, under this worldview, can be seen as advancing the imperial agenda. Now I ask you: is this a fair standard to hold a nation to when every other nation will go about their business just as before, building arms and implementing defensive strategies? Is it a tenable and pragmatic system that you're implicitly espousing? I'd say that no, it is not.


In deference to your idealism, however (because like I said, I share much of it), allow me to state that I believe a much more reasonable stance would be to limit the increase in military buildup in all spheres via non-proliferation pacts and the like, while concomitantly making the standard of proof or threat for the use of our military apparatus much higher than it curently is, so that it may not be thrown around wantonly and used to further the interests of a shadowy elite; ideally, the use of martial power should be limited strictly to the immediate defense of the populace-- I say we should strive towards the implementation of these more rigorous standards for the application of our military might around the globe, because it's certainly much more doable than a plan that just expects a particular nation to twiddle their thumbs while the greater portion of the world carries on as usual around them with no regard for the good sense that impelled the abstaining nation to cut down its military development. Viewed in such a way, increased, clearly-defined standards in the application of our martial power seems to be a much fairer, more consistent, and more practicable solution to the issues that seem to be troubling you (our supposed hegemonic aspirations). Will any of this ever be done? Unlikely. But neither will anything you've proposed, so this is just idle chit-chat on our part. In the interests of discussion, however, I wanted to share my beliefs along these lines.


Please note that this post has nothing at all to do with the NMD, nor even with whether or not you personally have good reasons to believe that we desire to further some imperialistic agenda via increased militarization (in this case NMD)-- you may very well have legitimate reasons for believing what you do, and, given some of the incongruous (in terms of our purportedly desired "ends" and the means we've employed in going about obtaining them) and spuriously justified actions of the present administration in this country, I'd be inclined to agree to a certain extent. This is not what I take issue with; I hope you can see precisely what I'm saying with this post.


Btw, sorry Socreges, that didn't work out so well. 5K words seems to be the floor for my posts. The ceiling? Let's not find out, shall we?

 

[videogamer]

This is wrong how? China, Russia, even the EU is not going to say" well, if America doesn't do anything we won't either." If you are dominate you continue the domination, you do not let up.

IMO, it's better to have several competing countries/groups vying for dominance. When one country is too powerful, then the other countries will be less able to counter that dominance. Although the US is preoccupied with fighting the amorphous blob "terrorism", there is still no true counterweight(s). If the US infringes on other nations' territories or trade areas, who will stop it? Sadly, the world is truly lacking a country that can and will act as a counterweight to US domination.