Anti-Ballistic Missile Weapons? 356
Rolan asks: "With the recent development of Anti-balistic Missile Technology, and it's obvious ability to be expanded to an Anti-Satelite/Spacecraft Weapon, I've begun to wonder what exactly happend to the treaties we made reguarding these weapons. Specificially I know that, during the cold war, we made treaties with the USSR that prohibit both parties from developing such weapons. Has the disolving of the USSR Nullified/Voided these treaties, or have we simply decided to froget them? Or is there actually a loop hole that alows these weapons? "
US -has- functional anti missle devices deployed (Score:2)
Anti missle devices don't have any point for full scale nuclear wars (you have too many targets in too many places and too little accuracy; the earth is climate toast at that point). However they could be useful in stopping a single rogue or errant launch. The problem being since the device doesn't exist, neither does the thing the non existent device didn't shoot at so nobody could be told because obviously nothing happened to no missle by no friggin' laser.
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:2)
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:2)
The folks at Lockheed Martin [lmco.com] are working on something called the Airborne Laser [airbornelaser.com]. It uses a very intense beam of light to shoot down missiles from inside a 747. It has a range of somewhere around 400 km, I believe.
Very, very cool stuff.
---
chahast at pangaea dot dhs dot org
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:2)
US Government doesn't care (Score:2)
Contracts Are Still Binding ... (Score:2)
Really? So who's backing my confederate $$$ today? (Score:2)
Sorry but when governments go, they're gone- along with any promises they made. The new gov't might say they'll carry out the old agreements, but that's by their own graciousness, and they're by no means bound to those old agreements.
BTW, I've got some DIVX discs that I PAID to have permanently enabled. I've got my contract! It's valid forever right? With whoever takes over the DIVX consortium or buys up the pieces right?
Uh huh. Yah whatever.
Treaties (Score:2)
The SALT-II agreements were never ratified by Congress (and thus, have no legal standing), but they have been honored by both sides.
Technically, there was no 'fall' of the USSR. They simplly modified their form of government. So all the previous agreements are still in force.
I'm not particularly concerned by the Russian outcry. During the Cold War, they would always insist on banning nuclear testing after they had finished their tests. They're probably just concerned that we're ahead.
In all of these discussions it helps to remember a simple historical fact. At one time, the United Sates was the only nuclear power in the world. This power put us in a unique position to dictate a new world order. We chose not to.
Who do you serve? Who do you trust?
Re:Treaties (Score:2)
Re:Treaties (Score:2)
Re:6 Months Notice??? (Score:2)
--
cruise missiles (Score:2)
--
Re:Treaties (Score:2)
If a politions starts telling the horde (as in people... unfathomable millions of them...) that the government just screwed something up, well, then that politician wouldn't be doing his job.
The purpose of the government is to get people to believe that the purpose of the government is righteos and just. That they exist for the people, that their entire intention is to help YOU, and try to both pass off all of their actions as this and create other actions to show YOU that they are doing this.
And then someone in the back says, "But we're in a Democracy! We ARE the governemnt." Bullshit. All the President/Congress/Court can do is change the preferences. They clean up. Dont ask me whos in charge. I dont know whos in charge. Most likely nobody. Only one person, nobody, could control something so riduculous and frivolous as a government such as ours.
So who is in charge? Most likely a priciple. Some guideline that is subconsiosly ingrained into politicians so that they believe that they are serving their country by appeasing populaces with laws that support the majority morals and wars that defend all that the US represents.
Communism? Baaaaad. Why? Because there has to be an enemy. Serbia? Baaaaad. Why? Because there has to be an enemy. Drugs? Baaaaaad. Why? Because there has to be an enemy.
So the question begs, "What happened to our Anti-Ballistic Missle Weapons treaties?" Who knows? Who cares? Obviously not the media or government. Not our enemies, not space aliens, not the Jews, not the Mafia. Who cares? People. Who cares about people? I dont know.
first event is not inconsistent with a meteor. (Score:2)
A meteor's observed speed depends on it's speed relative to the earth. If it is travelling at a slightly different speed, and is being overtaken, or is overtaking, the earth, in a similar orbit, a very horizontal, "slow" flight path could be observed.
The explosion that is described seems consistent with something similar to the Tunguska event.
Re:Anti Satellite Weapons (Score:2)
Yeah, but LEO is where most of the spy satellites are.
Of course, you're not going to pick off some of the most important birds with that missle, because they're in Geosync.
What you'd need is a really big laser. They'd be easy to hit because they dont' move relative to the ground.
The arms race continues. (Score:2)
1 - It's very difficult to make a good anti-missle missle (or device - remember the plan for the giant accelerator in Texas?) since the Soviets could easily make missles that are tough, reflective and travel in erratic paths.
2 - Any SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) device that actually worked after a couple rounds of Soviet improvements i.e. reactions to US SDI devices would be much better offensive weapons than defensive missile killers.
Many speculate that this is why the Soviets were willing to agree to a treaty. Regan had a perfect situation - plenty of money for "defense" and a population mostly in support of _this_ defense program.
I don't happen to think that the tests that are going on right now are nearly as significant as what went on in the '80s but I do think that most of these devices easily play a dual role. They happen to be very fast, powerful and precise weapons and the general public doesn't mind testing them or spending money on them. This is what pisses off the Russians.
Who should be the second party to the START treaties now that there is no USSR? The Russian Moffia? They are more organized than anyone else...
Re:US -has- functional anti missle devices deploye (Score:2)
Re:ABM treaty clarification [and an amusing detail (Score:2)
The North Dakota site is located in Nokoma, which is a bit northwest of Grand Forks. The site was open for exactly 1 day, then shut down due to the treaty. It's command center is a distinctive pyramid shaped building rising up on a notably flat prairie, surrounded by a ghost town, it's inards being basically ruined due to years of flooding and neglect.
Russia == inheritor of USSR (Score:2)
I am not aware of a treaty signed with the new Russian Republic that brings over all treaties that we have signed although I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have slipped such a thing in without going to the Senate for ratification.
You aren't aware of much, then. First of all, just because a government changes, don't imagine that their obligations change. The Russian Federation is the inheritor of all the obligations of the USSR, including monetary debt, trade agreements, extradition treaties, and yes, arms treaties. Your silly kneejerk suspicions aside, Clinton can't just sign a new treaty with the Russians; it would have no legal force without Senate ratification (read your Constitution).
I know that lots of the START treaty that we've subsequently signed was continued from negotiations with the USSR but those are new treaties for all intents and purposes.
And, thanks to inviting Poland into NATO, the Russian Duma did not ratify START II. Therefore it has no force as a treaty. The Clinton and Yeltsin administrations are both observing it, as a matter of polite cooperation, but either side could abrogate it at any time.
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing. That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead.
As noted, no such magical "continuance" treaty is needed; the treaty would be considered to be in force until a new agreement is reached. The question of making it a general non-proliferation treaty came up at renewal time in 1993 and is part of the current tiff. It may be effectively dead, but there is still great weight in being the country to first break a treaty.
If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
I consider a much more likely scenario to be a regional nuclear conflict, such as Pakistan-India. In any case, whether we deploy an ABM system or not, it's doubtful that it could make "delivery of warheads unlikely". Even if it were an airtight missile defense (and predecessors like the Patriot system don't inspire confidence), the enemy could simply choose another delivery method, such as a Ryder truck.
I don't consider this ABM system worth unilaterally pulling out of existing agreements, especially when it might lead to other negative consequences, like the Russians going back to targeting American cities and going on a hairtrigger nuke alert. What we really need is to find a way (START II would have been one way) to start dismantling nukes so that there aren't as many lying around Russia to steal. That should be our ultimate real world goal. In fact, this is approximately what the Clinton administration is proposing -- helping the Russians finish that Siberian radar facility, for instance.
----
Lake Effect [wwa.com], a weblog
Russia == inheritor of USSR (Score:2)
I am not aware of a treaty signed with the new Russian Republic that brings over all treaties that we have signed although I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have slipped such a thing in without going to the Senate for ratification.
You aren't aware of much, then. First of all, just because a government changes, don't imagine that their obligations change. The Russian Federation is the inheritor of all the obligations of the USSR, including monetary debt, trade agreements, extradition treaties, and yes, arms treaties. Your silly kneejerk suspicions aside, Clinton can't just sign a new treaty with the Russians; it would have no legal force without Senate ratification (read your Constitution).
I know that lots of the START treaty that we've subsequently signed was continued from negotiations with the USSR but those are new treaties for all intents and purposes.
And, thanks to inviting Poland into NATO, the Russian Duma did not ratify START II. Therefore it has no force as a treaty. The Clinton and Yeltsin administrations are both observing parts of it, as a matter of polite cooperation, but either side could abrogate it at any time.
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing. That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead.
As noted, no such magical "continuance" treaty is needed; the treaty would be considered to be in force until a new agreement is reached. The question of making it a general non-proliferation treaty came up at renewal time in 1993 and is part of the current tiff. It may be effectively dead, but there is still great weight in being the country to first break a treaty.
If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
I consider a much more likely scenario to be a regional nuclear conflict, such as Pakistan-India. In any case, whether we deploy an ABM system or not, it's doubtful that it could make "delivery of warheads unlikely". Even if it were an airtight missile defense (and predecessors like the Patriot system don't inspire confidence), the enemy could simply choose another delivery method, such as a Ryder truck.
I don't consider this ABM system worth unilaterally pulling out of existing agreements, especially when it might lead to other negative consequences, like the Russians going back to targeting American cities and going on a hairtrigger nuke alert. What we really need is to find a way (START II would have been one way) to start dismantling nukes so that there aren't as many lying around Russia to steal. That should be our ultimate real world goal. In fact, this is approximately what the Clinton administration is proposing -- helping the Russians finish that Siberian radar facility, for instance.
----
Lake Effect [wwa.com], a weblog
Could we ./-effect the govt? (Score:2)
Swedish scientist behind SDI weapon (Score:2)
A Swedish scientist, Erik Witalis, designed a weapon that he believes is used in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program. It shoots plasma pellets which starts a small nuclear fusion reaction when it hits the target missile.
Re:Treaties (Score:2)
Your pessimism is, however, unfounded. The government does as it will because you, and every other ironic cynical fuck in this nation parroting your sentiment are too lazy and ignorant to get up off your collective asses and stop the government from doing so.
The government, in actuality, is exercising exactly the majority will of the people -- unfortunately the will is apathetic and undirected. This is permission for the government to do whatever IT deems best. You got a complaint about how things are run? Fix them. I am.
Re:US Government doesn't care (Score:2)
---
Re:[Anti] Weapon Development (Score:2)
Does anyone remember the AK47 ban? The law said guns could not be sold as AK47s. With that, along came the AK48s and the AK57s. In any law, there is a loophole. In this case, a loophole is defined as any action which violates the spirit of the law and not the wording.
The US does this and continues to do this everyday. I don't see how this nation could function if the government didn't exploit holes in the law governing themselves.
But, the problem is not the international laws we have made, the problem is that the US is intent on playing big-brother/mediator/faux protagonist in everything it does. I think this stems from the false notion that the US is the last great super-power. The truth is that countries govern themselves well or they fall to someone who does it better.
So, dear Slashdotter, the US in doing dastardly deeds, indefinitly, and there's nothing you can do about it. Sorry.
Re:Really? So who's backing my confederate $$$ tod (Score:2)
BTW, I've got some DIVX discs that I PAID to have permanently enabled. I've got my contract! It's valid forever right? With whoever takes over the DIVX consortium or buys up the pieces right?
I don't know, man...that last part kind of throws your sanity into question...
Re:Treaties made concerned nuclear weapons (Score:2)
The Scud was developed AS a nuclear missle. Until it hits, you can't tell what warhead has been installed. You won't see anything special from it's flight profile.
Uh, no. The Scud is little more than an upgraded V-2. It even uses carbon vanes for thrust vectoring. They were originally deployed by the Soviet army in the early 50s. Any nuclear weapon a modern Scud-using state could get their hands on would almost certainly be much too heavy for the scud to lift.
Re:I assume this is about orbital weapons treaties (Score:2)
Polyus (I think that's right) was a Soviet orbital weapons platform they did indeed launch in the 1980s. Reportedly the booster carrying it up malfunctioned and it never reached orbit, but still, they tried breaking the treaty first.
The story I've heard is that the Polyus station's final stage was mounted at the very top of the booster stack (one of the few Energya launches) above the Polyus itself, so the whole station had to perform a 180 degree turn before this final stage ignited. This turn did not take place, so when the station figured out something was wrong (ie: it wasn't going to make orbit) it's self-destruct system went off.
Incedently, this was not the only soviet space station to have weapons on board. More then one Salyut station was fitted with a large canon. I don't know if any were ever fired, however.
Re:ABM treaty vis a vis The US and Russia (Score:2)
In general, I agree with your post. However, one of the things that makes MAD truly mad is the possibility that some madman might get control of one nation or the other.
A. Hitler would have undoubtedly released a nuclear barrage to go along with his "wagnerian" downfall, had he been able to do so. Even if only a few nations have the toys, what's to assue us that one of the nations won't come under the absolute control of a similarly uninhibited loonie?
I reject the unilateral abrogation of treaties, but something has to be done about phasing out MAD.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Porous borders... (Score:2)
The only defense is not peace. Peace is a wonderful, garguantuan step, but world-wide peace will never stop acts of terror and hate. There are simply too many people in this world with differing viewpoints. Most are valid - the problem comes when people fail to see the other side's view, and will break the rules of society (i.e., violence) to attempt to bring about the change. But that's another topic for another story...
And to supplement the post a bit:
After making the post, several others have replied that know far more in the way of details regarding the specifics of the treaties than I. The general consensus to Rolan's question is that yes, treaties exist that ban ABM weapons, but the Clinton Administration is currently negiotiating to change/withdraw from those. So in effect, they didn't care when the system was developed, but now that it exists, they're making a token effort.
Oh please... (Score:2)
You should know that Russia, although totally
wasted, can still pack a punch.
What is the point of being victorious when
40% of your population is killed?
Besides, the US isn't excactly angels.
The united states is just about the only regime
left in the West, that _still_ has the death-penalty. The US violates an enormous amount
of human-rights every year, and still thinks of
itself as a "free country".
Re:More grist for the military industrial complex (Score:2)
(1) If you were the president would you take a 50% chance that a major American city would be nuked more seriously than having one far-off dictator swallowing up another one? If you lived in a city and found out that the president took this risk with the life of you and your family, what would you think of him, even if you "lucked out"? What would happen if the people of the US found out there was a credible nuclear threat against a major US city coming from this guy, even if it had a 10% chance of succeeding?
(2) If I were the said dictator, I'd quietly slip the nuke onto a container, blow it up in port at NYC, then run my invasion while the US was totally absorbed with rescue efforts.
(3) Its plain stupid to even talk about defending against rogue states without a vigorous program to provide serious economic assistance to Russian nuclear experts. The current efforts are a total joke and should be a scandal.
Just for kicks, imagine taking the money you'd spend on ABM, give every Russian nuclear specialist a pension that allows him to retire in incredibly lavish luxury. Which option gets you the most improved security for the buck?
It should be clear this isn't about national security. It's about political posturing and corporate welfare.
Are'nt we overlooking something? (Score:2)
US Russia relations regarding missles (Score:2)
The USSR does not want us to develop anti-ballistic missle technology. They consider it a violation of the treaty. However, we want to do it to "protect ourselves from rogue nations" such as North Korea, India, etc... which are currently developing ballistic missles. The USSR does doesn't care, and wants the treaties to stay in effect, but we are developing this technology anyway.
So, what's happening now is the USSR is pissed off at us, and probably doesn't have the funds to develop their own anti-missle defense system, even though we are trying to convince them that everything is okay and they should develop one to protect themselves against these "rogue nations". They see it as a threat because now they can't attack the US as easily. So they are threatening to develop better missles that we can't defend against.
This is pretty serious -- it's a little known fact that the USSR actually has the capacity to toally decimate our country, and still survive. They have an extensive network of underground nuclear shelters in their country.
Anyway, rant mode off. I am getting tired of typing this as I am in "lynx" right now. =)
Re:Treaties ARE still in effect. (Score:2)
I want to add that the necessity here is due to a variety of issues. I personally do not think that a nation state will openly attack the US anytime soon. As you stated one boomer could give _anyone_ a very bad day. But a terroist attach (probably state sponsered, but not openly) on the US with a CBN weapon in the future is possible.
Ignoring for the moment that the best delivery of a terrorist weapon would probably be a boat with a faked manafest (we are talking terror, not maximum yield). ABM provide a _mental_ shield for our population and politicians.
The problem is with our recently bizarre foreign relations. If I were a terrorist I would seriously doubt the US's resolve to respond with nuclear weapons given CBN attack. I personally don't know what the proper response would be.
Given the situation where a (most certainly state sponsered) terrorist attach on the US with a CBN weapon occured. Our response would most certainly not be immediate. The fog and confusion during and immediately following the attack would prevent any reasoned response (and I hope we are smart enough to avoid an unreasoned response).
Now image the moral delema of the country. One major population center has suffered significant casulties. The nations ire is at a near all time high. The responsible organization is eventually (say as quickly as a week). Now what to do...
Premeditated murder of millions of innocent people to maintain MAD?
Let it go?
I don't have the answers, but I can see us spending a lot of money on ABM to make this (however slightly) less likely to happen in the future.
My name is not spam, it's patrick
Really smart move...NOT! (Score:2)
National Missile Defence "A Bad Idea" (Score:2)
NP
The risks of smuggled nukes (Score:2)
Who knows, maybe the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade was a hidden message to China that we can nail any smuggled nukes any time we want, and all the other fuss over it is just posturing. Besides, think of the amazing propaganda value of being able to parade a captured Chinese nuke in front of the UN. If we had that the executive would have an absolutely free hand in dealing with China, beginning with a complete trade blockade through expulsion from the UN up to and including a nuclear strike on Beijing. The price of that would be too high for China to pay, so you can be fairly sure they are keeping their bombs safely on their own soil. And Pyongyang... Kim Jong Il may be crazy, but he's not suicidal.
This threat sounds a lot worse at first blush than it appears to be after careful analysis.
--
Re:Scientific American article (Score:2)
SciAm has been caught at this before; consider the notorious article by Kosta Tsipis (?) some years ago about space-based antimissile lasers where there was an error of 10^4 (yes, a factor of 10,000) in the calculations regarding the system capacity required. The article was published without correction (or maybe even checking) by the editors, and the letter correcting the errors was given nowhere near the prominence of the article itself.
If disarmament is a good idea on the numbers, let the numbers do the talking. Using fraudulent numbers to push an agenda does not serve us; suppose that some aggressor saw through the fraudulent numbers, built a defense system based on the realities instead of the perceptions, and then hid behind its shield to blast us with impunity? What if we ignored this possibility because "it can't be done"? We'd pay an awful price. And that's why the propagandizing of Scientific American should be roundly condemned.
--
Re:Scientific American article (Score:2)
This is even more true of chemical and biological agents. If you spilled these above the atmosphere, they'd be cooked by the heat of re-entry. Anything that survived that would be left to drift down from very high in the stratosphere, where solar UV tears molecules apart. While the shell of the vehicle would very likely harbor some dangerous stuff, it would be off-target and far less likely to cause serious damage. In short, being able to damage or destroy a warhead before it re-enters eliminates most of the threat it represents.
--
Re:[Anti] Weapon Development (Score:2)
PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.
One point consistently missed by the people who keep banging on the ABM treaty is that this isn't a two-superpower world any more. The USSR is gone, the Russians have no stomach for imperialism in Europe (they have their hands full with their own former SSR's), and our threats now include ideological (China, N. Korea), religious (Iran, maybe someday Pakistan) and personality-cult (Libya, Iraq) nation-states. It's never been easier to go nuclear, and we can't go on pretending that the only credible threat is HQed in Moscow.
--
Missile Technology Transfer (Score:2)
Anti-ballistic missiles a waste of time? (Score:2)
It is much easier to develop decoys etc. than means to shoot them all down, or identify the real warheads. And if it can be made to work, (unlikely) it is very dangerous to world stability, as it means a nuclear war is winnable . This basically breaks the mutually assured distruction which stopped the cold war from heating up.
Treaties ? What are they ? (Score:2)
Re:Self-centeredness. (Score:2)
millitary base in the middle of Australia. However you will
not even help a country that has been fighting along side
you since WWII, and very strongly in Vietnam (1960 Quote
from Australian PM Harold Halt; All the was with LBJ.)
Yes, when Australia becomes a primary force in
peacekeeping in East Timor, the US has nothing to do with
it. Why? Because of their arrogance, and that they are only
looking out for number 1; themselves.
WWII- Revenge
Vietnam- To keep capitalism powerful
Golf- To keep oil for the US price down
Kosovo- To stop an upcoming power
All of these event were to lok out for number 1. Australia
has been involved with al of these situations, yet only
one of them directly affected us. Why? Because we don't
have the wealth or the power of the US, but we have a
little wealth and a little power, but not all of it goes into self
interest.
There is a greater difference between "our country" and
"your country" then dollars and cents. Our country actually
cares for others then itself.
Re:Treaties - One Little Erro (Score:2)
Re:Are'nt we overlooking something? (Score:2)
Re:I assume this is about orbital weapons treaties (Score:2)
Remember, the AC-33 is not a every effective ABM. I belive the toss time [the time for a nuke to hit US] is anywhere from 3 minutes [Typhoon off coast] to ~20 to 30 for SS-18's or so from Ground Silos. In that time, they have to take off, fly to area [the AC-33 have a limited range for its laser] and shot.
Re:Anti Satellite Weapons (Score:2)
The way this works is that when the satellite is approximately overhead, the F-15 Afterburns to 50,000 to 55,000 feet and the Missile fires.
The missile had a lot of limitation:
1] The Satellite has to be within a very narrow angle off the launch point or it will not hit [it didn't have much manoverbility]
2] It only goes up to near where the Space Shuttle Goes, near LEO [Low EarthOrbit] it really didn't have gas to go higher
Re:Turn about is fair play. (Score:2)
Hhh, lets see.
1] The Americans Conducted an ILLEGAL blockade of an Island [Cuba]. Why? Soviets was gonna put ICBM's there? Illegal you say? It was legal for the Soviets to puke Nukes there, but not legal for Americans to blockade it. Assuming it did violate the Non-Profilateration Treaty [The Cuban Missile Crisis was before the Treaty Anyway], then the American IRBM [InterMediate Range Ballstic Missiles] in Turkey sure heck did first.
2] Americans pretty much handed Nuclear Weapon Designed Plans to Isreal despite the NPT which was signed before then.
3] Kosovo. Do I even have to go on? Illegally Delcaring war on another country, and don't even give the NATO bullshit. NATO cannot attack another country legally [or wait, yeah they can, remember? US Controls NATO].
4] Ratification of START II. The START II treaty was signed by both US and USSR, the US Senate never ratified it.
5] The F-15 ASAT Weapon. The Americans called it Anti-Satellite but it is technically an ABM weapon [although a crappy one at that]
Seriously, Americans have never obey a treaty unless its to their advantage
Re:Treaties (Score:2)
Russia and its stockpikle (Score:2)
You've all Missed a BIG POINT (Score:3)
Ask Native Americans about Treaties... (Score:3)
Americans are the "good guys"??? (Score:3)
While you're at it, go ask the Russians who let their economy be a tinker-toy for Harvard economists who broke it wide open and then didn't bother cleaning up the mess...
After that, ask the people who live in the Bikini Atoll, who were nuked without warning during the "Mike" atomic tests, if America is "good"...
Maybe if you have some spare time you can ask American GIs from the Gulf War, who were forced to swallow "anti nerve gas" pills the Pentagon knew, based on over 30 reports were very harmful, if America is "good"...
And lastly, ask the ghosts of Ro Gun Ri if America is "good"....convinced yet????
M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) (Score:3)
In *Practice* - For those of us in So. Cal. , watching the recent exo-atmospheric a-missile test was *really* cool - I can't beleive just how much that thing lit up the sky when it hit the target
ABM system no defense agsint proliferation (Score:3)
Those parties who would purchase such material, notably nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea, could easily use more effective measures for using such material in the United States.
The United States has extremely porous borders. It is not impossible that a fission device could be brought into the United States and used as part of a terrorist operation. Such an attack would certainly be more crippling, as it would not be obvious who to blame (the historical dilemma of terrorism).
Even more likely in the 21st century, is a biological attack using any number of extremely dangrous materials easily available.
The only defense is peace. I know that sounds trite, but really, there is no feasible technological defense to the various offensive measures an opponent could employ.
Turn about is fair play. (Score:3)
Well, the Beaurocrats in Washington have discovered that you cant trust Russia (or China, or Saddamn, or blah) to play fair.
Frankly, I dont like Weapons of Mass Destruction anymore than the next person, but the reality is that America has to look out for itself. Most of the other nations in the world resent the U.S. (if not hating it outright) and would go to any lengths to see our downfall. Even by signing phoney treatise and peace initiatives and whatnot in order to buy 'em enough time to stock up thier arsenal enough to do some real damage.
Thats the reality of how the world works. I would rather be on the winning end.
I dont trust any other nations promises of "reducing thier stockpiles". I never have and never will.
In world politics, its every nation for itself. Always has been, and regardless of what weve been told, it always will be. Once the U.S. is gone, the world nations will turn on each other, just like jackals in the desert.
Anyways...my two cents worth.
Schizznick
No Longer In Force (Score:3)
Re:Scientific American article (Score:3)
Disarmament can be good or bad, it depends on the circumstances. Disarmament is not a panacea. The naval disarmament treaties of the 1930s did not stop World War II.
I don't regard nuclear disarmament as a worthy goal, in and of itself. Nuclear weapons often serve useful purposes. They can deter conventional war, the use of biological and chemical weapons, and provide a cost effective defense.
Scientific American has been very one-sided in the articles that they have published. That is their right but people should be aware of their bias.
Re:nucler test ban treaty (Score:3)
Additionally, the treaty isn't being renewed because its never been enforced. Clinton signed it early on knowing full well that the Republican Senate would not ratify it. I presume he was hoping that his party would get control of the Senate in the meantime.
In summary, the treaty's never been enforced cause we've never ratified it and it has nothing to do with "StarWars".
Clinton is attempting to re-negotiate (Score:3)
CNN/Time [cnn.com] has this story from about a month ago mentioning that the US is attempting to work with the Russians on this.
My guess is, in the long run, Russia will have to bend on this, as the country's in such a mess, that it hasn't the will to fight over this. When the economy, the corruption, the basic conventional defense, Chechnya, Dagestan, and such are going on domestically, foreign policy will take a back seat. Especially with the first presidential election without Yeltsin running coming up.
[Anti] Weapon Development (Score:3)
Well the answer is pretty simple. Obviously, they don't stop. Peacetime is only a padding between wartimes and the best way to make sure your enemy doesn't defeat you at the next go `round is to be practicing in the off-season. Does anyone here honestly believe that with the nuclear club opening up as much as it has in the recent years that any nation in its right mind would stop Weapon and Anti-Weapon development?
I, for one, don't think so.
A much more valid topic of debate is whether or not the media coverage just drops off or if the information is no longer submitted for public consumption.
Re:Treaties made concerned nuclear weapons (Score:3)
I can remember back during the start of the Gulf War, thinking that we should have been wearing full chem gear. Didn't know it then, but if Sadam Hussein had actually loaded his SCUD's with Chemicals, the missile would have been to heavy to fly the short distance from Bagdahd to Ryhadh. Of course when he started moving the missals closer to the border, thats when we started wearing full gear.
IMHO, the treaties of old no longer apply to today. And while it pains me to think we have to break them to protect ourselves. It would be much worse, for us, if we let other countries have the advantage.
Loophole (Score:3)
I'm not quite sure if I have this right, but I believe that one of the nuclear disarmament treaties the US holds with the former USSR specifically allows an ABM facility to be placed in North Dakota and nowhere else.
I won't get into the little economic-political debates with any Alaskans on /., but North Dakota does make a lot of sense. First, we're in the middle of North America, providing equal coverage to both coasts. An Alaskan installation would cover Hawaii but wouldn't be able to cover the east coast as effectively.
Additionally anyone who has ever visited northeastern North Dakota has seen the relatively massive Airforce presence in the region. Though most lay empty, the state is dotted with nuclear missle silos, enough where (I think) North Dakota would have been the world's 3rd largest nuclear power if the state had seceded. Then there is the still functioning Cavalier Air Station which watchers the north pole for incoming nukes... And one cannot forget the abandoned but friggin cool Nekoma installation whose purpose actually was ABM. [Picture [147.71.210.23] - Best I Could Find]
From http://www.redstone.army.m il/history/vigilant/chap4.html [army.mil]
Also, from http://www.dlcppi.org/TEXTS/FOREIGN/MISSILE.HTM [dlcppi.org]
So there's the history, at least. BTW, some of you may be wonderinghow I could just pull this knowledge from the ether--The brother-in-law of an ex-girlfriend of mine was stationed at the Cavalier Air Station. Supposedly, he played Quake all day. Makes you feel really safe, doesn't it? :-)
ABM treaty (Score:3)
I expect that we'll just ignore the treaty and deploy, if Congress thinks it's to our stratigic advantage - the US generally has little respect for international law or treaties. (Unless of course some major campain contributor stands to gain.)
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:3)
This is somewhat short-sighted. The idea that you should always be free to defend yourself sounds good, but the reality is somewhat more complex.
Suppose country X has ten missiles, and country Y has 12 missiles, and it takes only five missiles to destroy either country. This scenario is unwinnable; an attack is suicide.
Now suppose country Y develops anti-ballistic missiles that are 80% effective. Suddenly country Y can win a war without being utterly destroyed. Effectively, the defensive missiles have become offensive weapons.
Of course, country X can compensate either by developing its own defensive missiles (thus making its own survival possible), or by building more nukes (assuring mutual destruction). The result: more spending with little change in the balance of power. Assuming X and Y are not driven solely by a desire to wipe each other off the face of the earth, they will probably consider saving themselves some money by crossing anti-ballistic missiles off the "to do" list.
HehheheHEHEHEH (Score:3)
I know this because my uncle designs the guidence systems for those anti-nuke missiles and laser targeting systems. There are also currently no functioning orbiting units capable of killing a nuke.
Considering that... those treaties that still do exsist won't be too effected.
:-)
The ABM Treaty is still binding (Score:3)
Under the ABM treaty, each country is allowed to have one ABM facility. The Russians have built one around Moscow. The U.S. has not yet built one.
The Russians are extremely upset about U.S. actions. The U.S. is moving in a direction that will require the U.S. to either renegotiate the treaty or break it. I sure hope the U.S. does not break it. The last thing we need is a nationalist fascist party to take power in Russia.
American foreign policy is usually governed by "self interest." But American policy makers often make serious misjudgments about what that interest actually is. Recall the US overthrow of a legitimate Iranian government and the installation of the Shaw (this action lead to the Islamic Revolution) and Vietman.
these treaties aren't worth much... (Score:3)
These treaties do a few things. They give the citizens a small amount of false security. They're also like a truce between animals...when you have to males fighting over territory, they'll fight for a while, someone wins, ans they have a kind of truce. But we all know they're going to be fighting again later. Same thing here. The nuclear weapons we've disarmed haven't been destroyed, they're simply disasembled and in storage. If a nuclear war comes along, they'll be ready to go in no time.
The point is this: The US and Russia were used to doing what they want during the cold war. The only thing that limited the extent of their actions was each other, specifically Mutually Assured Destruction. Today, the US stands alone. Many have said the US has lost a influence over the past 20 or 30 years. I say the US certainly has not...it runs the world directly or indirectly pretty much top to bottom. So basically our government does what it wants, like a neighborhood bully. Witness the recent "war" in kosovo. We f'ed that country up for many, many years to come. Has any good come out of it? Absolutely not, the racial hatred is as bad as it ever was.
So what makes anyone think the US cares about what these treaties say? Who is going to tell the US what to do? Who can stand up to the US' military might? No one. The only thing I can think of is a few small nuclear weapons in a truck parked somewhere in Manhatten. Evasive terrorist groups are the only real (or even imagined, for that matter) threat to the US right now. There are no coutries left that can threaten the US.
ABMs (Score:3)
In 1972, when the USA and the USSR signed the bilateral Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, it was the age of balance thanks to 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD). In a nutshell, since both protagonists could blow each other to kingdom come (and following classical deterrence theory, therefore neither was likely to do so), the introduction of technology that would undermine that condition was considered destabilising and dangerous, so they signed ABM to prevent it.
Onto the late 1990s, when the global ballistic missile proliferation scene and Washington's threat perceptions have changed. Specifically, Washington wants to help two allied nations desperately seeking this ABM technology: Japan (vs. North Korean ballistic missiles) and Israel.
Since the treaty is just a bilateral agreement between two consenting parties, all Washington has to do to give it up is to give notice to the other party (6 months I think), and it is done. It is nothing to do with the USSR's mutation into the CIS, just straightforward diplomacy.
In fact, if you look at things like Israel's 'Arrow' system or the USA's Asian 'THAAD' programme, the ABM Treaty is prettymuch history already anyway.
Hope that helps,
Johan
Jane's Intelligence Review.
Re:The original text... (Score:3)
White Sands Movies (Score:4)
Treaties ARE still in effect. (Score:4)
Treaties ARE still in effect. (Score:4)
The US will use the escape clause to break the treaty, claiming that the situation of the US has changed since the signing of ABM in 1972. This is (to some extent) true, since in 1972, N. Korea, Iran/Iraq did not have ICBM technology. They still don't, but they are getting close. However, this is a foolish arguement, since there is absolutely no way any of those nations can develop a significant biological/nuclear arsenal capable of doing significant damage to the US. *One* of our Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines could easily annihilate the population centers of one of those countries. I think the leadership of those three countries (like many others) can be very foolish, but they are not suicidal.
Unfortunately, the US has not dealt with arms control issues very well under the current Clinton administration. The recent CTBT fiasco is a good example. In the case of CTBT, the US really should have a capability to remanufacture old weapons designs, which is what Russia does. In that case, there is no need to test - if you think an old weapon is no longer functioning, you simply build a new one based on the old design. Right now, the US cannot do that, at least without extreme difficulty (not to mention massive political fallout - pun intended).
FYI, current global active and hedge nuclear stockpile statistics are available from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [bullatomsci.org]
More grist for the military industrial complex (Score:4)
That aside, the current tactic of developing an anti-ballistic missile defense is a disastrous development in international affairs.
Firstly, it is terribly destabalizing to treaties that have kept the world from turning into a cinder for fifty years.
Why is it so destabalizing? In order to succesfully maintain peace by integrating such a system into our countermeasures, our "enemies" must be thoroughly convinced that it works, and that any attack they make on the United States would be thwarted by such a system. This is not the case. It is highly unlikely that such a system would defend the United States against current offensive measures that the Chinese or Russians could employ in an attack. Hence, it destroys our treaty relationships with these countries while providing no real defensive gain. Please see the recent article in Scientific American regarding the fallacy of an anti-missile defense (written by people who know more about it than you) if you have doubts.
The most important point is that this project is just another in a long line of pork projects to prop up the military industrial complex. The United States has spent more money since the fall of the Berlin Wall on military projects than most taxpayers would assume is prudent. Some projects the military doesn't even want, like the B2 (Gen Horner, of the Air Force at the time when the B2 was rolled out, was firmly against the B2 as its mission description seemed unclear, and it was simply too expensive), or recent submarine deployments, which have navy officers griping that they are retiring (scrapping) subs which are hardly broken in just to get the new ones on line and tested. Now we have the F22, the JSF, and whatever else is on tap, meanwhile American children are attending some of the crappiest schools in the first world.
Of course, the American propoganda machine has been working hard for fifty years to convince you that some bogey man is about to invade us, so we need all of these toys to protect our empire. Now of course, we know factually that the CIA vastly exaggerated Soviet military power during the cold war...and now they want us to believe North Korea (which can hardly feed its citizens) is going to launch ICBMs against New York. Whatever.
Suitcase Nukes (Score:4)
The US has a regular maintainance and repair schedule for its nuclear weapons. After the breakup of the soviet union, one has to wonder how many Russian nukes are still in usable condition. The US govt probably suspects the same, so they're throwing their weight around.
Chemical and biological weapons are actually a much bigger problem.
Treaties made concerned nuclear weapons (Score:4)
I wonder how Regan's Star Wars program affected this treaty. Anyway, the point being, is those treaties concerned nuclear weapons, not standard missles, like the SCUD missles that were supposedly shot down during the Gulf War.
Re:ABM treaty vis a vis The US and Russia (Score:4)
The thing is, the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) works great when you've got a small number of nations with nuclear weapons. The USA and USSR weren't about to nuke each other, because they knew damn well it was suicide. And they each had stringent controls in place to ensure no accidental launches. And they also had reasonably stable political systems, so none of the countries were about to fall into anarchy. So our treaty with the Soviet Union made a lot of sense back when they still existed.
The problem now is that rather than having a small number of powerful nations with nukes, the world now has dozens of countries with nukes, some in very unstable regions. This poses a huge problem: what if some piss-ant dictator, who's not necessarily very sane, manages to gain control of one of these countries (even if for only a short time)? They may decide that their neighboring country, or the US (the favorite demon of various dictators of the world) needs to feel some pain. So they launch some nukes, and don't care if we retaliate. Or maybe they think we won't retaliate with nukes, for political reasons. Are we supposed to leave ourselves open to this?
Yeah, it would've been great if we could've prevented everyone from getting nukes, but the genie's out of the bottle. I don't think we're going to be able to get it back in just yet. An undefended US is just too tempting of a target. However, if we have a defense system, it gives us much more leverage when trying to prevent nuclear proliferation. If then we say, OK, let's all get rid of the nukes; then the afore-mentioned nations have no good reason not to go along. Having the nukes is no longer much use, and why risk the anger of the world community if there's no gain?
The only way we're going to eliminate the chance of nuclear war is through diplomacy, since as you said any defense system can be overwhelmed. However, the chances of a nuclear attack coming from a stable nation is very low, due to the MAD factor and diplomatic efforts. Having the defense system provides protection against those that diplomacy will never reach.
And so, a defense system is the only way for us to truly take a step forward in nuclear disarmament.
let me correct that... (Score:4)
These are ALL consistent with meteor events.
And btw, how do you judge the speed of something moving overhead? How can you compare a trail in the night sky with a jet airplane, when you cannot even see the object and have no idea how large it should be? If you don't know the size, you can't tell the speed (as you can't judge distance). Common commercial jets are similar enough in size then observation allows some rough judgements about their speed.
Objects with what appear to be sparks coming off? Sounds like a meteor to me. As to this:
Plasma is a gas...even in large quantities, it is subject to rapid diffusion in the atmosphere. It is hot--the air surrounding it is cool. It has a tendancy to expand with respect to the air around it and diffuse.
If you want to believe though, please go ahead and do so.
ABM treaty vis a vis The US and Russia (Score:4)
The problems with SDI are: 1)Cost. It is still extremely expensive to develop any of these technologies. One estimate was that it would cost close to one trillion dollars. 2)Defense/offense dilema. Creating countermeasures is always easier that building more effective defences. The easiest way to get around an SDI system is to simply launch more missles. As well you could use criuse missles which are not suceptible to space based defenses.
There were other reasons that were more important during the cold war, but don't apply to our current situation. The truth of the matter is that the only way to prevent nuclear war is to stop nuclear proliferation and limit the number of nuclear weapons in existence. Too bad the US Senate took a big step in the wrong direction last week.
Russia must abide, US doesn't have to necessarily (Score:4)
As far as I know, US senate passed no official measure acknowledging this transition. Hence, every so often when senators mention various treaties made with then USSR, they will allude to the fact that the US has no legal obligation to abide by that treaty. In practice, however, the US administration has for the most part abided by the terms of these treaties.
Why the US doesn't really care. (Score:4)
I assume that Congress/DoD is developing the weapons under the guise of an anti-ballistic missle program, and are just promising not to expand the use of the weapons to an anti-satellite type mission. In the old days of the USSR, this would have caused an uproar. But today, it's essential for the United States to have an ABM program. Russia understands this, and allows the technology to be developed without causing too much difficulty.
The problem is the downfall of the Soviet Union. Tracking the proliferation of nuclear arms in Eastern Europe & elsewhere is one of the larger problems that our country's intelligence agencies have today. Over the past several years, the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union has diminished frightenly. Corrupt soviet officers, the Russian mafia, even gov't officials have been conviently losing track of nuclear arms to their own financial gain.
There are far too many terrorists in this world. During the height of the Cold War, the checks of the USSR were sufficient enough to deter the loss of nuclear materials. However, the collapse of Russia's infrastructure has sent that system of checks into ruin. The nuclear materials that helped make the USSR the superpower it was has fallen into the hands of hundreds, in not thousands, of individuals and countries worldwide. A lot of these people resent the US's self-appointed role as the world's police force. When you're sitting up as high as the United States is, everyone wants to knock you down.
Now, most of these individuals/countries that have the nuclear weapons do not have the means of delivery. As far as my non-existant security clearance knows, North Korea is the only country hostile to the United States that has a ballistic missile capable of deilvering a nuclear warhead to within US borders. What scares the United States is what they don't know. After the Gulf War, the weapons inspectors were shocked to see how far along Iraq's nuclear capabilities had come. Iraq had progressed beyond the best of estimates by an order of magnitude, and all right underneath the noses of the collective world. Who's to say that they same isn't happening elsewhere? And that when the technology is finalized, it's not coming torwards the United States, packing enough power to level Los Angeles?
There's simply too much uncertainity these days. In some respects, the Cold War was a Good Thing, because our intelligence assests were focused, and the threats come from a single source. Nowadays, the threat can come from anywhere, and the price of eternal vigilance is high. This is why these ABM systems are being developed. Today, North Korea poses a real nuclear threat. Tomorrow, who knows where that threat will originate. The United States is a high profile target - Congress understands this, and Russia understands this.
That is why the US gov't doesn't care.
(sorry for rambling a bit - it's getting late.)
Nope, we're just in flagrant violation (Score:4)
And that's a Really Bad Thing for us to be encouraging. The Russian military has been in decline for decades, and the decline has accelerated rapidly in the nineties. The conventional military is getting live training now in Chechnya, but is all the same not seen as a threat to the American forces -- now or at any point in the forseeable future.
The nuclear forces on the other hand are still a viable threat to the US, and our recent actions encourage the Russians to rely more heavily upon them. This is just plain moronic on our part. Almost as bad as the sanctions against Pakistan, which have surely led to a lot of good in that country.
The moves to strengthen our missile defense program are just plain stupid, no other way to put it. They violate the treaty that does most to ensure bilateral stability, and do so in an effort to counter one of the least likely threats to our territory. (Why use an ICBM when you can get the same or better results out of a suitcase?). What we're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it can only lead to a renewed arms race.
We cannot let that happen. The vestiges of representative democracy may be a farce at this point, but all the same we have to keep trying. If ever there was a time to write to your congressmen, this is one of those times. If you don't know who your congressmen are, try looking here [vote-smart.org]. Write to them, tell them what a colossal mistake they are making, find out what side they have taken on the matter (most support it), and make your stance & voting intentions clear to them. If enough people contact them, they'll listen. Hopefully. If living in a 'free' and 'peaceful' country means anything to you, then you must at least try.
Civil Law Precident? (Score:4)
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:4)
fell apart in the air.
This is, in fact, incorrect. We were walking across an open field in Daharan SA the first time I ever heard a patriot missile fire (probably the loudest noise you're ever likely to hear). Being the idiot that I am I stood there and watched the missle as it tracked and then exploded close enough to a scud missle to knock it out of the air. As someone else mentioned it didn't destroy the missile but it did knock it out of the air causing the warhead (probably the second loudest sound you're ever likely to hear) to land in an unpopulated area. In this incident and serveral others that I witnessed later in the war the patriot never actually "hit" the incomming missile but they always caused enough damage to stop them from flying, which I guess is good enough.
FYI: a good resource (Score:4)
I assume this is about orbital weapons treaties... (Score:5)
1) Polyus (I think that's right) was a Soviet orbital weapons platform they did indeed launch in the 1980s. Reportedly the booster carrying it up malfunctioned and it never reached orbit, but still, they tried breaking the treaty first.
2) The treaties involve explosives in space. The two anti-missile weapons I'm familiar with right now involve:
-- a) A projectile that, instead of exploding in front of an ICBM, merely rams into it. It has no explosives, it's just basically a huge cannonball fired with great precision. Breaks no treaties for having weapons in space. I mean, the only way to really ban it would be to ban anything that could be pointed at another object and rammed into it, which would ban ICBMs anyway.
-- b) Lasers mounted in the noses of 747s that would fry holes in ICBMs, causing them to plummet back to Earth. The theory here is, 747s kept in constant flight could respond immediately to a launch, firing at ICBMs in less than 30 seconds and causing them to fall back onto the country that launched them. Again, this puts no weapons into outer space, and banning it would basically be banning all military aircraft.
So, basically, it seems that the U.S. is still respecting its treaties.
---
I'm not a real anonymous coward, I just play one on TV.
Tesla Weapons (Score:5)
ABM's (Score:5)
A better question is, can such a system actually work? I doubt a massive launch could be stopped; but it should be possible to stop the "lone missle" scenario.
A neat solution would be to build a "Global Missile Defense" shield; that would automatically target and down ICBM's regardless of the point of origin.
The problem with a global shield is that the UN could get its knickers in a twist and decide not to allow ANY space launches.
Other problems with a missile defense - it does NOTHING to stop any of the following:
- suitcase nukes
- cruise missiles
- (surface) ship carried nukes
- car transported nukes
- bio weapons (any of the above delivery mechanisms)
Species wise, we need to get off our collective buts and stop keeping all of our eggs (humans) in one basket (earth).
The ABM Treaty (1972) (Score:5)
USSR != Republic of Russia (Score:5)
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing.
That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead. Additionally, there are specific exemptions in the ABM treaty that allow ABMs to protect specific areas for each side. The Soviets have a large array of ABMs around Moscow but I don't think we ever deployed ours. To allow our continued development, we could still operate under the explicit exemption in the treaty for a limited protection net.
One area where there is no treaty control is space-based weapons. We can thank Ronald Reagan and his willingness to walk out on Gorbachev to protect "Star Wars" development. This would be a better approach, albeit more expensive and difficult, because it stops the inbound ICBMs before they start re-entry and can "MIRV", thus reducing the number of targets that must be tracked an intercepted. As you may recall, to nullify the notion that this was a tactic the unbalance the arms balance, Reagan offered to give the technology to the Soviets in return for negotiating a complete ban on all nuclear weapons. This one-two punch was the straw that broke the camel's back for the USSR.
We should continue this policy because the cost of entry into the nuclear club is now low enough for any 3rd world nation and many individuals to afford. If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
Re:Could we ./-effect the govt? (Score:5)
We don't set a good example, and our government (& big business) doesn't really care so long as we run things one way or another, supress those we don't like, and support those we do -- and keep our companies stronger (or apparently so) than the competition. Part of that big business is the military, and it's good business to build weapons, defense systems, and promote the occasional conflict to boost sales.
But, the real crux of the issue is this:
Those treaties were signed as part of detente. At a time when the USSR could be as capable as we were, at any given moment, of possibly figuring out how to put together an ABM, or a more effective ICBM, treaties were a way of diplomatically legislating around not-so-mutually assured destruction. To deploy such inventions would be breaking the treaty. Breaking the treaty could start a war, and possibly a nuclear exchange, and the end of the world, (etc.).
There is no M.A.D. now. If the treaties are broken there won't be a war or a nuclear exchange. There is no country out there (and it would be difficult to find an alliance of them even) capable of waging an effective war against this country -- and none crazy enough to launch a massive nuclear strike (of the few capable). So the treaty is unenforced. The detente ideology which got us to the signing table is gone. The treaty is worthless to us, and unenforceable. Screw it (say the talking heads).
Shades of Manifest Destiny, certainly, but those now-flimsy treaties stand in the way of very big dollars and more visible world domination -- backed up by a manufactured mandate to eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism from "rogue nations like Iraq, N. Korea, Libya, etc."
So, the abolition of the treaties is in America's industrial interest (both by increasing the flow of money in the defense industry, and by potentially making our government force other governments to trade with us more readily), in both major political parties' public image interests, in our nation's military interest (reasserting ourselves as the biggest boys on the block), and in the interest of the American people (by decreasing the likelihood that an ICBM will obliterate some number of them).
While it's all well and good to be a bleeding heart wishing for a better world, the global economy and the stage of foreign diplomacy are run by the strongest nations. Whenever a people give away power they are eventually conquered (in the past it was by military might, today it is more often economically) without remorse. I am personally glad to be a citizen of the most militarily/industrially/economically powerful nation this world has ever seen, and (even though I don't agree with most that I let the government get away with -- and am fighting them when possible on a number of fronts) think it is idiotic to try to stop them from maintaining our power.
Re:Treaties (Score:5)
So the ABM treaties were introduced because if nuclear war sounded bad enough, atmospheric nuking and a non-perfect intercept percentage just wasn't desirable.
We are trying to get rid of those treaties! (Score:5)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/199
Treaties (Score:5)
Take Kosovo for instance. The UN backed by the US goes in to righteously stop a genocide and help throw down an evil dictator. After a war in which no friendly soldiers lose their lives, the politicians declare a victory. Everybody feels happy and confident in the powers of the US and UN. But what about the second genocide that has happened in Kosovo? Where the Albanians are now attacking the Serbs and forcing new mass exoduses? Well . . . those are swept under the rug as life goes on in American politics. A country in ruins and no true resolution to a conflict between to ethnicities, all so that the politicians could bump themselves up a few points in the polls.
You may be wondering what all this has to do with treaties. Well . . . the answer is simple. Treaties in general are nothing more than policitial tools. People listen to them as long as they are convenient and that they can break them without getting in trouble. The only times that treaties in themselves have any use beyond symbolic purposes is when policitians drag us into another war. Treaties can then be used as a justification for attacking the "evil" forces of our enemies.
So in summary: if you think you can find safety behind the walls of a treaty (particularly one related to weapons), you will find out that you are wrong the hard way. There will always be some evil schmuck who will be breaking the treaty, either with or without the permission of their government.
Re:SCUD missiles @ Gulf (Score:5)
Actually, in fact, not one SCUD was shot down by a Patriot missle. The simple fact is the SCUDs were built during World War II and litterally fell apart in the air.
As it stands no country, that I am aware of, currently has the capability to "shoot down" a missle of any type with any viable accuracy. The only defense to missle attack at this point is a missle which detonates in close proximity to the inbound missle showering it with shrapnel, thus disabling the inbound missle. But, this does not have an acceptable destruction ratio--far below the 80% accuracy mark.
As for the assumption of this technology being manufactored with the former USSR's status as a threat, this is not true. The reasons that these types of weapons are being produced is quite frankly that other countries, who took no part in the treaty, are producing nuclear weapons--and our nations must be ready to defend against nuclear attack.
Keep in mind, the anti-ballistic missile is being designed for one purpose, defense from an air threat. This is not a weapon of attack, and therefore should not be infringed upon by any treaty.
As for the implication that this type of technology could be used as a type of anti-satelite/anti-spacecraft weapon, this is quite possible. Think of the reasons that this could be a good thing. Assume that the U.S. intervenes, at NATO's insistance, into another country's small war. This country has spy satelites, which can pin-point the U.S. troop movements and positions. The U.S. then would have the option of "blinding" this other country's satelites, insuring less U.S. casualties and allowing for a greater likelihood of a swift success--with less bloodshed. Would this be a bad thing? Considering the fact that the U.S. is sending their troops in at the world's request, I think not.
Also, let's remember, these weapons are meant to be a deterrent. Just because we have them does not mean we will use them, unless of course it is unavoidable. Knowing that your enemy has the means to defeat an attack, makes it far less likely that you will be the aggressor.
Finally, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, many less that politically stable countries and terrorist factions have increasingly been found to have access to cold war weapons of mass destruction. From biological agents to nuclear warheads, both of which can be delivered via ballistic missile. So, it is in every country's best interest to explore means of protection against this threat.
The world, as it stands right now, is not a simple friendly place. It is complex. There are conflicting religions, political structures, and morals. In these turbulent times, with such hatred in existance, each country must prepare to defend their way of life, virtues, and beliefs. As they can no longer depend on another to do so, without political or financial benefit.
The original text... (Score:5)
Quotes from the explanation:
"The Treaty permits each side to have one limited ABM system to protect its capital and another to protect an ICBM launch area. The two sites defended must be at least 1,300 kilometers apart, to prevent the creation of any effective regional defense zone or the beginnings of a nationwide system."
"The most recent Treaty review was completed in October 1993. Following that review, numerous sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission have been held to work out Treaty succession -- to "multilateralize" the Treaty -- as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union and to negotiate a demarcation between ABM and non-ABM systems."
Allow me to explain (Score:5)
The United States is in fact working closely with the Russian government to create this new technology. It is true that the Russians are upset, but we have agreed not to deploy the defense systems unless the same technology is deployed in Russia simotaneously. The idea is that many countries other than the United States and Russia are gaining ICBM technology, and those countries are not bound by the treaty. Thus, we want to make sure that we are defended against them.
For those who don't understand the treaty: The only way we were able to prevent a nuclear holocaust during the cold war was through MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction), meaning that neither side would launch because they knew that they would have been destroyed themselves. If one side had built a nuclear defense system that completely defended them against nuclear attack, MAD would have been no more, and nothing would have stopped that side from destroying their opponents. Fortunately, the leaders of both countries realized this and created the treaty before anything bad happenned.
-------------
Treaties (Score:5)
The ABM treaty allows origionally 2 ABM Defense Zones each nation with 100 Interceptors [ABM Missiles] which was reduced to 100 Interceptors at 1 Defense Zone [At this point I belive USSR picked Moscow and the USA picked a missile range but not sure which one]. It was later reduced to allowing no ABM.
However, the critical points of the treaty are [those that effect us anyway:
1] Both Parties May Agree to Amend The Treaty
2] One Party May Withdrawl If They Provide a 6 Month Notice
3] It allows the research but not actual deployment of any kinda
The US is trying to get around this by going through either of the two routes, with the first more likely the perfered one:
1] Talking with Russia to allow the deployment of a limited one for testing
2] Pull out of the treaty [Remember, the 6 Month]