Re: Media ignores Ballistic Missle Defense.

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 13:44:59 MDT


Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> > Why is it that international drug cartels don't ship their product
> > via UPS or FedX then?
>
> Because they make many shipments, each typically many tons. It is
> uneconomical, and because there would be so many drug parcels in transit
> people would start screening for them. No one expects nukes in UPS parcels
> so far. Actually, if I was to smuggle a set of nukes into a country, and
> had not underground network of fanatics, I'd try to make contacts to the
> drug cartels. Because they do it professionally, and successfully.
> Assuming, they're willing to do it (unlikely, though), the probability of
> detection would be very low.
>
> > I tend to agree with you on this. Of course the first successful
> > terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction will probably be
> > it's last since undoubtably the retaliation will mean complete
> > elimination of said group.
>
> I don't care about the group (assuming, they're nice enough to advertize
> their name and their location), and the group doesn't care about being
> rational, otherwise it wouldn't do something as foolish. I care about the
> people nuked.

This shows a distinct lack of understanding of the phenomenon of
terrorism. Terrorism is not irrational, and terrorists are not
irrational people. They do what they do for very specific reasons and
with very specific goals. They tend to be highly educated. Their reasons
and goals may seem irrational to you and me, but within their own
meme-plex, they are entirely rational.

It is also important to distinguish between those who
organize/propagandize and those who execute acts. Someone like Osama bin
Laden, for example, will never himself drive a suicide carbomb into a
hotel, but he sees nothing wrong with convincing others with Koran
derived propaganda to martyr themselves in the service of his goals.
Muammar Khadafi likewise will never offer himself up to martyrdom, but
will celebrate those that give their lives in service to him.

If someone like Khadafi or bin Laden has a nuke, they are never going to
use it in an act that risks themselves getting nuked in retaliation, and
they know such retaliation will come, because it is considered, by 50
years of MAD, to be a moral and rational response to someone who
initiates the use of nuclear weapons in war.

The reason why terrorists do what they do without fear of retaliation is
because they do not fear their home sanctuaries being blamed en masse
for their minor actions of shooting and carbombing small groups of
people. If they use a nuke, however, it is acknowledged that the
logistical base required for such a mission can only implicated large
numbers of people, thus conferring group guilt on the inhabitants of the
terrorists places of sanctuary.

You will notice that the west doesn't care much about Israel targeting
individual Palestinians who are involved in terrorism, but does get mad
about Israelis killing anonymous Palestinians in general. This is the
difference between individual and collective guilt, but only because the
actions taken are rather minor. It is rather well understood by the
terrorist world that major attacks on US soil will generally unleash the
floodgates against whoever initiates it. They therefore tread a thin
line in their actions, striking blows with minor attacks, but never
enough to really attract significant column-inch space or prime time
coverage to the ferocity of the attack, but just enough to attract some
attention to the causes espoused by the terrorists. Thus, use of high
impact weapons like nukes are entirely anathema to the tactics and
strategies of terrorist groups.

> > Terrorists no, rogue nations yes.
>
> Well, I'm not willing the take the risk rogue nations are that stupid.
> Besides, I'm not sure it makes sense to differentiate rogue nations from
> terrorists, because a dictator has far too much to lose than an anonymous
> group that is not in control.

Another misconception: in a terrorist situation, the terrorist has
control, while they displace responsibility onto those they attack for
'making them do what they are doing'. You are right that a dictator has
far more to lose, but only because he has a well defined, fixed base of
operations. Dictators use similar displacement as rationalization for
their tyranny. They always are doing what they are doing 'because they
were forced to' by 'circustances out of their control'....

>
> > I have stated a number of times that the system we were discussing
> > was not designed for either superpowers nor terrorists, but rogue
> > nations.
>
> Very well, I've stated a number of times that the umbrella will cause
> other superpowers to increase their arsenal, and modify that arsenal,
> resulting in more more difficult to intercept nukes. This is not a neutral
> side effect, and needs to be taken into the calculation. Even if you're
> not directly protecting yourself against other superpowers.

Yes, they will, and the cost of doing so will raise the barrier to entry
for 'superpower status'. The current barrier has been dropping as
ballistic missile technology has been dropping in price over the last
decade or so. ABM technology helps raise the price back to where it once
was. Those that cannot afford the higher price can no longer play the
game.
>
> > Again the system is not designed to thwart terrorists, except those
> > that head a rogue nation. Whether or not we successfully identify
> > the terrorists in you theoretical attack would remain to be seen.
>
> I very much hope that my attack will remain theoretical. And you seem not
> to understand that you're thinking rationally, but no rational person will
> nuke you. These is not the folks you have to be wary of.
>
> > You couldn't even begin to successfully alert a population in 18
> > minutes, much less get them to move anywhere unless they were
> > completely prepared.
>
> Technically, in the year 2001 you can alert the entire population in
> seconds, on a rather modest budget. For starters, a cellphone with added
> functionality and NEMP/jam detector will do. Training is another issue,
> which, I believe, I already mentioned.
>
> > >So, how many shelters can you build for 300 gigabucks, or so?
> >
> > Not enough by far.
>
> Well, that's what goobvarmint is for, to create regulations that every new
> built house needs to have a shelter of an approved design. These are
> incremental costs, and as a side effect you get shelters with very short
> average distances, so that you can react within a few minutes forewarning.
>
> > There you go, your attack by your terrorists, using your scenario
> > isn't even worth building a defense against.
>
> Um, you have a singularly selective perception.
>
> > My mistake, when I think of ICBM I think fusion not fission, so we
> > don't even need to build bunkers.
>
> Small portable devices will be weak, dirty fission, maybe boosted fission.
> State of the art nuclear devices should not be on the free market. Rogue
> states don't do fusion, for the same reason they don't do ICBMs. Good
> physicists and technicians are a lot scarcer and much less expendable than
> fanatics.
>
> > A smart terrorist would place his bomb in the largest shelter he
> > could find.
>
> Since shelters are distributed (well, they have be, because otherwise the
> mean average distance would be too long), and he would have to detonate
> his weak nuke underground, the amounts of survivors would be maximum in
> this case. If you have limited resources, you go for an airburst, which
> will profit from the nuke being dirty, if not salted. Much nastier than a
> high flux, which they won't get, anyway.
>
> > But this is again besides the point, the system we were discussing
> > was to defend against a limited number of rogue state launched
> > ICBM's not a terrorist attack. This does not make it useless.
>
> If you say so.
>
> -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
> 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT