Re: Media ignores Ballistic Missle Defense lies

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Fri Aug 24 2001 - 09:11:16 MDT

>From: "Chen Yixiong, Eric" <>

>The only problem occurs when someone sends in stealth nuclear
>missiles, in the sense that someone attacks you but you don't know
>who. Only in this case would a nuclear defense have any use.
>Someone could probably send a submarine into range of the US
>cities and fire the missiles.

Great idea, now we'll build an antisubmarine defense as well.

>If you build some missile shield that works, maybe you can stop
>them, but maybe they will just send in agents with smuggled
>nuclear briefcases and time bombs instead. Even if you build an
>effective nuclear shield (with an accuracy of over 99.99%, since
>the enemy can use decoys and one "escaped" bomb can devastate an
>entire city), the cost may get too prohibitive and the actual
>protection close to nil.

Everyone continues to ignore the fact that the antimissle defense
is not designed to counter an all out attack by a major power, but
a small attack by a rogue power.

In such a case the rules are completely different.

>Unfortunately, this nuclear shield does not work, and it costs so
>much that even the military wants to shift this item from its
>budget to someone else's.

Does not work at the moment.

>This sounds like the Libertarian problem of either conscripting
>people to fight a war to defend a Libertarian nation, hiring
>mercenaries at tremendous cost or letting the obviously
>non-Libertarian enemy overrun the nation. We count in not just the
>cost of construction, but also how much more debt can the US
>shoulder and what consequences would this cause to world peace.

Explain how a defensive system affects world peace.

>By breaking the relatively stable MAD equilibrium, the US may
>cause an arms race to occur that it can ill afford given its
>weakened financial support, but which it has a good chance of
>winning and bankrupting its enemies. This arms race will also have
>a low probability of causing a nuclear war directly, but it will
>greatly increase such chances by forcing countries like China to
>increase its arsenal. This will cause India, and then Pakistan, to
>follow suit. A multi-polar world would have lesser stable points
>along its probability space and more proneness to random events
>that could "tip the balance".

"MAD" equilibrium disappeared with the fall of the USSR, and in
case you weren't aware, China has superpower designs and is going
to build its arsenal accordingly. When China starts refering to
Singapore as "The Lost Colonies" you'll understand.

>Given such a situation and analysis, I urge the US to immediately
>back down from its stance of building a nuclear shield, issue an
>apology to the world and concentrate on building local defenses
>(such as bunkers and missile silos). This has nothing to do with
>the right to defend oneself, or US politics, but plain economics
>and game theory.

I find your analysis faulty, no doubt the pentagon does as well.

>The US should cooperate with the rest of the world in signing
>important treaties such as the landmine banning treaty and
>additional nuclear reduction treaties. Why would any nation want
>to attack or blackmail the US? Probably because they perceive the
>US as an arrogant bully (so with a moral justification) or that
>the US interfered with their affairs (so with a practical

As a former soldier I am against the landmine treaty neither China
nor Russia signed it and I don't hear anyone giving them grief
about it. It was necessary to change the small arms treaty because
of clauses that interferred with americans right to keep and bear
arms, those changes were made and the treaty was signed. The Kyoto
protocol is a joke and the administration that supported it was
replaced. This does not mean new agreements are not possible.

Yet, there are nuclear reduction talks going on which will
hopefully result in a treaty. We will be delighted to be involved
in other treaties, especially those that are mutually beneficial.

>The US should diplomatically preemptively defuse any such
>potential situation instead of trying to stop a nuclear attack in
>progress. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, and with Big Apple
>round, the US should know better.

I agree that we should make every effort in this regard, however
only an idiot leaves himself/herself defenseless.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <>
"Party of Citizens"<

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:13 MDT