Re: Media ignores Ballistic Missle Defense lies

From: Eugene Leitl (
Date: Fri Aug 24 2001 - 10:36:12 MDT

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Brian D Williams wrote:

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

How about antitruck defense? Antishipment defense? Anti UPS defense? If I
put a nuke on board of my private Cessna with bona fide papers? If I rent
an apartment in a skyscraper, and arrange the nuke to be delivered there
disguised as a piece of office furniture?

If I don't bother with nukes at all, and just go biological, which you
detect about 3 days after it has been synchronously deployed in tens or
hundreds of different locations, by virtue of people suddenly starting
dropping like flies by the millions?

> In such a case the rules are completely different.

Of course they're different: you're going to use alternative delivery
vehicles. I wouldn't risk the 10 nuclear devices I have, I might lose
several, thus weakening the impact. So I make sure the delivery will be
accurate, and stealthy, and reliable. In other words, I will use a
delivery truck.

> Does not work at the moment.

We've been through this before, the system will intercept only a small
number of dumb vehicles. It will have trouble to intercept meaningful
numbers of smart vehicles. It is completely bypassed by other modes of
delivery. It's 95% a purely political/economical piece.

> Explain how a defensive system affects world peace.

I'm Russia, or China, and I just don't know how good your system is. It
cannot be tested in reality by means other than a full scale attack, so
I'll just compensate it by developing NEMP weapons as show openers, smart
vehicles, and MIRVed nukes, lots of them. Modern nukes designes as used by
superpowers are tiny, cheap and clean.

As a result, we suddenly have more nukes in circulation. People will be
getting nervous again. Do you remember how it was growing up, always
expecting a flash out of clean blue sky? Do we need that again, honestly?

> "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.

I thought the umbrella was useless against a superpower. China is pretty
big, and it is growing fast, so it will be there quite soon.

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

I haven't yet heard a single convincing argument for the umbrella. I've
heard dozens convincing arguments against the umbrella.

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

Why defenseless? If this is a small attack with ICBMs, you have
forewarning, and you see them coming, so you just bring the folks in
target areas underground, and launch a retaliation strike. Passive defense
against openly deployed WOMDs is very possible, and cost effective.

Personal sterile seals, bunkers and pathogen aerosol sniffers are not
sexy, but they sure can be made to work, and will cost you a fraction of
an umbrella which won't work, and will invite alternative modes of
delivery which you're utterly defenseless again.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="">leitl</a>
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53''
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

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