Re: Media ignores Ballistic Missile Defense

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Fri Aug 24 2001 - 12:05:35 MDT

>From: Eugene Leitl <>

>>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

That was sarcasm on my part, besides it's clear that whoever wrote
that has absolutely no idea of our current anti-submarine defense,
nor will they get that from me, that was the former presidents

As to if any of the other delivery systems will prove effective,
only time will tell.

>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?

Gee, if it's so easy why hasn't it happened yet. More sarcasm by
the way, you can't defend against every possible scenario.
Biological warfare is considerably more difficult than most people

>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.

You continue to argue this point while continuing to ignore the
reasons why this is unlikely. Besides as I indicated it is not
possible to defend against every possibility.

>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

Your right, we've been through this before, the technology you
speak of is not in the hands of those the system is designed to
defend against, your other delivery modes are unproven as well.

>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.

For about the fourth time, the system is not designed to defend
against a superpower. A large scale attack would be met with large
scale retaliation.

>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?

I didn't grow up that way, but by the way it's going to happen
again anyway. China is going to develop a large scale nuclear
capability and we're right back where we were, 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

I agree, stand by for MAD II.

>> 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 feel pretty much the opposite, except I feel there are some good
arguments against.

> 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.

18 minutes or so, less from a sub, and the cost of the underground
defense shelters you mention dwarves the cost of a missile defense
by several orders of magnitude, not to mention being completely

>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

underground shelters of the type you describe are far more
expensive and essentially useless.


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