Bush administration egging North Korea into war.....

[The_Tracker]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6091020/

I found this part to be especially shocking. Their highest priority is missle defense!? Yea, this makes perfect sense. What with all the countries that have been launching missles onto United States soil lately.

What a jackass. The next four years are going to be an even bigger mess than the last four once the shrub gets re-elected. Hopefully by then we won't have started a global nuclear war, or run the deficit up to 1,000 trillon dollars.

Shrub/Dick 2004! Yea... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


‘Highest priority’
The deployment will be the first in a controversial program that is high on President Bush’s defense agenda. Bush cleared the way to build the system two years ago by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned ship-based missile defenses.

He said protecting America from ballistic missiles was “my highest priority as commander in chief, and the highest priority of my administration.”

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
What with all the countries that have been launching missles onto United States soil lately.


[/ QUOTE ]

You sound just like the Clinton administration: "Terrorism in the US? Why bother, when was the last time someone attacked us on our own soil?"

This is what I inherited from Clinton. Shall we go back to that attitude under Kerry?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

He said protecting America from ballistic missiles was “my highest priority as commander in chief, and the highest priority of my administration.”

Good for Dubya. National defense *is* one of the functions of government. All the past Presidents who rejected an anti-ballistic missile system were guilty of dereliction of duty.

[anatta]

I know, you were plotting your swift revenge for USS Cole after your month long vacation.

[MMMMMM]

To NOT build a missile defense capable of keeping out a handful of North Korean nukes would be retarded.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
You sound just like the Clinton administration: "Terrorism in the US? Why bother, when was the last time someone attacked us on our own soil?"

[/ QUOTE ]

And until 9/11 your policy was any different how?

[nicky g]

" All the past Presidents who rejected an anti-ballistic missile system were guilty of dereliction of duty. "

Except for the small fact that none of them worked, that this one won't work either, that it is absurdly expensive (if it worked that might not be such a big deal), and that there are plenty of much more attractive, deniable and less suicidal ways for rogue states to launch attacks on the US.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, I believe you are oversimplifying things and thereby drawing erroneous conclusions.

An ABM that works with even limited success is precisely what is needed to counter the emerging threat of ICBM nuclear missiles from rogue states (and perhaps sdomeday from terrorists).

As for the economic aspect, the loss of just one major city due to a nuclear strike would be financially catastrophic and would cost many, many times the amount cost to build and maintain the ABM system. 9/11 cost the USA well over 100 billion dollars. That is peanuts however compared the cost of losing an entire major city. So if the ABM system saves just one major city it will have paid for itself many times over.

If North Korea were to launch a strike of, say, 6 nuclear missiles, and 3 of them misfired or went into the ocean, whilst 3 were heading for the USA and on target...a system that could knock out all three would be great. But even knocking out just two or only one of those missiles would be vastly preferable to absorbing all three nuclear strikes.

Yes, there are other ways for a rogue state--or someday, terrorists--to attack America that are less suicidal. But the fact remains that without an ABM system, there is simply NO WAY to stop such a strike. There are however ways to stop or intercept terrorists trying to smuggle dangerous items into the country.

Our interception of the human rogue or terrorist element is imperfect but at least we are able to stop some of it. We should not be in the position of being totally unable to stop any form of attack--and that is the position we are in without an ABM system. Again, partial interception is far better than no interception at all, whether it comes to bomb-smuggling humans or nuclear missiles.

[nicky g]

"An ABM that works with even limited success is precisely what is needed to counter the emerging threat of ICBM nuclear missiles from rogue states"

All the data I saw (and admittedly this was a while ago - the issue has fallen of the radar of late, so to speak) suggested that the system simply didn't work at all, and that the only way they got it to pass the final test was to cheat fairly openly.

"If North Korea were to launch a strike of, say, 6 nuclear missiles, and 3 of them misfired or went into the ocean, whilst 3 were heading for the USA and on target...a system that could knock out all three would be great. But even knocking out just two or only one of those missiles would be vastly preferable to absorbing all three nuclear strikes."

Yes, but North Korea doesn't have any missiles that could hit the US. As for having no method of stopping them, you have the deterrent of any country doing so being totally wiped off the map, which is a fairly strong piece of persuasion not to attack in the first place.

"As for the economic aspect, the loss of just one major city due to a nuclear strike would be financially catastrophic and would cost many, many times the amount cost to build and maintain the ABM system. 9/11 cost the USA well over 100 billion dollars. That is peanuts however compared the cost of losing an entire major city. So if the ABM system saves just one major city it will have paid for itself many times over."

As I said, if it worked, the cost factor would be of less import (although there has to be a realistic threat, which I don't think NK is in missile terms). But I don't believe it does, at all.

Looking into the possibility makes sense (aside from the international treaty issues - but they've already gone and abbrogated those so it's pretty irrelevant, although I for one would be scared of any country with the such a massive arsenal and no deterrent threat against launching it) but to go ahead and build the thing when the technology simply isn't there is an obvious pork laden waste of money.

[MMMMMM]

Well you're presuming the ABM system won't work at all, which I think is an unfair presumption.

Also, North Korea WILL have missiles capable of hitting the mainland U.S.

If Iran acquires nukes the geopolitical scenarios will become even more dangerous and unstable.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
To NOT build a missile defense capable of keeping out a handful of North Korean nukes would be retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?
Isn't this administrations policy preemption? Thats what needed to be done in Iraq. I mean, they all said that Iraq was a nuclear threat to the US and Saadam must be taken out. So we just invade all the currently hostile countries with nukes.
So, that's North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, maybe Syria, maybe Libya, hell maybe France right?

We better get the draft started, we have alot of invasions to plan.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Except for the small fact that none of them worked

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon that doesn't mean that an ABM won't ever "work."

[ QUOTE ]
that this one won't work either, that it is absurdly expensive (if it worked that might not be such a big deal)

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't really concerned about the money are you? Your just using this to win an argument in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
that there are plenty of much more attractive, deniable and less suicidal ways for rogue states to launch attacks on the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which doesn't preclude the desirability of having an ABM defense.

Notice that I haven't stated whether or not I'm for the development of such a defense. I'm just pointing out that your reasons are seemingly bogus.

[MMMMMM]

With a missile shield in place, we can implement invasions at the times of our choosing.

[vulturesrow]

ACtually development of the system is coming along nicely. Here is the website for the missile defense agency:

Missile Defense Agency (http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html)

Also it is believed that North Korea does have missiles capable of hitting parts of the US.

[tolbiny]

MMMMMM- (i ain't counting the M's, that's just an estimate)

In your argument you fail to factor in the opportunity cost of developing such a defense system. We have limited resouces, in fact the war in Iraq has shown jsut how limited they really are. One argument against the war in Iraq is that it has diverted funds from the war on terror. Yes, Saddam is an evil Mo**er Fu**er, and he could have begun producing WMDs again, and he could have decided to support terrorist organizations. But he wasn't doing either of these before the invasion- and we have been forced to divert troops, financial reserves and intelligance from people who were already involved in groups dedicated to attacking the US.
Just because we CAN build a Missile defense system that will stop a cetain % of attacks, doesnt mean that is the most effective way to try to stop said attacks.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What with all the countries that have been launching missles onto United States soil lately.


[/ QUOTE ]

You sound just like the Clinton administration: "Terrorism in the US? Why bother, when was the last time someone attacked us on our own soil?"

This is what I inherited from Clinton. Shall we go back to that attitude under Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]
GWB - Judging from your disregard for history and established facts, you may actually be the real George W. Bush!

The Clinton administration recommended establishing the DHS, which the Bush administration thought was a stupid idea. Only after 9/11/01 did Bush become the Great Fighter of Terror. Before that, terrorism wasn't a major issue of the Bushies.

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I inherited from Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good one. When in need of a quick explanation, always revert to the "it's all Clinton's fault" statement.

[Felix_Nietsche]

December 6, 1941. Deploying Anti-Aircraft Guns at Pearl Harbor?

Yea, this makes perfect sense. What with all the countries that have been launching air attacks Pearl Harbor lately. Next thing they'll claim is that Japan will launch a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. HAHAHAHAHA !!!!

What a Jack Ass!

Go Roosevelt/Truman in '44

[nothumb]

I'm just wondering, is your name supposed to be Nietzsche, or do you just have the misfortune of having a name that looks like your dad couldn't spell the name of a famous philosopher?

MAD and other tactical and geopolitical factors make your Pearl Harbor analogy rather useless. There are only a handful of nations that posess the ability to actually launch nuclear missiles at the USA. Mutual assured destruction prevents any one of them from doing so. Rogue nations are similarly deterred, if one looks at the situation realistically. The ones we are really worried about are terrorists, who will not strike us with ICBM's - they will try to sneak a bomb into our country. Or they will go on doing their dirty little duty with other, less expensive weapons.

I think from a tactical perspective we have a much better chance of deterring any nuclear attack in the next 50 years by safeguarding all nuclear materials and information far more carefully and pursuing other avenues (sabotage, espionage, economic sanctions, even military options) to prevent a nuclear strike.

However I doubt this will happen and fully expect a terrorist nuclear bomb to be detonated in my lifetime. /images/graemlins/frown.gif The first one will probably not be in the USA, though; I would guess it will be in either a tourist destination like Bali or it will be in Israel.

NT

[Felix_Nietsche]

As for "Nietsche" thats my Great Grandmother's maiden name smart ass... Different spellings of simliar last names is not unusual.

You say the Pearl Harbor analogy is "useless". I read your arguments.... Sorry, I'm not buying what your selling. MAD assumes that willing dealing with nations that are rational. I don't consider the leadership of North Korea to be rational. North Korea is a comic book version of George Orwell's 1984 novel. North Korea has used threats of using nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip against the Clinton adminstration and is attempting to do against the Bush administration. I even believe North Korea is stupid enough to sell nuclear weapons for cash. Even to middle eastern terrorists.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Thanks to those jerks in Pakistan, Iran and North Korea will be nuclear powers. Personally, I would like to see an air strike against both Iran and North Korea to destroy their nuclear capabilities. For Iran it would be easy. As for North Korea, it is believed most (if not all) of their nuclear production facilities are in underground shafts which have been bored into deep into the mountains. I don't think we have a conventional weapon strong enough to reach them. Nukes can. But lets say North Korea decides to sell nukes to al qaeda(sp?). So we decide to nuke their nuclear facilities and succeed. Now North Korea is ticked and they launch an ICBM missle at San Franciso. It would be nice to have an anti-missle defense to stop it....would it not?

[tolbiny]

"You say the Pearl Harbor analogy is "useless". I read your arguments.... Sorry, I'm not buying what your selling"

Your analogy is fairly useless- say you anticipate an attack by the japanese against the US Navy. One logical place would be Pearl harbor. That attack could be done with aricraft so we put batteries or antiaircraft guns in place. Also a large group of submarines could be very dangerous, so we ring the islands with huge amounts of anit submarine nets. Also it could just be a huge fleet of battle ships pounding pearl harbor so we imploy large groups of coastal artillary to prevent that.
We still haven't covered all of our basis, and we have expended a huge amount of money. So actually you analogy is a perfect example.
Right now if we develope a missle defense system against North Korea Their premier is faced with a decision. He currently uses the nuclear threat as a bargining chip, with a defense system inplace he will lose that threat so he must either
A. Use said nuclear weapons against us before we complete our defense system.
or
B. Develope alternate ways of delivering a nuclear attack on US soil.
C. Sell his weapons to other interested parties.
D. Give up

Sit A is terrible, B is no good, C is very bad and D is so unlikely. These are my reasons for stating that a missle defense system is not the best way to spend our military dollars.

[nicky g]

I've just seen these responses:

"C'mon that doesn't mean that an ABM won't ever "work.""

No but my understanding is that the system they're going with doesn't.

"Which doesn't preclude the desirability of having an ABM defense."

It does if it can't prevent a nuclear attack.

[vulturesrow]

Did you visit the link I posted?

[nicky g]

"ACtually development of the system is coming along nicely. Here is the website for the missile defense agency:"

Given its existence and funding depends upon saying so, I'm not sure I'll take its word as gospel. My understanding is that during the last major test phase, the system repeatedly failed its tests and only passed the last one because they rigged it by putting a GPS tracker on the missile it had to shoot down.


"Also it is believed that North Korea does have missiles capable of hitting parts of the US. "

I'm unaware of this. Could you provide a link?

[nicky g]

Patience dear fellow, I'm dealing with the posts one a time.

[nicky g]

Ok this (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/09/24/642216.html) article backs up your claim that North Korea has missiles that can hit the west coast of the US, so I retract that, apologies.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok this article backs up your claim that North Korea has missiles that can hit the west coast of the US, so I retract that, apologies

[/ QUOTE ]

NK Missile Data (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm)

Here is another one Nicky.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just seen these responses:

"C'mon that doesn't mean that an ABM won't ever "work.""

No but my understanding is that the system they're going with doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah you need to understand the DOD procurement cycle. Many advanced stystems "don't work" for years. These systems tend to be evolutionary.

[ QUOTE ]
"Which doesn't preclude the desirability of having an ABM defense."

It does if it can't prevent a nuclear attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, not preventing a nuclear attack does not preclude the desirability of having such a system.

[nicky g]

"Many advanced stystems "don't work" for years. These systems tend to be evolutionary."

May or may not be the case for this one. If it is, I don't see the point in building it when it doesn;t work and then having to make costly modifications in the future when the technology is available to to ensure that it does.

[nicky g]

Some words of wisdom from none other than BruceZ that I remembered making some good points about missile defence:

Missile Shield (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=353863&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

[Felix_Nietsche]

My Pearl Harbor analogy was in response to the original poster who thought a missle defense system was unnessary because we have never been attacked by missles. This is like saying, 'why should we install locks on our doors when our house has never been robbed'. The purpose for the locks is to PREVENT and DETER the house from being robbed in the first place...

As for Pearl Harbor, if it were properly defended, the US fleet would have survived largely intact. As a result, I would argue the war would have ended at least one year earlier which would have resulted in less widows, less orphans, less cripples, and less financial cost. I'd say better defenses would have been a good investment. So again, I'm not buying what your selling....

We have seen what 3 planes crashing into building has done to our economy these last few months. Imagine what one nuke would do, if it hit San Fran. I'd argue a missle defense is worth it from a financial point-of-view.

As for option A, I think North Korea is stupid but I doubt their stupid enough to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the US just because we build a missle defense system. If they are that TRULY that stupid, then North Korea deserves to nuked premptively so they never get that chance...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
May or may not be the case for this one. If it is, I don't see the point in building it when it doesn;t work and then having to make costly modifications in the future when the technology is available to to ensure that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cycle is come up with a vague, technologically extremely challenging, feature laden specification for a "whiz bang" system. Then initial development and then testing, feedback, modifications, testing, feedback, modications .... for years in a lot of cases.

That's the norm trust me on this one. Whether or not that's the most effective process is certainly open to debate. Again I'm not necessarily advocating such a system, I'm stating that your reasons aren't valid. The DOD has wasted a ton of money on projects in the past and I have little doubt that it will happen again and I think there is an issue as to how the DOD does procure weapon systems. But that doesn't mean the process won't yield at least some desired results eventually. BTW I read your link to Bruce Z's post and I think it's fair to say that there are those who believe that the "bluff" element has value.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
We have seen what 3 planes crashing into building has done to our economy these last few months. Imagine what one nuke would do, if it hit San Fran. I'd argue a missle defense is worth it from a financial point-of-view.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, please provide an estimate, you could even use Seattle since that might be a little worse. Also, please provide figures on the cost of missile defense to develop to the point of having even 50% success rate.

Again, I don't think anyone who currently has missiles capable of hitting us is going to use them unless we hit them first and fail to eliminate the capability. And we're not going to do that, at least I sure as hell hope not, because it would be suicidal. So we should try to prevent anyone else from getting ICBM's to go with nukes and work to seriously track and control nuclear material and nuclear know-how. What's wrong with this idea? The scenario you envisioned contains serious tactical errors on the part of the US. Do you expect your president to make those errors?

The realistic cost of a Star Wars system is probably going to have nine or ten digits in it. There's a lot you can do with a trillion dollars.

NT

[MMMMMM]

Last I read (maybe 6 months or a year ago) the missile defense system was costing perhaps 7-10 billion a year. At that rate, it would take over 100 years of development to cost a trillion dollars (excluding inflation etc).

9/11 cost between 100-300 billion in damages and harm to the economy. A major nuke blast taking out an entire major U.S. city would obviously cost many, many times what 9/11 cost the the U.S....it's just not really even comparable in terms of cost and damages. Just what would you guess ALL the real estate in San Francisco or Seattle is worth, anyway?

So: saving even just ONE major city would be worth many, many times the cost of missile shield development.

Therefore a 50% success ratio is not a valid benchmark for judging cost-effectiveness. A much lower success % benchmark would still be very cost-effective, provided it was not abysmally low.