Logic of Missile Defense

Here are some succint arguments as to why Missile Defense may make sense and both practically and financially. From the Wall Street Journal:

www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=95001701 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=95001701)

I think the cost is way underestimated and the benefit is way overestimated. It's an excuse to line the pockets of the defense contractors, who will pump money into the supporting politicians political campaigns so we can suffer through another 4 years of Bush. One man, one vote? Bullshit. This country belongs to the corporations.

Well let's use a little math then. Say the cost is underestimated by a factor of 10. Now compare the new estimate of the cost with the cost of just one nuclear missile taking out one of our larger cities. If 9/11 cost us $200 billion, what would it would cost us if all of New York City, or even only all of Manhattan, were destroyed? Even a missile defense shield costing ten times the $100 billion estimate of today would be cheap in $$ terms if it just saved ONE major city, and that's not counting the lives it could save and the misery it might avert. It might save more than one city, too. So a missile shield could cost a lot more than anticipated and not have as great benefits as expected and still be a great bargain even if we only face ONE future ICBM attack.


Besides, who in their right mind would want to be at the mercy of the likes of Saddam Hussein when he gets his nukes (if he doesn't already have them), which according to German Intelligence should be by 2005 at the latest. Here's a man, Mr. Saddam Hussein, whose avowed hero is Josef Stalin and who murders his political opposition...and their families...and their extended families...just like his idol Josef Stalin did. Saddam has long admired Stalin's methods and the man and for most of his long political career has practiced Stalin's techniques with icy determination.


Lots of these Middle Easterners are nuts, and they would be happy to blow us up even if it means they get blown up too: this is clear from the many suicide bombings. Blowing us up (and then we blow up their country) would appeal to the same mentality as just one great big suicide bombing. F&ck that. Build a shield so the fanatics can't nuke us and the Saddams can't blackmail the USA or Europe or Israel.

Learn now how to properly pronounce words such as Basilan Island and Abu Sayyaf. There's no need to know what the hell they mean yet! Just learn to throw them in non-chalantly in posts about poker grand strategy and after-hours conversation.


...Years later, if the pattern holds, people will recall with admiration that, Hey, that sharp cat, Mr M, was talking about this long before we got into the shit.

I don't think those guys have nukes yet, at least;-)...though I am coming more to the conclusion that NATO should methodically go after terrorists all over the globe and wipe them out. Screw all the lameass political considerations that just get in the way and reduce effectiveness by about 90%; just get rid of these mofos whose only purpose in life has become the plotting and carrying out of means to take more innocent lives. Maybe if we're lucky we can kill the next bin-Laden before he gets really powerful and organized and armed with nukes and everything else...and ICBM's. Yeah it sounds nuts even after 9/11 but that's just exactly where things are headed.

'Maybe if we're lucky we can kill the next bin-Laden before he gets really powerful and organized and armed with nukes and everything else...and ICBM's.'


you know that bin laden and the cia were very tight. (russians-afghanisti war etc)


brad

This logic presumes that the only way to deliver a nuke is via ICBM. There are many, many other cheaper ways to get a nuke to NYC than missile technology. Indeed, the countries in the so-called axis of evil will have (or have had in the case of N. Korea) nuclear bombs long before they have missile capacity. Granted, it's much easier to fire off a missile than smuggle in a bomb, but I don't think a missile shield will necessarily make us feel safer when dealing with a nut who has the bomb. Thus, the missile shield doesn't protect from either bombing or implicit blackmail, as your message hopes.


Suppose Iraq has the bomb, but no ICBMs. Do we still invade and hope we can stop the bad guys at the border? Maybe, maybe not. Further, do we really think missile defense could knock down 300 missiles? If the sovereign nuts can build one, with not much time they can probably build 300. I doubt we'd ever be willing to make the wager that we could knock down all of them. Yeah, the non-sovereign nuts probably don't have the capacity to make 300 missiles, but as we've horribly seen, they probably wouldn't go that route anyway.

"This logic presumes that the only way to deliver a nuke is via ICBM."


No, it doesn't. Did you read the linked article? This very point is discussed. Just because there is more than one way to deliver a nuke does not mean we should ignore some of the possibilities or fail to take preventative measures to deal with as many potential scenarios as possible.


"Further, do we really think missile defense could knock down 300 missiles?"


This point too was addressed in the article. Even knocking down ONE nuclear ICBM and saving ONE city would be more than worth the cost of building the shield--even strictly in financial terms.


Why don't you go read the link...it's just a brief page and it addresses your points concisely, as well as some others.

But any law abiding American knows that you are correct.

The foregoing post was made by Ray Springfield. The reason he hides under aliases is that he can't play interenet poker. The reason he can no longer play internet poker is that he was barred from Paradise for being a degenerate gambler. The reason he's obsessed with me is that I haven't been.


Ray doesn't really think that he's more "law-abiding than me." Here he is last June when he was determined to play online, but couldn't:


“I no longer believe that they [Paradise Poker] are crooked. I apologize to anyone I offended last year.”


Ray Springfield, June 2, 2001, 4:39 p.m.


And he tried to play online, but couldn't, as he posted a few weeks later:


Banned by Paradise!

Posted by: Ray Springfield

Posted on: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 10:56 a.m.

"Having recently been in touch with Chris Alger in a live poker game and having been convinced that Chris is telling the truth about his online experience, I thought I might try Paradise one more time. Their tech support informed me that I was persona non grata. The only thing I ever did to warrant this was to request on 2+2 that the owners identify themselves. It is clear that they never will. I suppose that many of my concerns about their ownership, and or their business practices might have merit."


And his theory as to why they banned him?:


Re: Banned by Paradise!

Posted by: Ray Springfield

Posted on: Friday, 8 June 2001, at 4:59 a.m.

"The truth is that Paradise is afraid that I'm a federal agent."


I was told by Paradise directly that Ray was barred because he triggered a "problem gambler" flag.


Obviouslyh, Ray has very significant problems with telling the truth.


These are some of the aliases he's used in the last month to disguise the fact that he constantly flames people:


"What would Ghandi say?; Ghandi admirer; A true patriot!; why bother with the man?; you are pretty warped; tee hee hee; chris Alger's Psychotherapist; CD; you are a good follower; cd; yeah right; Why?; paranoid pchizophrenia above; more Al Queada non-sense; C Alger is eLROY; dream on MacDuff; C Alger the Nazi; Ha Ha, you are so funny NOT!; anonymous Alger critic; resolution 242; Charlie Davidson; 75% of the posters are PP shills; ha ha ha; so many shills here!; another alias; Am Alert; very sad; and [finally , an appropriate one] adolf"


These are just a small percentage of the aliases he's used in the last year, and don't include all the posts he's made under my name, Andrew Prock's name, Bob L's name, w.e.b.'s name, and many others, including the ones that Chuck Weinstock confirmed to me via email, consisting of entire threads of pretend "posters," all of them Springfield, applauding him for his genius.


It's not as if he's a netkook. He takes exception to being called that.

I think the Americans should nuke Iraq.


Even if it's just in the desert away from any populated region. Even if the Iraqis are warned in advance.


For gods sake, the Americans have the nuke and are scared to death that other countries may get them too. Better to put the fear of nukes into other countries. Just nuke'm and tell them they have one day to let in UN weapons inspectors to finally destroy *all* Iraqi mass-destruction weapons or face a nuke in every populated area.


They should have done this in Afghanistan as well before sending troops in.

Busted. I confess; I didn't read it, as I assumed it just pulled out the same tired arguments for and against (which you and I are probably going to do in this thread).


To address the points that you brought up:


Agreed that just because there are other ways to deliver nukes doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue missile defense; however, many proponents of missile defense argue as if building the 'shield' will allow us to not be blackmailed and to not worry about rogue states. This is simply not true, and your response to my noting this doesn't address the issue - you merely say that just because Saddam can truck a bomb to NY is no reason not to stop him launching an ICBM, while I'm saying that because Saddam can truck a bomb to NY you can't argue that missile defense is good because it prevents rogue states from having the power of nuclear deterrence. The truck bomb scenario doesn't mean the missile defense is a bad idea, it merely severely weakens some of the arguments in favor of missile defense.


Your other point: On financial terms, knocking down one missile out of 300 is a win. This is a pretty vacuous argument when the big picture is concerned. The other 299 end the country, if not the world. What precisely is won here? (Further, if you consider that the other 299 do wipe out the one 'saved' city anyway, missile defense turns out not to be a financial win in any way.)


As an aside, M, I have enjoyed your discussions with Chris Alger (notwithstanding the rants interjected from others) regarding the mess in Israel/Palestine. Thanks to both of you for continuing the debate in a mostly orderly manner without getting sucked into screeds.

Ok, thx to you too;-)...now will you please go read the very brief article? It also logically addresses your point about the 300 ICBM's...the reason I included the link was so I didn't have to write a whole damn essay myself;-)...it covers the points logically and more succintly than I would hope to be able to do.

"Just nuke'm and tell them they have one day to let in UN weapons inspectors"


I'd tell them that they have to let in UN weapons inspectors TOMORROW. Enough with the BULLSH!T already, Mr. Hussein.

CA: "and many others, including the ones that Chuck Weinstock confirmed to me via email, consisting of entire threads of pretend "posters," all of them Springfield, applauding him for his genius."


That doesn't prove it. They could have been living at his house or could have come over for a visit.

Yeah, he might have been hosting a convention of netkooks.

Read the article. It does a fine job of arguing against some of the standard attacks against the missile defense system, but it doesn't address the 300 missile scenario I describe. It merely reiterates your comment - just because it doesn't protect us in this scenario doesn't mean we shouldn't build it. I agree with that entirely; my beef was with the financial argument you offered for the 300 missile scenario. (Though I do think the 300 missile scenario raises other points - by the time missile defense works, it may be obsolete; kind of like building the best sword ever in 1963.)


If in the future bad guys will definitely be able overcome missile defense with numbers or truck bombs, then the only thing it protects against is accidents. Even here the financial analysis fails because it's only a winner in the case that the accident occurs; i.e. the price we pay should be viewed as we view insurance premia. In such, we don't compare the price of the premium to the price we'll have to pay in event of catastrophe as the article you cite does, but to the price we'll have to pay tempered by the probability that we'll have to pay it. This is an inherent flaw in most of the financial arguments I've seen in favor of missile defense (and is a pretty big flaw in the logic of the article you posted). Following this logic, you should be happy to pay the same price for homeowners insurance that you paid to buy your house.


As it stands, I'm mildly against missile defense, but only because I think the cash can be much better spent elsewhere (though the government insists in proving it's incapable of doing so; missile defense is much better than plenty of the crap it does spend cash on). I just stumble into these arguments because I think both sides in the debate (like most debates) are somewhat dishonest (or only understand arguments that support their side). Not trying to put you in this category - your long arguments with Alger suggest you think about arguments your opponents make, as opposed to the way most folks are about missile defense, Israel, or anything else.


Lastly, I'll relay an argument in favor of missile defense a friend of mine makes: Since as most folks who will actually do the work on the program are smart people, missile defense acts as a transfer of wealth (and therefore influence) to smart people. He's all for that, so he's for missile defense. No need to fire back at this - it's not my stand, but I do find it amusing.

You'll likely see this as soon as the US military is in position to strike the next day. Whether or not it's a good idea remains to be seen. I think that's really a question that only people living around 50 years for now will be able to answer, and even then it may not be so clear.

'I'll relay an argument in favor of missile defense a friend of mine makes: Since as most folks who will actually do the work on the program are smart people, missile defense acts as a transfer of wealth (and therefore influence) to smart people.'


non sequitur since the workers get living expenses and the super rich get the profits (in the case of giant defense projects anyway).


brad

Oops; my answer to this was entered as a response to your initial message (perhaps proving that I finally read the article!)...

I'm not Ray Springfield. Go ahead and trace my ip address. You are not only anti-Semitic, you have Ray Springfield on the brain.

Weinstock confirmed for me that Chris Alger has 7 to 8 aliases.

Real people are posting that they've seen you playing in unlicensed casinos. They aren't me.

"Somehow, Ivan's name landed in my name box while I was jumping between posts and I didn't catch it."


Yeah right, talking to yourself again?

This is indeed possible, as when Ray was anonymously flaming and lying about Dan Hanson, most notably by calling him a Nazi, he admitted to me that he enlisted the help of his intimate friend, "Matt," who posted whatever Ray told him to, most notably lies about what Hanson had said and regularly calling him a "nazi." As you can't make up your mind as to what name you should post under, I'll assume you're him.

Yeah, notice how I admit it when I make a mistake, because I'm not a psychotic degenerate gambler.

Name one, psycho.

Attorney General Salazar and Gaming Commission Warn of Perils of Online and Telephone Gambling


DENVER-In recognition of Responsible Gaming Education Week, Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar and Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission Chairman Natalie Meyer today cautioned that Colorado residents who place wagers over the internet or the telephone are not only risking their money, but also may be violating state and federal laws.


"Making a bet online is a bad risk," said Attorney General Salazar. "Not only is it illegal in Colorado, but you never know what is going to happen to your money. It can be a total ripoff to consumers."


Recent published reports indicate internet gaming was a $1.4 billion industry in 2000 and is expected to more than double to $3.0 billion in 2002.


Nonetheless, internet gambling is illegal under federal and state law. Federal law prohibits placing bets over phone lines. Both the internet and 800 numbers for sports wagering require the use of phone communications. The Colorado Constitution allows only certain types of "gambling," which the state regulates. Legal gambling in Colorado includes the State Lottery; live and off-track betting on horse and dog racing events; bingo, raffles and charitable games licensed and regulated by the Secretary of State's office; and limited stakes gaming in casinos in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek, as well as on tribal reservation land.

18-20-103 - Violations of taxation provisions - penalties

1) Any person who:


(a) Makes any false or fraudulent return in attempting to defeat or evade the tax imposed by article 47.1 of title 12, C.R.S., commits a class 5 felony;


(b) Fails to pay tax due under article 47.1 of title 12, C.R.S., within thirty days after the date the tax becomes due commits a class 1 misdemeanor;


(c) Fails to file a return required by article 47.1 of title 12, C.R.S., within thirty days after the date the return is due commits a class 1 misdemeanor;

John Wren and Big Mike are friends of mine. They've played with you at the Hop Sing Tong. You'd recognize them. You also have so many "friends" at the Med Club that grew tired of your boasting about your $50k at Paradise, and how you didn't have to pay taxes.

Would these be the friends that started playing at Hop Sing to get away from you because you were too psychotic to play with in a home game? I've seen a few of those.


And I pay my taxes, you psycho liar.

So then what did you think of the Luftwaffe/Spitfire analogy? And doesn't it mean anything if we can shoot down some percentage of say 300 missiles? Mightn't the percentage be on the high side as well as on the low side? Why not defend as best we can on all fronts: missile shield, border inspections, greater airline security, etc.?


One problem with having ICBM's aimed at us is that they can be launched at any time. Smuggled weapons or jetliner hijackings generally take some planning and may be thwarted. However ICBM's currently cannot be thwarted; they can only be watched. I don't see how remaining perpetually under the threat of ICBM's could be a desirable thing, especially if we are dealing with terrorists for whom the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction has no meaning other than a Great Big Suicide Bombing.

I think the point is: partial protection against a scenario of number of missiles = X is better than no protection.


Also, blocking only 1 out of 300 is almost surely a lowball estimate, just as blocking 299 out of 300 is probably a highball estimate--with olives.

You mean arguments like this?


"There is no question the technology required to shoot down an incoming missile is complex, but so was the technology required to put a man on the moon. The Wright brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk lasted for 12 seconds, while American scientists assured us that crafts heavier than air could never fly. Antimissile technology has already succeeded in the seemingly impossible task of hitting a bullet with a bullet, while American politicians assure us that it will never work."


And that's all he says about the technology problem. In other words, MD is technologically feasibile because other things that were thought to be infeasible proved to be feasible. Therefore everything is feasible.


Real "logic" in that one.


Or this one:


"Missile defense 'will not protect us from something being smuggled in,' Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said on Sept. 13. 'It will not protect us from an atom bomb in the rusty hull of a ship coming into a harbor. It will not protect us from anthrax.'

But it will protect us from ballistic missiles, and that is a real threat."


Ballistic missiles don't threaten anyone, the warheads on them do. If bad guys can't deliver the warhead with a missile, they'll deliver it by backpack or airplane, and render the entire missile defense shield a collossal white elephant. DuPont's "logical" response is to simply ignores the point Biden is making.


And then the howlers:


"Russia's President Vladimir Putin didn't seem too upset with America's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ...."


Nobody that followed this issue at all could escape the constant denunciations from Moscow of this program and the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty. DuPont is pretty close to lying here.


"Of course Russia already has an operational missile-defense system...."


Circa, what, 1966? It purports to defend one city. U.S. strategic planners thought it was so ineffectual that they expressly let the Russians keep it in the ABM treaty.


This is the way the establishment talks down to the masses in order to justify corporate welfare. DuPont's "National Center for Policy Analysis" is the creation of five right-wing CEO's and lives off crumbs thrown to them by the right-wing Scaife, Bradley, and Koch family foundations and trusts together with defense industry and other corporate contributions, and the odd millionaire associated with them. Notice at how easy it is for such a feeble effort to make it into the Wall Street Journal. The left-wing equivalent to this would be a program for world peace consisting of planting more flowers.


The U.S. has been trying for decades to perfect an invulnerable first-strike nuclear weapons system with which to prosecute, to paraphrase Clauswitz, "politics by other means." Missile defense is one far-fetched but juicily expensive component, with big bucks all around for some of the GOP's biggest contributors. The threat to us and the world is not that it can't work, but that it might. The only saving grace is that it simply destroyes the arguments that "fiscal discipline" require ignoring public demands for more and better government services.

I think we've more or less converged (or are now just talking past each other). I agree that there's something gained from missile defense, and I'm guessing (though can't be certain) that you agree with my pointing out the financial argument presented in the article doesn't hold water. I'm not saying 'some missiles will get by, let's scrap the program', I'm saying 'some missiles will get by, so arguments that depend on none of them getting by are fruitless'. The financial argument, aside from having the fatal flaw I mentioned with the insurance analogy, also has the flaw that if as little as, say, 15-20% of the 300 missiles get through, all financial concerns are out the window and all the money in the world we saved by blocking the other 80% won't help us.


So, once again, yes, I agree that blocking some missiles is a plus in missile defense's favor, but the fact that others will get by does a great deal of damage to other arguments in its favor. It doesn't make missile defense stupid, it doesn't make it a clear pass, but it does make it less obviously good, which is important to note since it doesn't come cheap. If missile defense were free there'd be no discussion. But it's not, and we should be honest about what we're buying when we assess whether or not it's worth it. The article you cite is not (though it may be an honest error; perhaps the author didn't think of the apt insurance analogy). And that's not to mention the geopolitical costs of even pursuing missile defense - the conservatives may value these costs at zero, but they're wrong.

Du Pont: "There is no question the technology required to shoot down an incoming missile is complex, but so was the technology required to put a man on the moon. The Wright brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk lasted for 12 seconds, while American scientists assured us that crafts heavier than air could never fly. Antimissile technology has already succeeded in the seemingly impossible task of hitting a bullet with a bullet, while American politicians assure us that it will never work."


CA: And that's all he says about the technology problem. In other words, MD is technologically feasibile because other things that were thought to be infeasible proved to be feasible. Therefore everything is feasible.


Real "logic" in that one.


M: Chris, he is not saying it is necessarily feasible. That's your illogical assumption as to what he is saying. He is saying that historically, many things thought not to be feasible actually turned out to be feasible...and is thus suggesting that this may be the case regarding missile defense as well. But he is not claiming it necessarily will be so. Personally speaking, I would lay odds of 1000-1 that it eventually becomes feasible provided it is given a lot of R&D effort--it is just a silly assumption that it will never be feasible, given the fact that technology keeps improving year after year and that a missile was already shot down in a test.


"Missile defense 'will not protect us from something being smuggled in,' Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said on Sept. 13. 'It will not protect us from an atom bomb in the rusty hull of a ship coming into a harbor. It will not protect us from anthrax.'


Du Pont: "But it will protect us from ballistic missiles, and that is a real threat."


CA: Ballistic missiles don't threaten anyone, the warheads on them do. If bad guys can't deliver the warhead with a missile, they'll deliver it by backpack or airplane, and render the entire missile defense shield a collossal white elephant. DuPont's "logical" response is to simply ignores the point Biden is making.


M: His response is an effort to make the point that if we are vulnerable on multiple fronts, we should develop means of defense on each of those fronts. Personally I think it would be foolhardy to concentrate our efforts on defending against only one type of attack: we need a missile shield, increased security against smuggled weapons, increased airline security...we need it all to reduce the risks on all of those fronts. Your argument that if they can't deliver an attack via one means they will deliver it by another method misses the point, because by reducing or eliminating one type of threat, we are also reducing the total amount of damage we might suffer. Isn't this a major consideration? Look, if these guys can't ICBM us but they can smuggle in an occasional weapon, that's a helluva lot better than if they can ICBM us AND smuggle in an occasional weapon, isn't it? Isn't taking less damage preferable to taking more damage, and isn't being less vulnerable overall preferable to being more vulnerable? Well maybe not in Chris Alger's view of things. It astounds me that you would argue that we would take the same amount of damage either way, whether we are vulnerable to smuggled weapons, or whether we are vulnerable to ICBM's AND smuggled weapons. And if you are not claiming this as a basis for your argument please correct yourself. At the very least you are completely ignoring the fact that being more vulnerable on more fronts increases the likelihood of taking more total damage.


I don't think the part about Putin's reaction to the US initiative is really a main part of this debate--maybe it's a howler, as you say, maybe not...he was denunciatory before the US publicly announced decision, but afterwards he didn't seem too upset. Anyway back to the main issues:


CA: The U.S. has been trying for decades to perfect an invulnerable first-strike nuclear weapons system with which to prosecute, to paraphrase Clauswitz, "politics by other means." Missile defense is one far-fetched but juicily expensive component, with big bucks all around for some of the GOP's biggest contributors. The threat to us and the world is not that it can't work, but that it might. The only saving grace is that it simply destroyes the arguments that "fiscal discipline" require ignoring public demands for more and better government services.


M: as Du Pont points out, the cost, put in perspective, isn't all that great compared to some other government programs such as Farm Subsidies, and at current estimates is a lot less than the total financial damage we took on 9/11. Moreover, if the missile shield saves only one major city it will have more than paid for itself, even if it should turn out that development costs at present are seriously underestimated.

It does seem as though we are converging for the most part. One thing about the insurance example though: don't forget that in the insurance argument we are assuming only house (or city) saved. If a missile shield saves more than one now it changes the whole picture. Also, if it reduces an attack of say 10 ICBM's to an attack of 8 that's a HUGE difference and we could somehow cope with the damage from 2 though perhaps not with the damage from 10--or substitute any figures you care to...I'm just trying to say that it might reduce an otherwise overwhelmingly destructive attack to an amount of devastation we could somehow manage to deal with. And terrorists are, at least in the near future, unlikely to acquire more than a handful of nuclear-tipped ICBM's--which is probably a good thing since my guess is a missile shield could probably handle most of a handful but couldn't handle 300. In other words Russia could still demolish us but Saddam or bin Laden couldn't.

Wow. I think we might have achieved a rarity on this list - we actually converged.


Agreed that a financial analysis isn't precisely insuring one house, but neither is it the financial value of the missile system equal exactly to the cities it protects as your article suggests.


Agreed that in the near future looneys aren't likely to have 300 ICBMs (however, we aren't likely to have an operable missile defense system in the near future, so this may be a moot point).


And I think we agree that a system that lets in any significant percentage of a large attack is essentially useless in the face of said attack (particularly considering that our retaliation may be enough to do ourselves in through a nuclear winter).


One thing that's bemused me about this whole debate is why the defense contractor/rightist lobby that's fighting for it didn't start with a program that is so difficult to defend. Start with a program that knocks down shorter missiles, a la a souped up Patriot missile program. Sure, that didn't work so well in the Gulf war, but neither did most of the 'smart' bombs which seem to have worked better in more recent conflicts. It's much easier to justify a program which will protect our carriers sitting in the Indian Ocean from missile attacks since this has more obviously imminent use than missile defense. Then again, perhaps we already have such a program - I'm no weapons expert. Besides, with such a far right administration in office, why not ask for the whole enchilada.

The 9/11 debacle was years in the planning. Smuggling takes concerted planned efforts, so attacks involving smuggled bombs would tend to be slow and vulnerable to any number of things going wrong including simply being detected and intercepted. However if terrorists get ICBM's with nuclear or chemical weapons aimed at us, all they would have to do is press a couple buttons. I can't see how you don't think that ICBM's in the hands of terrorists would not constitute an immense increase in our danger levels, as well as greatly increasing the total amount of damage they could deliver at will.

"He is saying that historically, many things thought not to be feasible actually turned out to be feasible...and is thus suggesting that this may be the case regarding missile defense as well."


That's right, he's stating a simple platitude that that has nothing to do with missile defense. "Since some things thought to be infeasible eventually became feasible, anything -- "X" -- might eventually become be feasible even if it isn't now." It's a perfectly empty truism that sheds no light at all on anything. It's the equivalent of saying "anything is possible." So how does it supply "logic" to the case for missile defense?


"Your argument that if they can't deliver an attack via one means they will deliver it by another method misses the point, because by reducing or eliminating one type of threat, we are also reducing the total amount of damage we might suffer."


You're threat reduction is entirely theoretical and ignores practical realities. 19 nuclear terrorists with 19 nuclear weapons can decimate the country's population in minutes. This will remain the case as long as such weapons can be produced. If the country's vulnerability to nuclear attack can be anologized to a house with no possibility of doors to prevent burglars from entering, missile defense is a massively expensive plan to shore up the windows, thus theoretically reducing the chance that burglars will try it the hard way.


"Isn't taking less damage preferable to taking more damage, and isn't being less vulnerable overall preferable to being more vulnerable?"


If you want to reduce vulnerability to nuclear attack, negotiate their abolition. Most other countries want to, but we refuse to even consider it. Look where we stand compared with everyone else with regard to the test ban treaty.


If it works, missile defense will be the world's first strike-capable nuclear weapons system since two superpowers could deter each olther. In the few years that such a system didn't exist, nuclear weapons were used and threatened to have been used by the U.S. So it won't people less vulnerable, it make them more vulnerable. Your concern doesn't seem to be people but only "people in the U.S."


And that's if the world does nothing in response. If history is any guide, other countries won't remain powerless against the massive nuclear might of the U.S., but will develop some form of deterrent, such as perfecting nuclear or CBW terrorism. Think of this over a period of 1,000 years. Perfecting the ability to strike first with nuclear weapons can only lead to a massive increase in vulnerability.

i thought of this too. i read that like 8 million big shipping containers (like as big as an 18-wheeler hauler trucks cargo) come into this country completely uninspected each year. but no, forget about that, lets build a missile shield.


as for the house analogy, to take a bit further, say you own say a single share in a company and go to a stockholders meeting and they want to spend all this money on high tech stuff in case someone decides to parachute in and steal stuff when meanwhile the front door doesnt even have any locks but no one talks about that.


brad

"Smuggling takes concerted planned efforts, so attacks involving smuggled bombs would tend to be slow and vulnerable to any number of things going wrong including simply being detected and intercepted."


Yeah, smuggling's tough. Maybe they could hide the weapons inside the cocaine.


"However if terrorists get ICBM's with nuclear or chemical weapons aimed at us, all they would have to do is press a couple buttons."


Yeah, I can see bin Laden's instructions to subordinates: (1) get ICBM'; (2) press buttons. Oh, you mean the "rogue states?" (1) they haven't committed any mass scale terrorism hostile to the U.S. (N. Korea "support for terrorism" consists of not turning of Japanese Red Army hijackers from a decade or so ago; Irag's poisoning of the Kurds took place with U.S. support). (2) it's absurd to think the U.S. would stand by while they develop ICBM's. If any country that was fundamentally hositle to the U.S. and potentially suicidal tried to acquire nuclear weapons, we'd attack in an instant, as Israel did to Iraq back in the 80's. We wouldn't wait to see if missile defense were feasible.


So where's the evidence that any country could develop the infrastructure for ICBM's without the U.S. noticing? It doesn't exist. Even if it did, the solution would be better monitoring and intelligence. DuPont's failure to even mention these obvious points is further evidence that he's just a shill for corporate welfare beneficiaries and imperialist ideologues.

im anti-anti-theft .


brad

I remember this arcade video game where you controlled your anti-missile rays with some sort of rolling ball. There were incoming missiles from the sky down to your country and you had to strike them down with them rays.


I remember also that there was a girl who was pretty much the local champion in that game, but didn't care much about the other stuff, like beat 'em up and all that.


I wonder if I still have her phone number somewhere... I'm sure she will have a better score at this than the "real" Missile Defense idiots.

The game is over. Alger holds just a pair of problems, verses a full house of investigators.

Someone called the number below and mentioned that you claimed to have received almost $50,000 in tax free money that would have been cashed on Costa Rican checks.


"Report Suspected Tax Fraud 1-800-829-0433"

Of course, maybe you never cashed any checks and are just a compulsive gambling loser.

I hope that you actually did win the money!

Vince Lepore told me that nukes give off radiation which can be detected from afar. In other words just the presence of a nuke on a ship nearing the US or entering one of our harbors may be easily detectable.

If we get nuked and could have defended ourselves but didn't, who would the real missile defense idiots then be?


Don't you have any faith in American technology? Technology marches on and only fools think such things will be forever impossible.

M:"He is saying that historically, many things thought not to be feasible actually turned out to be feasible...and is thus suggesting that this may be the case regarding missile defense as well."


CA: That's right, he's stating a simple platitude that that has nothing to do with missile defense. "Since some things thought to be infeasible eventually became feasible, anything -- "X" -- might eventually become be feasible even if it isn't now." It's a perfectly empty truism that sheds no light at all on anything. It's the equivalent of saying "anything is possible." So how does it supply "logic" to the case for missile defense?


M: Well why should we assume it to be too hard to achieve then, as do many opponents of missile defense? We already shot down one missile or warhead. Maybe that's it; we'll never be able to shoot down another one. Right. Assume technology CAN'T do something like this, ever? LMAO. Damn near everything we have in science and technology today was once thought impossible, and we've already succeeded in shooting down a drone-type missile in a test. Amazing if we can clone, send smart probes out of the solar system, develop nanotechnology, and shoot down a missile-type object ...but we can't develop a missile defense. I say hogwash--eventually we can develop it, and assuming we can't is foolish.


M:"Your argument that if they can't deliver an attack via one means they will deliver it by another method misses the point, because by reducing or eliminating one type of threat, we are also reducing the total amount of damage we might suffer."


CA: You're threat reduction is entirely theoretical and ignores practical realities. 19 nuclear terrorists with 19 nuclear weapons can decimate the country's population in minutes. This will remain the case as long as such weapons can be produced. If the country's vulnerability to nuclear attack can be anologized to a house with no possibility of doors to prevent burglars from entering, missile defense is a massively expensive plan to shore up the windows, thus theoretically reducing the chance that burglars will try it the hard way.


M: 1, 9 or 19...I'd rather have LESS nukes going off in the US than MORE. Making it hard for terrorists to attack us on all fronts is indeed the aproach we need to take, and by making it as difficult as possible we have the best chance of taking the least damage. It is your approach which ignores practical realities if you assume that terrorists will necessarily be able to overcome all the obstacles we throw up to inflict total destruction on the US. Don't you even consider that maybe with all our defenses and vigilance they might get perhaps 1 nuke in and detonated, whereas with negligence on our part they might get 19 in?


M:"Isn't taking less damage preferable to taking more damage, and isn't being less vulnerable overall preferable to being more vulnerable?"


CA: If you want to reduce vulnerability to nuclear attack, negotiate their abolition. Most other countries want to, but we refuse to even consider it. Look where we stand compared with everyone else with regard to the test ban treaty.


M:Abolishing all nukes by treaty will only ensure that cheaters will be the only ones with nukes.


CA: If it works, missile defense will be the world's first strike-capable nuclear weapons system since two superpowers could deter each olther. In the few years that such a system didn't exist, nuclear weapons were used and threatened to have been used by the U.S. So it won't people less vulnerable, it make them more vulnerable. Your concern doesn't seem to be people but only "people in the U.S."


M: Defensive systems do not make people more vulnerable; offensive systems do that. The US today is a responsible entity which will not abuse nuclear superiority the way rogue regimes or China might, should they have it instead. When the US did use nukes in WWII, it was arguably to end a great war and save more lives in aggregate. While the numbers may be debatable, the US is not a totalitarian or terrorist power.


Having MAD is NOT security from ICBM's. Having a near total missile shield is.


My concern is indeed for all peoples but of course it is first for the US. I don't think that our being highly vulnerable to attack serves either the USA or the world well.


CA: And that's if the world does nothing in response. If history is any guide, other countries won't remain powerless against the massive nuclear might of the U.S., but will develop some form of deterrent, such as perfecting nuclear or CBW terrorism. Think of this over a period of 1,000 years. Perfecting the ability to strike first with nuclear weapons can only lead to a massive increase in vulnerability.


M:I believe that this is nonsense. If every country were equally armed and equally vulnerable I surmise that the world would be a far more dangerous place than it is now. As things are, many nations will not attack others primarily because they know they would lose. Take away that deterrent and give them equal chances and we would probably see far more attacks. Fortunately for the world, however, today the most concentrated power is largely in the hands of the most democratic and decent governments. And that's the way it should be. If China or North Korea or Iraq held most of the power instead of the USA and NATO, we would probably be living in a hellish world that would make today's world look like paradise by comparison. That is, if we were living at all.

I would not suggest nuking all populated areas of Iraq; rather, demolishing Saddam's largest military bases one by one until he capitulates to unfettered UN inspectors. I must have some sympathy for the people of Iraq...but for Saddam, whose hero and idol actually is Josef Stalin, and who has long practiced Stalin's tradition of murdering his political oppenents and their extended families, I say deal with him as if we are dealing with a very, very evil and ruthless force.

Of course I may wrong in thinking I know which side you think the real missile defense idiots are on.

Alger states:"The article you referred to is dated 2/13/02 at 5:23 p.m. est. My post was made at 9:23 a.m. that day and based on the net version of the Times that appeared that morning. The link you cited is a re-written version of the event, citing "exchanges" of gunfire that never occurrred."


The NY TIMES changed it just to make Mr.Alger look bad.

I know that you are just having fun by making the compulsive, radical, American hating, racist scum Alger squirm in attempts to justify terrorist murder. You are ok in my book.

call your congressman (and talk to one of his aides) and ask about border control and whether we inspect everything for nuclear material.


brad

That isn't the point I'm trying to make. We may be able to detect the amount of radioactivity emitted from such a quantity of weapons-grade plutonium or uranium even at a significant distance by virtue of the fact that it is so highly radioactive. Perhaps satellites can detect the emissions. This is what Vince Lepore told me he believes based on his years in the military (he is now retired), though perhaps it is not entirely accurate. Perhaps with enough heavy lead containment this could be foiled, but it all probably isn't quite as simple as just putting a suitcase nuke into the trunk of a car and driving into the USA.

Well why should we assume it to be too hard to achieve then, as do many opponents of missile defense?


Where did you get the idea that the technological hurdles are based on mere assumptions? Not from DuPont.


We already shot down one missile or warhead. Maybe that's it; we'll never be able to shoot down another one. Right. Assume technology CAN'T do something like this, ever? LMAO.


You're the one that started this thread by arguing that "logic" suggested that these systems are feasible or shouldn't be considered infeasible. I pointed out that your "evidence" consisted of an "anything is possible" platitude. Now you're shifting to the demand that opponents prove otherwise. If you can't support your point, just say so.


I'd rather have LESS nukes going off in the US than MORE.


So who's in favor of "more?" Everyone wants less, but you keep assuming that missile defense (I'm sick of using that Orwellian phrase, "First Strike" is more appropriate) means less probability of terrorist nukes. It does not logically follow that plugging one hole when others remain inherently unpluggable will probably decrease the risk of nuclear terrorism.


The US today is a responsible entity which will not abuse nuclear superiority the way rogue regimes or China might, should they have it instead.


My recollection is that China tested nuclear weapons back in the 1960's and has continously remained a totalitarian state. You are essentially arguing that the failure of the U.S. to build a First Strike system will increase the likelihood that China will commit suicide. Other than conclusory propaganda from the self-interested beneficiaries from this system, what makes you believe this?


While the numbers may be debatable, the US is not a totalitarian or terrorist power.


How can a country with a First Strike offensive nuclear weapons system not be a terrorist power?

well,


1) we're not doing that as far as i know


1a) we should build such a detection system (note this is not missile defense)


2) there are something like 10 million giant shipping containers that currently enter the US with absolutely no inspection of any kind (there is some random custom searches).


this is the fact that i am analogizing to leaving the front door unlocked.


if were really in search of a national security which will deter nuclear terrorism, lets start with this gaping hole. it will be much less expensive than a missile defense.


in my opinion by not talking about this, and trying to push through a missile defense system, i think it makes the missile defense argument just a propaganda argument (the real point not being national security, at least as the main point, but rather something else.)


brad

Again with the weapons, don't people ever learn?


When the 9/11 attack first happened, people were finally starting to look at how disastrous the "blowback" effect was from US foreign policy. Now a few months later, the talk is once again about weapons, weapons, weapons. As an American, a missile defense system will not make me feel much safer. Coming up with a more coherent and long sighted foreign policy just might.

OK, I don't know for sure if we are doing this or not. Satellites do monitor an awful lot these days. Granted no matter what we do as far as border security there is always the possibility that someone will smuggle in some terrible weapon. However we do already have decent chances of stopping such terrorist plots--we've already thwarted several including the planned millenium attack on LA (or on LAX). So we should continue to make such attacks tougher for terrorists to pull off. However we currently have no defense at all against ICBM's and as the article points out in a couple years or so North Korea will have ICBM's capable of hitting the USA. North Korea is also known to sell arms and/or technology to terrorists. And of course Saddam is feverishly working on such weapons. So we could have quite a problem pretty soon, especially as it is probably inevitable that terrorists will eventually acquire weapons of mass destruction from Saddam, North Korea, or the Russian Mafia...and they will acquire the means to deliver them, if not by ICBM's, at least by more medium-range missile which could terrorize the entire Middle East and possibly hit Europe as well. So my view is that we need to be working apace to develop a missile defense as we continue other efforts to enhance border security and combat terrorism worldwide. I don't see why we (or our friends in Europe or the Mid East) should be defenseless against future terrorist attacks by missiles with super-nasty warheads on them. It is almost certain that terrorists will eventually acquire such weapons, and as Bush points out, time is not on our side.

I agree that foreign policy and diplomacy have the potential to make the world, and us, safer, and that we should work through such means toward such goals.


As for blowback, simply put, I'd rather be blownback than blown up. Terrorists and tyrants will ALWAYS use force when they see a good opportunity. Defense must sadly be a priority in the real world.

i agree. do a search on chomsky, east timor, some policitian how great it was to kill a lot of people.


or madalan (spelling) albright when she said on 60 minutes how she was perfectly willing to pay such a price. (price being something like a million dead iraqi children, because of blockade).


brad

hetron's objection is to weapons instead of dimplomacy...a missile shield is not a weapon but a defense against them.

'OK, I don't know for sure if we are doing this or not. Satellites do monitor an awful lot these days. Granted no matter what we do as far as border security there is always the possibility that someone will smuggle in some terrible weapon.'


you lose debating points since you just restate your case.


brad

not true. a fully functional icbm missile shield would almost certainly guarantee a first strike. (not my opinion but someone with expertise who was in the news (a military guy, maybe a former JCS or something)).


brad

Have you made arrangements to move out of Colorado yet? I think you better go to Canada.


I'm surprised that Sklansky and Weinstock listen to you at all considering how much you hate Jews.

M: Well why should we assume it to be too hard to achieve then, as do many opponents of missile defense?


CA: Where did you get the idea that the technological hurdles are based on mere assumptions? Not from DuPont.


M: Oviously there are technological hurdles in any ground-breaking sci-tech area. It's not hurdles I have a problem with; it's opponents' blanket statements that it can never work.


M:We already shot down one missile or warhead. Maybe that's it; we'll never be able to shoot down another one. Right. Assume technology CAN'T do something like this, ever? LMAO.


CA: You're the one that started this thread by arguing that "logic" suggested that these systems are feasible or shouldn't be considered infeasible. I pointed out that your "evidence" consisted of an "anything is possible" platitude. Now you're shifting to the demand that opponents prove otherwise. If you can't support your point, just say so.


M: NO, I am countering unfounded claims by opponents' that it can never work. That's a pretty strong statement and I think they should have to support it. YOU are shifting the burden of proof: THEY'RE the ones making the blanket statement, I'm just saying I find it laughable that they can be so sure. I'm not claiming it will DEFINITELY work; I'm saying they are wrong saying it DEFINITELY CAN'T. I'm also saying the cost/reward ratio is TREMENDOUSLY favorable for development.


M: I'd rather have LESS nukes going off in the US than MORE.


CA: So who's in favor of "more?" Everyone wants less, but you keep assuming that missile defense (I'm sick of using that Orwellian phrase, "First Strike" is more appropriate) means less probability of terrorist nukes. It does not logically follow that plugging one hole when others remain inherently unpluggable will probably decrease the risk of nuclear terrorism.


M: Duh. Plugging one large hole and doing our best to plug the others will decrease both the chances of damage and the total maximum damage that can get through at any one time.


M: The US today is a responsible entity which will not abuse nuclear superiority the way rogue regimes or China might, should they have it instead.


CA: My recollection is that China tested nuclear weapons back in the 1960's and has continously remained a totalitarian state. You are essentially arguing that the failure of the U.S. to build a First Strike system will increase the likelihood that China will commit suicide. Other than conclusory propaganda from the self-interested beneficiaries from this system, what makes you believe this?


M: I'm not saying that. However the picture of China holding exclusive first-strike capability ought to frighten you too.


M:While the numbers may be debatable, the US is not a totalitarian or terrorist power.


CA: How can a country with a First Strike offensive nuclear weapons system not be a terrorist power?


M: Very easily. Why would you assume any necessary correlation?

It's not an offensive weapon, period. ICBM's are offensive weapons.

It's an International Chinese Brotherhood. In Denver, it runs poker games above the legal limit in Colorado. It isn't suppose to rake, but it does. Alger frequents it regularly. Individuals with gaming licenses in Colorado that are found to frequent the premises immediately lose their license. Licensed dealers, therefore, won't play. Attorneys in Colorado that value their licenses won't enter at all. Alger has no respect for the law, nor for his own license. His response to obvious infractions in illegal internet gambling, illegal gambling in general in Colorado, and to obviously not declaring income on his taxes (which he boasts about) is to make light of the law, and insist that he isn't a prime target for federal authorities. If you couple his radical views towards terrorists in the Middle-East(he believes that the USA and Israel are the terrorists, and that Al Queda and Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters) with his defiance of the laws of Colorado, it becomes clear that the man has no moral sense of right and wrong and is dangerous. I'm surprised that 2+2 permits him so much pull.


Read about Triads for detail on what a Tong implies.

you lose debating points for mistaking opinion for fact.


all that im saying is that one school of thought is that a missile defense system is one aspect of a first strike strategy.


in other words, if you want a viable first strike option, you need a missile defense. other nations dont judge our military threat by our intent, but by our capability, when they are deciding what to do.


brad

Discussing the logic of a missile defense plan does not necessarily mean delving deeply into technical aspects and attempting to prove or disprove feasibility. Whether trying to build a shield makes sense or not depends on a number of facvtors...let's say a few factors are: feasibility, cost, and reward. We don't have to prove or disprove feasibility; we just need to arrive at the conclusion that the likelihood of success and potential rewards outweigh the costs. The linked article does seem to cast doubt on the opponents' assertions that a shield is impossible--at any rate, they have offered little to support their claims and early tests seem to bely their claim of impossibility. Anyway, just weigh up costs, rewards, and chances of success. Even with modest chances of success, higher than projected costs, and a partial shield, it will be cheap by comparison if indeed we manage to stop a couple of cities from being obliterated. I think assigning merely reasonable, or even modest values, to these and other variables will produce an equation which strongly favors development efforts.

It's a place where Ray used to play before he got booted for being a psychopath.

"The linked article does seem to cast doubt on the opponents' assertions that a shield is impossible--at any rate, they have offered little to support their claims and early tests seem to bely their claim of impossibility."


The article didn't even address the infeasibility argument. It just said that some say it's infeasible, and countered with the empty statement that anything can be feasible.


"and early tests seem to bely their claim of impossibility"


How so? Because an early test shot down a single warhead? Nobody ever doubted that shooting down one was feasible, it's the ease of simply building more warheads than any system can possibly shoot down.

It may be that no system could cope sufficiently with, say, one-fourth of Russia's nuclear arsenal launched simultaneously. However, rogue states or terrorists are more likely to acquire at most a small handful of missiles...and a full-scale shield might indeed be able to cope well with such a limited number of missiles or warheads.

I played at the hop sing for 11 sessions. I won 8 times and lost 3, for a modest gain. My earnings for poker in 2001 year were a net gain $427.00 in total. Nothing to be write home about. I quit playing there (I still now several people there, most are unsavory with criminal associations). I found the poker lifestyle truly disgusting, and a waste of my time. I quit playing cards altogether in May of last year.


A little bit of information about me that Mr.Alger can verify, or anyone else that cares can verify for that matter. First, I'm a former Democatic activist and member of the Democratic National Committee. I've had the honor of being fairly well-acquainted with former Governor Roy Romer(former chairmen of the DNC), and in 1996 had the pleasure of meeting then President Clinton.


Secondly, my exposure to the Mexican diplomatic community was extensive. My wedding was sponsored by Leonardo French. He was at the time the Consul General of the Denver Mexican consulate before he was transferred to head the consulate in Chicago. My wife worked in the consulate in Denver as an asistant to Mrs. French.


My deceased adoptive father was a former chief psychologist of the federal prison system. He was also African American. He was recognized as one of the most influential African American civil rights activists in the Denver region from 1960 through the late 1970s.


In the 1980s, I was in the securities industry.

My mentor at the time was Major Russell Venable. Major Venable was in the Marine corp, and spent his career serving in military intelligence.


Mr.Alger, in my best judgment, you are a dangerous law breaker. Your inane attempts to deny the laws of the United States, and the laws of Colorado are extremely unusual for anyone sworn to uphold the laws of the land. Coupling this with your extreme views of radical Islam in which you hold terrorists to be freedom fighters, and believe that American leaders and armed forces are terrorists, one can only logically assume that you are dangerous. I no longer believe that mental illness is an excuse for the authorities to overlook your obvious disdain for the law.