global warming as part of a bigger picture

[brad]

wont against a nuke shipped in.

[MMMMMM]

So what? You have to defend on as many fronts as possible. And Kin Jong-il could no longer blackmail us.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this something you pulled out of your .... nope nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually something I pulled out of taking a real look at the world and the types of governments successful late developing countries tend to have. These are just facts of history, however inconvenient they may be.

[sam h]

Many scientists have said these tests are jokes, set up explicitly to favor the system and in no way approximating what a real intercept would entail. Not to mention 500 simultaneous intercepts, or whatever it might take in a real exchange with a country like China. I don't know enough about it to say one way or another. But I tend to very skeptical about how the Pentagon spins these types of projects - they certainly have a robust history of lying to us to cover up the failures of various weapons systems and massive cost overruns.

I believe that the MAD doctrine was quite effective in deterring state-to-state nuclear exchange. The SDI system, if it were ever actually effective, would make MAD unfeasible for most countries and might actually destabilize the world rather than protect it.

If we are to commit to missile defense, many have argued that the smaller more flexible ship-based system - I think some variant of the Aegis technology - is better than the vastly more expensive and logistically much tougher to coordinate SDI system.

[MMMMMM]

The plan is eventually to have a multi-layered missile defense system which, I think, would include some ship-based or sub-based interceptors, as well as land based and space-based interceptors.

China only has around 25 nukes (as of a couple of years ago, maybe still). Whether those include MIRV's I don't know, but if the missiles could be intercepted before re-entry (before multiple warhead split) I don't see why we would have to be able to intercept 500 missiles to be able to nullify or manage a nulear threat from China.

Also consider that our country could absorb one or two nuclear hits far better than many hits. We would eventually recover (painfully and at great cost) if one or two missiles got through, but we might not if a dozen, or a few dozen, got through. So it matters a great deal if we can stop most or all of the missiles a rogue nation or China might launch at us.

MAD was OK during the Cold War, but if unstable regimes or fanatics get nukes and the means to deliver them (say North Korea, or Iran's mullahs), then I wouldn't think we should be placing too much confidence in MAD.

The government of the USSR was run by men who were not fanatical or potentially suicidal. The same can't be said with great confidence about certain other regimes.

[brad]

'China only has around 25 nukes (as of a couple of years ago, maybe still). Whether those include MIRV's I don't know'

chin a got mirv tech from US under clinton, some say directly from clinton. (something to that look it up)

also in chinese newspapers generals have in the past (i was gonna say routinely but you know i wont exaggerate) called for nuking USA.

heh shipping all US infrastructure over to china is such a great idea. bush wants to develop 'mini-nukes', maybe US companies can tool up for that in china.

btw, implantable microchip (verachip, etc.) factories in china.

[sam h]

I think the "rogue nation" thing is overplayed a little bit. Somebody like Kim in North Korea only cultivates the appearance of being crazy for strategic purposes - he's not interested in nuking us, just maintaining his little fiefdom. Non-state actors are certainly different, but the missile defense system largely won't help against them.

You make some good points about missile defense though. I don't know much about it. One question, however, seems to be how a place like China responds to our opting out of the ballistic missile treaty and going beyond MAD. It seems to me that the logical response from their end would be to build up their arsenal so they could eventually launch those 500 nukes and overwhelm the system. Not because they would want to start a war, but because for their own security purposes they'd need to be able to credibly threaten us. At some point we want to start trying to put the brakes on these arms races, not just to win them.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, it's a complicated picture.

"At some point we want to start trying to put the brakes on these arms races, not just to win them."

I would suggest we do this after we have an excellent missile shield in place;-)