Bush, Europe and Defence (again)...

[p_p_man]

...the story is becoming clearer...in a funny, muddy sort of way...

As Bush is in Europe we are hearing more and more about the re-hashed policy on defence.

It's apparantly going to take anytime between 15 to 30 years to implement.

It's designed to combat an unknown terrorist threat, who are not widely considered to have payload delivery systems that can travel any distance and wouldn't be terrorists if they did.

Nobody's sure it's going to work.

It's going to costs billions upon billions of dollars.

As the European press are now beginning to ask:

Are you absolutely certain you want this. By the time half the time scale has passed you'll probably have a change of Government anyway. With a different defence policy.

As terrorists are being singled out as the main target do you think they're going to hang around waiting for it to happen.

Don't you think the the whole story is a red herring for reasons we don't know about yet and that it's not the intention of Bush's Government to build it anyway.

I'm beginning to think it's a non-project. Oh it might get started to keep the myth going but after a while excuses can always be found to abandon it.

Now the question is...what would it be a red herring for?

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

That's right...the SDI...

...wasn't that meant to be a bluff to make the then Soviets realise they couldn't compete in the arms race.

And then helped lead to the beginning of the fall of communism under Gorbechev?

Well, if Bush is thinking of China, that trick won't work a second time...so there has to be something else.

Maybe something concerning American domestic politics...

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

especially now that...

...the advantage gained is being lost by Bush's habit of using confrontational language against a country which wants to ally itself to the West...

 

[Ally C]

Re: especially now that...

to ally

I never knew I was a verb. Thank you.






As for your question, I have no idea. Somebody somewhere is probably going to make a lot of money out of something which doesn't seem to have much appeal.

 

[p_p_man]

Jeez...I get criticised by everyone...

...even an ally... :-D

 

[Ally C]

Criticism? Where? Not from me ...

I'm too H-A-P-P-Y a soul to go around criticizing all day.

 

[p_p_man]

in that case...

...i've deleted you from my list for after I become a Satanist...consider yourself protected...

 

[Ally C]

I say:

"To hell with the Devil!"

Your offer sounds exactly the same as before ...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I prefer to push the limits of technology for this two-fold reason:

1). Our enemies are activley pursuing a system of our own (specifically the Chinese and the Sovi- whoops, slipped again, Russians).

2). The unanticipated benefits to society that always accompany these types of projects.

As for the point of why plan, you will have a new government? All I can say is that is a disadvantage that the Chinese and Russians do not have to work with, so they are pressing on, so I say, even if we cannot pay for or complete the project (which is specious if those two can afford it) we must press on.

 

[p_p_man]

Ouch...

As for the point of why plan, you will have a new government?..... All I can say is that is a disadvantage.....that the Russians do not have to work with

Sorry to disappoint you again but they do have elections in Russia...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Sort of reminds me of the old cartoon with the very short king. His voting machine had a little guioteen (sp?) on the no handle. He pointed out that they would still have one hand left with to vote yes.

That still does not count for the Chinese and the fact that Russia is probably as far along as we are from recent reports I have read.

 

[Skibum]

Why should Europeans care if we can defend ourselves against rogue countries like Lybia, Iraq, or North Korea? If the US does not wish to be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail by countries that are even now seeking to develop missles capable of reaching the US, why should we have to answer to any one else? And China IS a threat, as seen by their recent posturing over Tiawan.

It is true that the Soviet Union gave up because they were unprepared to compete with the US on SDI. Just because they quit without us having to build the thing, doesn't mean that future enemies will.

And Audra Jenny has an excellent point. New technology always creates useful spinoffs that will benefit everyone.

Finally, it has been said that defensive weapons are more moral than offensive weapons. I like the idea of defending without having to threaten some one with utter nuclear destruction to deter them from making a nuclear attack. The policy of MAD was just that, mad.

And I still don't see why Europeans are so much against the US having a defense against missle attacks. It won't cost you anything, and we are willing to share the technology with you.

 

[p_p_man]

We don't care really...

...apart from the general effect the policy may have on the rest of the world. Driving China, Lybia or I raq into a corner by talking, even at this stage, about having to defend yourselves against them, can only be regarded as confrontational and destabalising even further a fairly shaky global situation.

However if that's what you want go ahead.

Now that we've had time in Europe to have a tentative look at Bush's proposals the more we're convinced it won't happen anyway.

We are beginning to think it's a poliicy designed for home consumption only.

The latest press reports from Bush's tour of Europe (did I say tour? more like a two hour coffee morning) is that Europe can agree to disagree with Bush's proposals.

We'll continue with our Rapid Response Force.

 

[WriterDom]

Re: We don't care really...

[B
We'll continue with our Rapid Response Force. [/B]

What is that? Getting on the phone and rapidly asking the US for help?

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: We don't care really...

What is that? Getting on the phone and rapidly asking the US for help?

"Que?"

 

[christo]

I'm all for a strong defense. But it seems like the defense establishment and Bush and his military advisors don't want us noticing that there's no one out there who can challenge us militarily. Russia? The Red Army is a shadow of its former self, it couldn't even subdue Chechnya. China? The People's Liberation Army is big, but there's no way it could pose a direct threat to us. They probably couldn't even tackle Taiwan. Iraq? North Korea? If we wanted to, we could obliterate those nations in about 30 minutes.

Trouble is, a few of those nations have nukes themselves, and they could obliterate us. And that's what keeps the peace. Nuclear deterrence, for all its insanity, has worked pretty good so far. And building a missile defense system would throw that tenuous balance out of whack. It would give hawks in Moscow and Beijing the clout to ramp up missile production, sparking another arms race that would deplete resources that could be used to build their economies. And we'd end up wasting billions on a system that, if it works at a 99.9% success rate, would be a colossal failure. If a thousand nukes get lobbed at us and we stop 999, well, that's one that hits Washington, or Omaha, or Norfolk, and that's maybe a million casualties? This is a successful system?

Oh, but missile defense is suppose to stop "rogue states", nations that act all goofy and might try to toss a few missiles at Alaska or something. This position makes two rather odd assumptions. One, that people like Saddam Hussain and Kim Jong Il either don't realize that we would annihilate them if they hit us or, Two, that they don't care. Why do we make the assumption that these dictators have a death wish? Saddam Hussain has spent his life murdering those who have opposed him, or who posed a threat to his rule. You don't think he considers a Trident submarine a threat to his rule?

And even if some really oddball government like the Taliban got a nuke there's no way to be sure, really SURE, that a missile defense shield would work. It would have to be PERFECT. It couldn't miss even once.

Wouldn't our security be better served if we took the billions we would waste on missile defense and spend it on new generations of conventional military equipment? And on education, so we have smart enough people to build the next generation of weapons? And on foreign aid, so that we spread democracy and freedom to nations sorely lacking in them right now? I think that would benefit the people of the US and of the world, instead of just the shareholders in Rockwell and Rayethon.

 

[p_p_man]

Wouldn't our security be better served if we took the billions we would waste on missile defense and spend it on new generations of conventional military equipment? And on education, so we have smart enough people to build the next generation of weapons? And on foreign aid, so that we spread democracy and freedom to nations sorely lacking in them right now? I think that would benefit the people of the US and of the world, instead of just the shareholders in Rockwell and Rayethon.

Well said.

There is another point as well.

For some time now it's been accepted that any threat to a country's safety would be made by terrorists taking in a suitcase bomb. That still seems more plausible to me than rogue nations suddenly being capable of building missiles sophisticated enough to carry payloads able to obliterate cities.

And if suitcase bombs are used I can't see what good a nuclear shield will do.

This whole debate on defence is complex. There is a growing feeling that even conventional weapons are no longer needed. With computer technology, satellite technology, mass information gathering, the ability to see newspaper headlines from far out into space, easily dispersed viruses and a host of other methods a war would now be fought not on the battlefield but from the laboratory and research areas.

By hacking into a country's computer system it would be possible to render it defenceless in a matter of hours.

I suppose that is a better way to wage war than killing thousands, if not millions, of people on the other side...

 

[lavender]

Why Europeans should care....

 

[Boinker]

Hot dog! We're goin to Yurp!

That's Europe, Mr. President! Europe!

 

[p_p_man]

LMFAO!!!

.

 

[Skibum]

Rogue nations are not a danger? China already has a limited ICBM capability. North Korea has launched a test missle that could carry a payload into low earth orbit. This could just as easily carry a nuclear warhead. India and Pakistan have both detonated nuclear bombs. Iran, Iraq, and Lybia have all declared their hostility to "the Great Satan". North Korea and China have both sold missles to Iraq and Iran.

Yes, it is true that the US could obliterate any of these countries in a few minutes, but would that be an appropriate response to a single missle? When a child misbehaves you don't cut off his head with an ax. With a workable missle defense system, there would be no reason to rely on nuclear deterrence to keep the peace.

 

[p_p_man]

OK...

Rogue nations are not a danger? China already has a limited ICBM capability. North Korea has launched a test missle that could carry a payload into low earth orbit. This could just as easily carry a nuclear warhead. India and Pakistan have both detonated nuclear bombs. Iran, Iraq, and Lybia have all declared their hostility to "the Great Satan". North Korea and China have both sold missles to Iraq and Iran.

Yes, it is true that the US could obliterate any of these countries in a few minutes, but would that be an appropriate response to a single missle? When a child misbehaves you don't cut off his head with an ax. With a workable missle defense system, there would be no reason to rely on nuclear deterrence to keep the peace.

Why wait...they may as well bomb you out of existence now...before you get your defense system up and running...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Again, your arguments are above my simple head. I just have two points:

1) Skibum if you publicly agree with me on anything you will get pilloried

2). Cristo (sp). In the 1950's it was widely accepted that China was too everything you say they are and not to be worried about. Then, not unlike George Washington, under the cover of dark and unhuman weather conditions, they swam across the Yalu and just about kicked everyone's ass!

Never, ever underestimate a determined opponent!