From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 04 2000 - 08:55:57 MDT
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, R. Harrill wrote:
> And I see the problem as the Iraqnut bypassing Iran and suspending the missile under an oil
> tanker headed for New York. A few minutes after passing the Statue of Liberty, the
And your NMD has done its job by making the bad guys use a much inferior
method of delivery. It is easier to detect, and if detonated does much
*less* damage than a missile that can detonate at an optimal position and
altitude. And it *cannot* be used as a credible long term
*threat*..."Great Satan, we have a weapon in New York harbor that we will
detonate if you irritate us again...hey, what's that NEST team doing, stop
that". It is only a weapon of terror, not an unspoken adjunct to
diplomacy. How much differently would we have treated the Soviet Union
during the cold war if we did not fear their nuclear missiles? Would
there have even been a cold war? Why do you think they are so afraid of
our having missile defenses, and want to limit them? They know that an
effective defense against their missiles leaves them nothing but a
over-educated third world country.
And do you think that a "rogue nation" would even bother to *start* the
hideously expensive process of building missiles to begin with if they
suspected that they might not work once done? They can be fairly certian
of *their* expertise, but what of ours? Do they really know? The U.S.
performs technological miracles on a regular basis. If you are the head
of a weapons developement program, would you bet your life on it
(literally, in many nations)?
Like all the best weapons, the greatest effect is the one on the minds of
the enemy before a shot is ever fired...
steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:42 MST