Very interesting article on warfare in the next 15 years.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,92805,00.html

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2000

Answers

Interesting article, Paul.

NMD [National Missile Defense] advocates will seize on the report's assessment of the fact that globalization has dramatically enhanced the access to technology of rogue elements and states.

Yesterday I had read an article along that same line...

Why did Saddam Hussein buy thousands of PlayStations?

-- Anonymous, December 25, 2000

Yep, that's an interesting article. But the truth is, we have been vulnerable to what they (now) call "assymetrical" attacks for years. Back in the 1970's, I was asking my friends at Ft. Bragg how they were supposed to stop someone from sneaking a small nuke or gas bomb onto the base, given that the gates were pretty much unguarded -- I could come and go as I pleased, even driving all the way to the base commander's office, without being challenged.

This is a threat that we've faced for years. Do note, too, that the Time article makes the subtle point that a national missile defense would be "useless" against sneak "assymetrical" attacks. I don't argue with that, but I'd counter with this: a bullet-proof vest doesn't protect the head, arms or legs, either; you could still be killed by a gunman. But no one would argue that it's pointless not to have such a vest. Any protection is better than none.

Of course, the PlayStations thing is another matter entirely; that falls under the general heading of Government "Experts" (wink, wink) Demonstrating The Usual Cluelessness (or, more likely, trying to scare Congress into granting them a wee bit more money[g]). I just don't buy it. See what I said elsewhere here about that.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

Well, there is only one situation, outside of open war, in which a single or very few missles would be launched at the US, and that situation is when you would want us to think someone else did the deed.

Our tracking systems are such that we will know where a missle came from in a few seconds.

But it might be possible to sneak a missle over a border (say, Iraq builds one on a special railway car, then slips it across to Iran), then launch with the hope of starting war between your enemy and the US.

Which it probably would, if you managed to get away with it.

Trouble with that bulletproof vest is simply this, we can't build one yet. And even if we could, the systems being proposed are neither effective nor cheap.

Suppose we could stop half (heck, make it 90%) of all missles coming in, at a cost of a billion per missle. The enemy can build missles at a cost of 50 million per missle. The economics of that exchange sink you before you start.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

But it might be possible to sneak a missle over a border ... then launch with the hope of starting war between your enemy and the US.

You're very sharp, my friend.[g] I have pondered just such a scenario many times. Or, an alternate (but related) one: you set off a smuggled device in the United States to force an overreaction; the US launches a massive strike in retaliation against an innocent USSR or China (which then launches a strike of its own, and there you go; free End Of The World).

(See Tom Clancy's Sum Of All Fears for just such a scenario. In that novel, Clancy had us right at the brink of war with the USSR after terrorists detonated in nuke in Denver.)

Trouble with that bulletproof vest is simply this, we can't build one yet. And even if we could, the systems being proposed are neither effective nor cheap ... Suppose we could stop half (heck, make it 90%) of all missles coming in, at a cost of a billion per missle. The enemy can build missles at a cost of 50 million per missle.

I disagree.

I heard this very argument when Reagan first proposed SDI. It does have some merit, but I have two responses: (1) to build an accurate nuclear missile costs considerably more than 50 million and (2), no military commander worth his lapel pins would launch a strike against even those odds, especially not knowing that HE/SHE had no SDI and would be facing massive retaliation afterwards. Unless you could guarantee that you could wipe out our ability to respond, you'd be playing Russian Roulette. (No pun intended.[g])

Mutually Assured Destruction is just that: MADness. It's the equivalent of two neighbors screaming at each other over the fence:

"I have a gun and if you harm my family, I kill everyone on your property!"

"No, if you shoot at me, I'll shoot back and kill YOUR entire family!"

And this is the best we can do? I don't buy it. There's got to be something better.

I *do* believe that we have the technology to put in place at least a minimal SDI shield and for far less than its opponents claim. Shoot, the latest generation Aegis is very nearly up to the task.

OK, so we're back to the "assymetrical" thingie. Cole was one of the most advanced ships afloat, and it was nearly undone by a motorboat full of explosives. But taking the anti-SDI logic to its end result, one would argue that there's no point in BUILDING a Cole with such weapons systems, when they can be easily destroyed by a motorboat (or for that matter, a $1,000,000 torpedo).

Again, no military commander worth his/her stripes would argue that something like Cole doesn't play a very important role in our defense.

(There are also some issues with Cole's placement on that day that beg an investigation. Supposedly, the US had been warned that just such an attack was possible, which warnings were ignored. Shades of Pearl Harbor ...)

So I say of SDI. Would it perfect? Of course not. But it would be ONE welcome additional deterrent in the mix of all possible deterrents.

See, this is where I disagree: SDI's opponents act as thought it's an "either-or" thing: either we build SDI and do nothing else, or don't do SDI and use other methods. It's not; we could do BOTH. We could still take OTHER measures in addition to a minimal-but-effective SDI.

I have my own scenarios. For example, I can see the day when some splinter faction in a foreign country builds (or steals) a missile capable of targeting NY City. The missile is launched ... and all we can do is watch helplessly for 15-20 minutes as it arcs toward a city with 8 million people.

That's when you would hear people saying, "you know, if we even had a PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERY here, we could at least TRY to shoot it down ..." But instead, all we could do is promise horrible revenge and retaliation against the launchers.

That would be cold comfort to the millions dead in NYC.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000