Is this just me, or are some of these people trying to get the Cold War going strong all over again? Or is it just the sort of bullying attitude of "we are the only superpower, and if you don't like what we do, stuff it!"?

Or is there some real need for this thing?

I thought the whole point of the nuclear stockpile was to make nuclear war less likely. Is there any way this thing can accomplish that mission?

http://www.sonnet.com/usr/pjc/08-00/mini-nuke.htm

http://www.cdi.org/weekly/2000/issue35.html

http://wwwadmin.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/news/articles/mini-nukes.htm

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/lasg.htm

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Answers

Paul--

I too wonder what is going on. Some years ago there was a groundswell of opinion in this country that the military needed to be sharply reduced. The major threat from the USSR no longer esisted. After 50 years of waiting for that 'flash of light', I began to relax.

Then all through the presidential campaign we heard how America needs a much larger military AND a star wars defense system. Are we manufacturing a cold war?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

You two haven't heard of China, have you?

In 10 years, China will have a capability that dwarfs that of the Russians. We need to get started on a missile defense NOW.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Pam, you just listened to the spin by Clinton and bought it. He did the worst damage any prez could do to the military. True, we didn't need as much after the wall came down, but he went too far in dismantling our defense. We now have none. It only took eight years to become an extremely indefensible nation. Funny, IMO military is one of a handful of items that should be on the federal budget and it isn't today.

I don't think that star wars is the answer but we, as a nation, do need to build our military back up.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

"In 10 years, China will have a capability that dwarfs that of the Russians."

This is a scary statement. But what could it possibly mean?

The only "capability" that is relevant to a missile defense system is a ICBM capability. After all, a missile defense system shoots down ICBMs. If there aren't any ICBMs to shoot down, it just sits there looking pretty.

The only warhead that makes sense on an ICBM is a nuclear warhead. Why spend that kind of money to deliver a conventional explosive?

So, either you are talking about the Chinese having a nuclear ICBM capability "that dwarfs the Russians," or you are speaking in vague irrelevancies.

Next, what nuclear ICBM capability did the Russians have? According to reports by our CIA during the Reagan administration, the Russians had more than 10,000 independently targetable missile warheads they could fire at us. Those warheads could be delivered within an accuracy of roughly 100 yards of their optimal placement.

So, if the Chinese capability were truly to "dwarf the Russians", as you contend, they would either have to deliver the same number of warheads at a far greater accuracy or deliver a far greater number of warheads to a simiilar accuracy. Otherwise, they will barely match the Russians, let alone dwarf them.

Do you have any idea what a Chinese nuclear missile program of that magnitude would cost? Do you have any idea of the size of the Chinese economy compared to the US economy? Can you explain where the Chinese would even obtain that much fissionable material to make that many bombs? Can you tell me what strategic objective the Chinese would meet by having that many missiles and warheads that the Russians did not already meet?

Further, I am highly sceptical that the Chinese have the slightest intention of traveling down the same road that the Russians traveled, but to an even greater extreme. If you recall, the Russians failed. They not only failed, but they also impoverished their country. They not only impoverished their country, but they eventually fell from power! Believe me, the Chinese recall these facts very well.

Lastly, we survived the Russian threat without a missile defense system. The Russians never fired those weapons. All those thousands of missiles did just one thing for the USSR. They kept the USA and NATO from invading the USSR. It was Soviet ICBMs that forced the Cold War to be fought by proxies in the third world. Where the Soviets lost. More or better Soviet missiles would not have changed that outcome.

Now, make a case why the Chinese would be stupid enough to replicate a proven losing strategy, only more so? Go on. I dare you.

Now make a case for a US missile defense system.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Yep Bill did it(whatever it is)all by his little self. Hell even Rush knows Clinton in eight years did not a single solitary good deed, not a one. I have no clue what depth of stupidity the Bush memes live under, but my guess is it is pretty darn deep.

Hey MariaMeme, care to comment on Colin Powell's remarks yesterday regarding the Balkans?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Think about it, the Chinese are not the same as the Soviet Union. Yes I do know about the Russian economy and about their nuclear capability all too well. I also know about the Chinese. They are not traveling down the same path, because they have learned from the mistakes of the Soviet Union. So, in effect, they are improving on that "path". And yes indeedy, "we survived the Russian threat without a missile defense system" but can we survive the Chinese threat without one? I don't know the answer. As I stated, I don't believe in Star Wars, too easy to defeat (last I studied the problem, though I won't rule out that some technical advances have been made). So don't dismiss the Chinese threat because you simply survived a hugh Russian threat. The world keeps evolving. Complacency doesn't have any place in the military.

But I thought the article talked about "mini nukes", highly penetrable weapons.

Doc, after you've learned a little about military weapons, countermeasures, and strategies, then I'll "talk" to you about it.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Maria: "... can we survive the Chinese threat without [a missile defense system]?"

You apparently accept that there is a "Chinese threat". It seems to me that the first clarification that is needed is: what are the Chinese 'threatening' us with and why?

The Chinese do not appear to be in any hurry to dominate the world. And they are nothing if not pragmatic. Up until now, they have used their nuclear program to accomplish two things: 1) to secure their nation from attack and 2) to get a seat at the table of world powers.

Their other major foreign policy/military concern seems to be to project power and influence over their near neighbors. Based on their recent actions, and their long history, they are a lot more of a direct threat to the Japanese than to us. Given their history, they will prefer to undermine us economically and to erode our influence in the Asian Pacific over a long period of time, without war.

If there is to be war with China, it will be because we put them in a position where we are a threat to them and backing down to our threat would be utterly humiliating.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

MariaMeme, is that your comment on what Colin Powell said yesterday?

Great answer, shows how well versed you are ya dingbat, get the f*ck outta here.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Think, "You apparently accept that there is a "Chinese threat"." Yes I do because I know something about it. How many intelligence reports have you read on the subject? This *is* my background.

Doc, eat me, you moronic twit.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Maria,

Since you are fully 'up' on the subject, I'd be grateful for your answer to my earlier clarifying questions: what are the Chinese 'threatening' us with and why?

If you could tie this threat to the need for a missile defense system, as opposed to a generally better-equipped millitary, I'd be even happier.

After all, the Soviets threatened us with missiles for decades. What makes the Chinese missile threat so much worse?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Think, yes I am "up" on it, more than the "above average" citizen (not including Doc). I won't go into specifics but to say that they indeed would be much happier if we weren't here. I won't say the extent of their capabilities but that I know of their systems and their testing efforts.

I, in my first post, stated that I didn't find star wars a good alternative. We do have a defense system but it doesn't consist of much. Before star wars, it was mostly ground based, managed by the Army. With star wars, it moved into space but with many problems, the most detrimental, too easy to defeat. The countermeasures used against an anti-missile system are varied and that's what makes it a hard problem to solve. But if (and I'm not up on the latest technology) a star wars type could be implemented than it would render any ICBMs useless, hence the push for it. What's that expression... a good defense makes good offense.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

"After all, the Soviets threatened us with missiles for decades. What makes the Chinese missile threat so much worse? " Well, the obvious answer is that we have nothing now. Thanks to Clinton. Yes we came pretty close to mass destruction with the Russians but we (as well as the Russians) are not the same. Clinton sent our troops and stock pile of weapons around the world and didn't replenish the supply. The money for any new technology was zeroed out. The money for operations and maintenance was cut to bare essentials, not much at all. So any threat at this time looks like a big threat, even the small threat from the Chinese. Also, thanks to Clinton, secrets were handed to them free of charge. They advanced their capabilities by leaps. It won't happen tomorrow but if we (us with our non-military powers and them with their build up) stay on the same course, it will happen, hence the "threat". So it's not "worse" at this time but it is a threat.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Maria, I appreciate your taking the time to give me an answer. Two actually. I read them both twice.

As far as I can see, you did not even attempt to make a case in favor of an anti-ICBM defense, other than to say that, if one could be made that worked, you'd be glad to have one.

As for China being happier if we did not exist, I'd say that was pretty obvious. The Chinese have a long history of being the only superpower anywhere that mattered to them. They view us as sitting in their rightful spot, dominating east Asia. It is equally clear that they will seek to strengthen their hand continuously, both to ensure that we cannot dominate them and eventualy to eclipse us in east Asia.

Making a case for a generally stronger military is wholly different issue from making a case for a missile defense system. Except, perhaps, for this detail: spending billions (trillions over the long haul) on missile defense allocates massive funds to a weapon with an extremely narrow application - shooting down ICBMs - and that assumes it ever actually works for its intended purpose.

Just think - that same money could double soldiers' pay and restock our conventional armory, instead. In a world without cost or consequences, it would be nice to wave a wand and be safe from ICBMs. In a world where costs overrun and taxes pay for it all, this idea stinks, for the simple reason that it is a misplaced priority and will misspend limited resources.

The Chinese threat is, as you say, small. If the reason it 'looks big' is that we don't have enough cruise missiles, why on earth wouldn't you want to buy more cruise missiles instead of this costly monstrosity of an anti-missile defense? It makes no sense to me.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

I didn't know I was defending missile defense when I first posted, "I don't think that star wars is the answer but we, as a nation, do need to build our military back up." So it looks like we're on the same side of the issue. So sorry, I tried to answer your questions and fell short of your criteria. Missile defense is a tough problem but it clearly should be researched because of its advantages. That wasn't a close enough "tie" for you, so be it. I'm not a proponent for star wars (as stated in my first post).

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Maria: "I'm not a proponent for star wars (as stated in my first post)."

Sorry. I was confused by your earlier statement: "... can we survive the Chinese threat without [a missile defense system]? I don't know." And by your subsequent statement: "But if a star wars type could be implemented than it would render any ICBMs useless, hence the push for it....a good defense makes a good offense."

I read these as your thinking the idea had merit. Now you seem to be saying... near as I can make out you on the fence.

Now that you've 'clarified' your position on "star wars", what do you think of our newest commander-in-chief making star wars the centerpiece of his new defense proposals? We know your opinion of Clinton, but what do you think of Bush's judgement in this instance, especially in light of its cost and the fact of competing military needs?

What about the B2 bomber (which seems to me like the defense equivalent of the walking undead): do you give it a thumbs up or thumbs down?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

It's simple stupid. The key word is poliferation. Maria doesn't have to defend her argument in the old cold war arena you describe because the arena has changed. You bang on her with 30 year old logic.

Forgive my bluntness. Will ask instead: How would you confront the growing missle threat posed by North Korea?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

How would I confront the "growing missle threat" posed by North Korea?

As a "missile threat" to the USA, I'd say North Korea is practically non-existant, unless you count the remote possibility of suicidal madness seizing every person in the chain of command. I mean that sincerely.

The first firing of a nuclear missile against the USA could only be met with massive retaliation. There is no way to disguise who is responsible for a missile attack. The North Koreans would have to be insane and suicidal to try it.

This is not to say it is impossible. 900 people drank poisoned Kool Aid because Jim Jones told them to. The North Korean state is almost as isolated and cult-like as Jonestown was. That is why you don't want to put them up against the wall with outside threats. Jim Jones saw doom arriving in the form of outside intervention, panicked, killed a congresscritter and then took his followers down with him. My advice to the State Department: don't do that.

After acknowledging that much, what are the alternatives?

Invasion? Nope. Stupid idea.

Insertion of covert SEAL teams to sabotage their military installations? Nope. It would just kill a bunch of SEALs, put us in the wrong, and irritate the NKs no end.

So, in the end, you let them know that you will destroy them without mercy if they want to start a war against you, then you use the carrot and stick approach try to steer them where you want them to go. Not much ego gratification in that approach, but it is the best one we got, and its what Bush will use, just like Clinton used it.

As for the NK threat against SK or other allies, what is wrong with the approach we've used for 50 years? We let them know that SK is our ally and war on them pretty much means war on us.

None of these approaches guarantee the USA will never suffer the slightest harm from an enemy like North Korea, but that possibility only exists in fairy land. In the real world you act as realistically as you can and settle down to live with the idea that you maybe can't control the other guy every time, but you can make him pay a heavy price if he starts something.

Now, Carlos, what do ,you think we should do about this "growing threat"?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Take "fairy land" seriously. Loony or not you have to protect our population from the threat of lunacy. The "I'm gonna hit you harder" defense doesn't mean shit against otherwise minor players. Build SDI. Spend what's necessary over the years to refine it and keep on building it. There's damned little I expect from the federal government but protecting my grandkids from foreign weaponry is at the top of the list.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

The "I'm gonna hit you harder" defense doesn't mean shit against otherwise minor players.

Why on earth not? It works with most living creatures.

Carlos, it is my strongly held belief, backed up by decades of personal observation, that people are mostly motivated by (hold onto your hat) measurable gains or losses.

Suppose you are a tin horn dictator, a "minor player" as you would have it. You control the destiny of a few million people. You reap the rewards of dictatorial power. You sleep on silk sheets. You have the equivalent of a few hundred million dollars. What motivates you? In all liklihood, holding on to what you've got!

Contrast this to annihilation of your power base, your power, and possibly yourself in a quest that worse than a million to one odds against your gaining anything tangible.

I ask you again, what makes you say that that kind of persuasion "doesn't mean shit against otherwise minor players"? I think you are blowing smoke up my ass. Cite some history on your side and I'll reconsider.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Carlos, I could not stay up late enough to craft a better response than yours! Clinton’s greatest fuck-up has been his systematic dismantling of our great military. But then, what would you expect from a draft dodging, flag burning, war protesting, chicken shit pinko? I am EXPECTING that President Bush will restore the United States military to it’s once proud and feared position in the world order of fighting machines. Fuck with US and you will pay the ultimate price.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Think,

With the Soviets, we had a tendency to overstate the threat. With the Chinese, though, we apparently have the opposite tendency: we often understate it.

China certainly has weaknesses, but it's important to understand what their goals are: they aren't especially interested in world conquest, but they are (fanatically) concerned with being able to defend themselves against foreign attack (or even what they merely perceive as a foreign attack).

Your first responses above actually surprised me a little. You apparently believe that the Chinese have no "real" nuclear arsenal! That is manifestly not so and unlike the Soviets, they have often tested their weapons in the atmosphere -- quite visible to satellite and spy-plane monitoring. So, we know their weapons designs do work -- distressingly well.

Their mainstay ICBM has been the Dong Feng 5/5A since 1983. Like the older Soviet SS-18 (upon which it's based), it originally carried a single 5 megaton warhead. They initially deployed 7 of them (that we were able to confirm); they have since deployed others. Further, the civilian launch version, the Long March 2C (which they use routinely to send up satellites), is a proven, time-tested design. It's very mature technology ... and the LM-2C can easily be converted for military use.

(Hint: the Chinese did that on purpose. Sort of like the Germans with all those wierd-looking passenger "airliners" during the 30's; once the shooting started, they very quickly took on a coat of gray paint with a swastika on the tail and a belly full of bombs. :)

The DF-5 is currently being superceded by the much more capable DF-31, which will be a solid-fueled ICBM with MIRV capability. The Chinese are also currently retrofitting the DF-5s for MIRV as well. Like us and the Soviets, they're moving away from the One Big Warhead design to multiple, smaller and more cost-effective MIRV approach.

The Chinese also have one (that we know of), and possibly two (strongly suspected) nuclear missile subs, each with a complement of 12 intermediate-range SLBMs.

While precise numbers are very difficult to obtain (the Chinese have been very effective at keeping secrets, and it's hard for a Westerner to "blend in" over there, so our espionage isn't very good), there is no reason to believe that the Chinese nuclear arsenal doesn't contain at LEAST 500 warheads. So says Jane's, the standard reference; so also say CDI and other watchdogs.

I'm am also puzzled and distressed at one common argument used by SDI naysayersm, which can be boiled down to, "our numbers are a LOT bigger than theirs." (Ie, "we have more missiles than they do.") That is not an issue here. As few as 10-20 missiles (depending on how far they've gotten with their MIRV conversion) would be more than enough to seriously damage (if not nearly destroy) this country.

Even more frightening is that the Chinese military, like the Soviets before them (prior to Chernobyl, at least[g]) honestly think that their huge land area, combined with a well dispersed infrastructure, makes them far less vulnerable to nuclear retaliation. The Chinese military routinely practice with mock tactical nukes in their maneuvers, which is something that even WE and the Russians don't do.

This is one case where I respectfully disagree even with Maria. (Sorry, gal.[g]) The ONLY credible threat that China presents to us is the nuclear one. Their navy couldn't stand up against ours for more than a few hours; our ground forces could also give them a severe whuppin', because they don't have the naval capacity to deliver a horde of soldiers (which is what would be required) to the US mainland.

When you look at it that way, we NEED an SDI.

Your economic argument also doesn't hold. The leaders of the People's Republic are actually the most frightening variable of all, because first of all, they act (and think) like despotic feudal lords. They don't give a flying flip how many of their people could die in a nuclear attack, or even how many will go hungry while they upgrade their nuclear forces.

They flat couldn't care less; it's a non-factor for them.

To a lesser extent, this could apply to N. Korea; its leadership has also demonstrated a breathtaking callousness toward the suffering of the average NK citizen. While I agree that they'd never be as serious a threat as China (or even India), there is nonetheless reason for concern.

Remember, my favorite illustration goes something like this: for whatever reason, a couple of nuclear missiles are fired at the US mainland. At present, all we could do is sit and impotently watch as they slowly fell into the United States.

Therefore, the only credible threat that WE have against the Chinese at present is that of Mutual Assured Destruction. By building SDI, we could increase the odds that they won't try anything funky (because not only will we retaliate, we will prevent most of their missiles from hitting the mark.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Maria you Demented Dingbat eat this:::Powell Sees NATO in Balkans for Years

By Jonathan Wright

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - NATO (news - web sites) troops will probably stay in the Balkans for years and U.S. troops will not leave Bosnia or Kosovo ``in the immediate future,'' Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

``There is no exit date for the whole force either in Bosnia and Kosovo. Those will be long-term commitments,'' he told ABC's ''This Week'' program.

``Although we would like to see all of the troops come out, ours and others, this is not going to be the case in the immediate future,'' he added.

Asked what he meant by a long-term commitment, he said: ``I think NATO is going to be there in both places for years. The situation does not seem to indicate to me, anyway, that in the near future we can simply pull out all of the NATO troops.''

His comments were another indication that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) has had second thoughts about any abrupt withdrawal from Bosnia and Kosovo, where U.S. troops are part of NATO-led peacekeeping forces.

Washington's European allies believe that a U.S. withdrawal from the Balkans would weaken the Atlantic alliance and mark a shift toward isolationism in U.S. foreign policy.

Powell, giving his first lengthy television interview since taking office on Jan. 20, was also conciliatory toward Europe on U.S. plans for a national missile defense (NMD) opposed by Russia, China and some of Washington's European allies.

``It is not something that is going to happen without full consultation with our friends and allies and full consultation with the Russians, and beyond that, full consultation with other nations that have an interest in this is Asia -- Japan, Korea and China,'' he said.

Now, do any of you BushMemes care to comment on this apparent aboutface by your boy? This oughtright LIE they layed upon your trust? Not 3 months ago Dumbo was selling you the "we will pull-out of Kosovo meme", whatup now people? silence? more Klington bashing?

Face it, these politicians yo-yos are puppets. The CFR and co run things, rest is debate over things which concern the feeders(as they refer to us the public). Bush ain't gunna do squat which is not part of some CFR plan, 100% guaranteed take it to the bank.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Now to the military spending baloney...Is most of this accurate? If so, whatup with the "spend more" noise? The "Klington gutted the military" piles?

How much do we need for defense? If you Bushmemes don't want us being the policeman of the world, whatup with these military outlays? Does the word "disconnect" mean anything to ya?

Here's another linkee. Course this one is all "spin", right? They have fancy charts showing whatever downtrend in military spending the last 12 years, started under Bush Senior, and in fact, reversed back-up under Klington, whatup with that?

Go to this link and whatup with China? Is this as well bs?

Look, the same jerks who told ya all they would pull-out of the Balkans are now feeding you the "spend more on Rockwell International" dribble. Course these conmen wrap it all in "we must be strong" and Klington gutted our military meme.

Yes we need a strong military. Please avoid assuming any balkers to the meme are somehow against that, it would be appreciated. I can live with being painted a Liberal, but please do understand the Military is overkill to the extreme at present, and I doubt anything more is needed.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Let me add this, it will hopefully make "whatsup" more clear to some.

The link to the China page above shows what? China is outgunned. So what do international arms dealers, war game strategists and the like want? A better opponent about sums it up. The push NOW is to help China become the next USSR, by any means available. Course to save the face of their puppet(the US Prez), any funny things will be spun into some mundane human rights effort, or the ever popular "favored trading partner" umbrella both Repubs and Dems support.

The noise about the Dems selling secrets to the Chinese is real. In fact nothing new or the end of it. Problem Dems had is they underestimated the domestic rightwing nuts operating inside the US who don't play by the CFR rules. Thus Klington and co were found with egg on their faces. Damage control was done but within the ranks of the hardcore memes, Dems were Treasonists(and partly true btw). Besides, the build-up of China has to excelerate and Junior more favorable for this reality than Bill was.

The politicians and highranking Military folks have no problem consulting China, the plan. Many are blueblood Repubs and they OKed it did they not? Does anyone think Bill did what he did all by his little self?

The plan is to bring China upto THREAT STATUS with real weapons to point to for any doubters. The leaks to gameplaying was diverted, and basically reserved for the fringe lunatics. This leakage problem is now gone as these lunatics have their Boy now in the WH. When some lefty comes out with news Junior is doing exactly what Klington did, it will be watered down and excused away as the rantings of the Liberal fringe. Or spun to make it look like some master plan to trick-em, or some such bs. I doubt we will hear anything further about secret aid to the Chinese.

And that be the plan, build-up China to bogeyman status with actual guns and stuff to point to for any doubters.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Hell, I always thought a full-out or even a partial exchange would never happen. All they gotta do is lob one of those puppies about 250 miles above us, dial up the Prez on the phone and go "Oops..sorry about that...it wasn't supposed to launch!", and then sit back and laugh their asses off as we try to recover from EMP effects. I mean, after all, didn't Clinton take away our "Launch on Warning" status a couple of years ago?

Nuclear winter? Hardly. Turn the banks & computers into toast? Now THAT will make ya sit back in yer chair and go "Hmmmm...."

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

The reason "launch on warning" has been stood down is simple, we average several alerts per week.

System may be a bit over sensitive.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

It looks like the argument is academic. The President announced he is not increasing the military budget this year or next year. See

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36460-2001Feb7.html

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Yes, Pam; yesterday, Paul posted links to two other articles on this thread.

Maria, the thread has been sitting there now for 24 hours, and still no comments from you. Isn't this a "major issue" as far as your support of GWB is concerned? I mean, wasn't that at least ONE of the reasons you voted for him -- because he *promised* to "restore" the military after Clinton so "decimated" it? (And don't let a little thing like "increased military spending during the Clinton years" get in your way; you just go with that "decimated" thought. We all know how you feel about Clinton.)

I, too, am curious as to your opinion of Powell's comments on our presence in the Balkans. I KNOW that was a MAJOR THING for you last summer. You wanted our troops pulled out of there -- the sooner, the better. We had many a discussion on that very topic on Poole's first board on Inside the Web. Too bad Bud ate those archives.

(LOL -- expect four years of this [or less, with any luck]. Payback's a bitch.)

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Think, "I read these as your thinking the idea had merit. Now you seem to be saying... near as I can make out you on the fence." Of course the idea has merit, if it could work (meaning cost effective, with little or no viable countermeasures against it, do I have to explain more than that?) The advantages include protecting your resources (building, infrastructure and of course people) while at the same time rendering their offensive weapons useless. Pretty good incentive to research the idea further, don't you think, think? However, last time I studied the technology, there were too many way to easily (as I have stated in my previous posts here) defeat the system. Yeah, ya know there are pros and cons with each and every decision we make.

Pat, I haven't read the links that Paul posted. Geez, it's been 24 hours, what's wrong with me, what could I possibly be doing besides reading posts on this forum! :)

Doc, eat me, you mental dwarf!

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Doc,

OK, I'll bite. I can't speak for Maria, but I *never* expected our pullout from the Balkans to be sudden and immediate. I expected it to be gradual; that the Bush administration would phase out our involvement while encouraging the other NATO allies to slowly pick up the slack.

What Powell says there is perfectly compatible with this. Further, he demonstrates why he was a great choice for Sec State. He's basically saying, "we're gonna do these things, but we appreciate and respect the opinions of other nations." He's being diplomatic.

Even though our involvement in the Balkans bad policy, we can't just abruptly change it overnight.

Powell is doing precisely the OPPOSITE of what Bush-haters claimed his administration would do: simply ram its policy down the throats of every other nation, take it or leave it.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: YOU are the one with the meme, Doc, because even if Dubya were to go to Nevada and hand you a $100 bill, you'd argue that he stole it from someone. Or, you'd claim it was counterfeit. Or, you'd refuse to accept it because it might have come from the Moonies. :)

On your links, I'll only comment on the last one. Yes, it's pure, unadulterated hogwash prepared by the nutsos at the Council for a Livable World Education Fund. For one thing, their numbers are wrong. For another -- did you even read what I said above? -- it's another case of SDI opponents playing the "number of missiles and weapons" game.

It's like a bullet-proof vest. It doesn't matter if you have 300 guns and the bad guy only has one. You'd still wear that vest, wouldn't you? Why? Because you could STILL be seriously hurt.

(The vest is good analogy for another reason: it's NOT 100% effective, but no one would argue that you shouldn't even attempt to wear one. Every little bit helps.)

I want to get away from Mutual Assured Destruction entirely, because it's the equivalent of two neighbors yelling at each other over the fence: "you harm my family and I'll destroy you!" It *is* MADness, nothing but.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Look Stephen Poole...if the figs are wrong, provide better one's. Your sidestepping, backsliding and rewriting what was or wasn't Bush rhetoric is what THAT is, the spewing of the MEME. Provide damn information!!!! If the links are so wrongo, should be child's play to show this, WHY DIDN'T YOU?????? Instead you do like a good meme and paint me as some Liberal who would doubt the currency handed me by Bush himself, huh?? What the hell is all that crap about?

Look Poole, even if the link's figs are juiced(they are to a point, all figs on everything are, a life lesson there for free), where is the truth? Point is China is no big old threat, not yet anyhow. Give the international startegists, and a pile of our taxdollars and paid for technology and this will change. This IS the point and what drives the rhetoric you memes feed-on. They feed you the notion that our military could be blown over by a two-bit country who makes can openers and ballons. That a CIA trained nutball in Iraq is like some damn threat. That supporting NATO is outdated and we should pull-out of Kosovo dribble, dribble, dribble. Then when push comes to shove they do as they are told. Deeper infact, Bush's appointees, Rice and Powell ARE part of the jokers who run international policy. I told you memes this MONTHS AGO and was told Bushie would be different, well?? Is your lame explanation now supposed to be an answer? :)

As to SDI, save your breath. Reason we have had no nuclear holocaust is because the whole thing is BS. The guys in control, control most if not all the "sides". They arm-em, regulate-em, and make damn sure nobody bolts from the program. You think the last 4 decades of zippo has been LUCK? Or some masterplan Ronnie Senior drumped up between naps? We have had no nuclear anything because that IS the plan. It is also my opinion so deal with it.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Maria:::Pat, I haven't read the links that Paul posted. Geez, it's been 24 hours, what's wrong with me, what could I possibly be doing besides reading posts on this forum! :)

Spewing the crud the jerkweeds from the GOP feed you? am I close? Paul posted them a full 24 hours ago and you are busy replying with this?:: Doc, eat me, you mental dwarf!

Too funny keep the laughs coming!

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Doc, if you think I would *ever* joke with you, think again bud.

BTW, I decide how I spend my time, not you! If you think I'd waste my time to read through three articles, just because you want my opinion only to bash my opinion, you are more stupid than I thought.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Pat, I haven't read the links that Paul posted. Geez, it's been 24 hours, what's wrong with me, what could I possibly be doing besides reading posts on this forum! :) "

You were right here, posting six different responses to this thread.

You're real quick to shoot off your cyber-mouth when it DOESN'T concern you. Odd how this is right up your alley, according to you it was one of your ***major concerns***, and yet you're absolutely silent on the subject.

Keep your damn smiley faces to yourself. I find absolutely nothing amusing or endearing about you.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Patricia:

If you don't calm down, Stephen will be "forced" to tell everyone that it wasn't YOU who posted that response. [I haven't yet figured out for whose good this would be done, but if I figure it out, I'll let you know.] Remember these words: "I've always been a peaceful doormat, and if one sees any variation from this theme, it must NOT be me."

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Doc,

Look Stephen Poole...if the figs are wrong, provide better one's.

I did. I specifically named the weapons systems that were the most significant threats and provided numbers. Did you even read what I wrote? I was so specific, in fact, that I hope you're not amazed that I might think the answer is probably "no?"

I didn't do a blow-by-blow comparison to your Web site because, first, most people would see the source of those magic numbers (The Council For a Liveable World Education Fund) and say, "heh."

But just for the sake of completeness: see CDI's Web Site for somewhat more realistic appraisals which are based on Janes (again, as I said above -- didn't you notice that?) and other sources like Cato, the Brookings Institute, US Military Intelligence and so on.

Second (as usual), you missed where I said that I DISAGREED WITH THE "WE GOTS MO' MISSILES AND BOMBS" ARGUMENT USED BY MOST SDI OPPONENTS TO START WITH.

Asking me to argue against the numbers at the CFLWEF Web site would be like asking me to discuss the "compliance" numbers used during the Y2K thingie. I disagree with the premise to start with! You must first convince me that having "mo' missiles" somehow negates the threat.

(Mitigate, possibly; negate? No.)

Imagine this: here's a guy (we'll call him "Joe"). Joe has a single one megaton nuclear device on top of a homemade missile. I have 10,000 of the things pointed right back at Joe.

But guess what? JOE STILL TERRIFIES ME.

This is especially the case if I suspect that Joe isn't rational; maybe he has a death wish or believes that Mother Gaea told him that her skin has acne and his name is homo sapiens. I just don't know.

China is a threat because its leaders are ideologues who are more concerned with doctrinal "purity" than with reality, unlike the pragmatic cynics who ran the Soviet Union at its prime. The old USSR understood the game. China does NOT; its leaders think that they're the rebirth of the Middle Kingdom and that their destiny is to dominate Asia.

(And if you really believe that China is simply playing a pre-assigned role in your CFR/Trilateral/Whatever-It's-Called-This-Week Global Domination thingie, you know even less about their mindset than I thought.)

So ... the fact that we have mo' missiles and bombs than they do doesn't really help calm me down. I HATE MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION. It's a DUMB policy.

If one madman with a gun decides to start taking potshots at me, the fact that I have an arsenal in the living room closet isn't going to stop me from being terrified.

(Or from taking reasonable precautions against such a scenario in the first place.)

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Stephen,

Thanks for joining in. As for your point that "we" understate the Chinese threat, it reminds me of the infamous "they" who keep doing disreputable things, except it sounds friendlier. What matters is: how much of a military threat do the Chinese present. Period.

In your second paragraph, you state: they aren't especially interested in world conquest, but they are (fanatically) concerned with being able to defend themselves against foreign attack (or even what they merely perceive as a foreign attack). Um, other than that perjorative "fanatically", how does this make the Chinese different from any other soveriegn nation, including us? I can't suss your point. OF COURSE, nations defend themselves from attack.

As for your belief that I think the Chinese have no real arsenal, I was specifically addressing the contention that the Chinese capability would soon "dwarf" the Soviet one. What I said is perfectly well endorsed by what you said: they don't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the Soviets did. The number you cited was less than 5% of what the Soviet arsenal was.

As for your comment that the Chinese bombs work "distressingly well" -- are you equally distressed by the fact that our bomnbs also explode? That is what bombs do.

Then you went on to address their missiles. Fine. I stipulate that their missiles work, too. They go up, they come down where the Chinese want them to. We've seen this before.

You point out they are just starting to MIRV. We've been there for quite a while. The Soviets got there decades ago, too. Again, we've seen this before. Same with subs, of which the Chinese might have two. Again. No surprise there. Been there before.

I'm am also puzzled and distressed at one common argument used by SDI naysayersm, which can be boiled down to, "our numbers are a LOT bigger than theirs." (Ie, "we have more missiles than they do.") That is not an issue here. As few as 10-20 missiles (depending on how far they've gotten with their MIRV conversion) would be more than enough to seriously damage (if not nearly destroy) this country.

And I did not make this stupid argument. I would be better impressed if you would address the argument I did make: that the Chinese know that their nuclear capability is not a worthwhile offensive weapon, because they saw that the Soviets built up a far stronger arsenal and were never able to make use of it offensively. If their arsenal is merely defensive, then we should not consider it as a threat.

Even more frightening is that the Chinese military, like the Soviets before them (prior to Chernobyl, at least[g]) honestly think that their huge land area, combined with a well dispersed infrastructure,makes them far less vulnerable to nuclear retaliation.

The Chinese saw Chernobyl, too. Please, keep in mind that the Chinese would prefer not to have their real war-fighting doctrine batted around in public. Unless you have top secret clearance from the Chinese military, any document you might cite that states such a doctrine may be considered with well-founded suspicion.

The ONLY credible threat that China presents to us is the nuclear one.

You almost make my case for me. Unless we attack China, we have not a goddamned thing to fear from their military as a threat to our country, within our borders.

Remember, my favorite illustration goes something like this: for whatever reason, a couple of nuclear missiles are fired at the US mainland. At present, all we could do is sit and impotently watch as they slowly fell into the United States.

May I state for the record that your favorite illustration totally dodges the entire question of why these missiles are fired. And to me, that renders the illustration useless. We may as well presume that flying saucers appeared over our country. It makes as much sense.

Therefore, the only credible threat that WE have against the Chinese at present is that of Mutual Assured Destruction.

It worked against a much more formidable military foe than the Chinese are, at present. Anyone who examines the Chinese military objectively will come to the conclusion that they are designed pretty much for defense and to project force at China's immediate neighbors. As a threat to our mainland, they are nil, unless we attack them first.

SDI, I think, will affect the military like the neutron bomb. It will hollow out the budget for fighting forces and conventional arms and leave nothing funded but the anti-missile defense structure and the custodial staff to clean up the cobwebs it gathers. It is just another example of refighting the last war instead of preparing for the next one. The Cold War was cold because it was "fought" with ICBMs. Foreign militaries know this. They ain't THAT STUPID.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Anita,

That would only happen if other people here started saying that they felt that Patricia was being impersonated -- especially if I should receive an email from a regular saying that I should delete the "imposter."

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Stephen:

I didn't mean to intrude. I didn't realize you HAD regulars. When this happened to me, I think that Patricia felt it coming down the pike. Sorry...I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a list of your "regulars" who wouldn't see this coming at the time due to communications outside of this forum.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Think,

I thought about editing that reply to make the wording more clear, but what the heck. Administrator's privilege doesn't mitigate against laziness. :)

As for your belief that I think the Chinese have no real arsenal, I was specifically addressing the contention that the Chinese capability would soon "dwarf" the Soviet one.

OK, I stand corrected; I didn't understand you. Plus, as I said, in my reply, I could have been more clear.

Do remember, though, that I don't just compare sheer numbers. I compare the actual level of threat. If Iraq has even just one single nuclear-tipped ICBM, for example, I consider that a MUCH more serious concern than even the Chinese.

I should also make clear that I don't just consider the possibility of nukes hitting *US* directly. If Iraq should chuck a nuke at Israel, all hell would let out for breakfast. If a credible SDI should be extended to cover our allies, it would mean for a much more stable world overall.

As for your comment that the Chinese bombs work "distressingly well"

Another case of me being unclear. I was addressing the oft-made contention (not by you, by others) that their weapons are "inferior" and probably "wouldn't even work," and are thus no threat.

You point out they are just starting to MIRV. We've been there for quite a while ...

It will take us some years to get anything like an ABM system in place. During those years, they will continue to improve their weapons systems. In fact, I think we should've started a couple of decades ago.

And I did not make this stupid argument.

I didn't say you did (another case of me being unclear about WHOM I was addressing ... I'm going to stop saying that; I'll just apologize[g]).

OK, I *will* address your argument:

the Chinese know that their nuclear capability is not a worthwhile offensive weapon, because they saw that the Soviets built up a far stronger arsenal and were never able to make use of it offensively. If their arsenal is merely defensive, then we should not consider it as a threat.

But I don't think that's an accurate assessment. (Just my opinion, and you know what those are worth.)

First, the Chinese have believed for some time that the Soviets were stupid, spoiled the "purity" of the Revolution and made all sorts of mistakes. Their attempt to match us bang-for-bang was just one of many, says Beijing.

(It's that superiority and sense-of-destiny complex thingie again. Yes, their current leadership has it, in bushel lots.)

The Chinese primarily use their nukes as a deterrent, NOT as a first-strike force. (Whether that changes in the future remains to be seen, though -- another point that we'll set aside for the moment.)

To give you one (obvious) example, they want Taiwan. They want it BAD. They can taste it. They rattle their sabers and snarl at Taiwan, which rests confident on two beliefs: (1) the Chinese currently haven't the naval capacity to mount a real invasion and (2) the United States will defend them.

But some believe that China *could* call Taiwan one day and say, "we're going to rain death on you if you don't come back into the fold." (HERE is where all of those intermediate-range nukes are a *BIG* threat.)

If Taiwan says, "the US will retaliate if you do that!" China will respond: "no, they won't, because they're not going to trade Washington and Seattle and New York for your little piddly butts."

Now: add SDI to the equation, and Taiwan can respond, "you can't be sure that your missiles will get through. The United States will destroy you in return and you will have gained nothing."

They aren't THAT stupid.

Stupid, no. "Deluded," "overconfident" and "filled with a sense of destiny" are the adjectives that I'd use.

Look: we build nuclear weapons hoping that they'll never be used. We would probably build SDI with the very same hope. Having that defense would help us to project power and influence policy elsewhere around the world.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Poole that CDI link is terrible, no wonder you merely hinted to it originally and provided no direct route for readers. Bunch of prop from the exact yo-yos I cited, and you spun into some NWO baloney. No it is called the Military Industrial Complex. Where is the naked data? Plenty of hotair from rightwing wacko research hacks like Heritage etc, but I found little if any numbers. I guess they figure their readers far too stupid for the data and it is upto them to spin it for them? I guess one is required to part with $29 for the numbers?

AS to Janes, well talk about tainted data, what exactly is their business Poole, arms is it?

I will not even get into your "threat" pile as it is the rantings of an extremist. No Poole we do not need the capability to kill a Chinaman 100 times over. Funny but you are a doomer at heart I am afraid. Does the word APPROPRIATE mean anything to you? Following your logic why have ANY military? Hell you would be pissing your pants either way.

This whole thing is BS. Oh boy them Imperial Guard Sadaam Insane had were surely frightening. Hell what were they? the 3rd or 4th largest standing army was it? Boy they sure put-up a stink, lasted almost 2 days I think. Ended up surrendering to a Radio Shack kids toy.

Do you honestly buy the game being run here Poole? Same game which has been ongoing all of our lives? These guys are in the business of WAR. This IS what MOST of it is about. Trim the military by 75% and I doubt a damn thing would change. Why do we even need HALF of the damn foot soldiers we have???? We don't and the rest is pr from these guys at the link you provided. And the real problem is these suckers stand in the way of major reform thus all of this dribble is water-under- the-bridge I am afraid.

Where oh where is even one damn example in the last THREE DECADES to warrant the Military we have??? Yes we need to have the most advanced, best trained, and well-equipped military we can muster. Unfortunately because this quality is secondary to quantity, we have less than the best in many areas of the military. Look if Joe Moron is THE ARMY what does this say? We'll it says this is most likely a major waste of money. Give me two more trained pilots and two more planes and send home 10,000 guys, in the military, for no other reasons than the "opportunity and freebies".

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

OK Paulie. What I need (before I throw up) is a Paulie manifesto regarding the developement and deployment of our military for the next 20 years. Please, please don't be bashfull. Lives (not yours of course) depend on your wise use of a military made less capable by your decisions. Just John Q, here hoping for a break. Where would you send me? What would you want me to do when there? IF this gets too onnerous you can go back to being a corporal and nobody will know.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Doc,

Poole that CDI link is terrible, no wonder you merely hinted to it originally ... [snip]

First, the numbers ARE there, Doc. You didn't look hard enough. Try

http:// www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/chnukes.html

You'll even find some of the material that I happily glommed and plagiarized in my response above. :)

Second, why am I not surprised that you would dismiss this link? It is a comfortable, predictable world that you've built for yourself, Doc. If it supports what you want to believe, it must be right, even if it's produced by a group of left-wing educators with no military credentials whatsoever. If it doesn't, it's obviously the product of right-wing wackos or the Military-Industrial Complex (gawd, does anyone really use that hackneyed phrase anymore?) or the Evil CFR.

And you claim that I have the "meme?" Heh.

Aw, you're a lot of fun Doc. Truly, some day, we have to get together for a huge waterpistol fight. But *I* get to choose the weapons, since you're obviously a pacifist.[EG]

AS to Janes, well talk about tainted data, what exactly is their business Poole, arms is it?

If you had taken the effort to check (they have a Website), you'd have seen that their business is compiling and selling weapons information and analysis. They do not sell weapons.

Following your logic why have ANY military?

You are NOT following MY logic; you are following an ambulatory strawman that popped into this conversation like a quantum event from some other dimension.

It should be obvious to anyone without a meme that my logic would lead to precisely the opposite conclusion: that you should build a strong military in the hopes that you won't have to use it.

Weakness invites attack, strength discourages attack. It's really just that simple, Doc.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Doc, Poole that CDI link is terrible, no wonder you merely hinted to it originally ... [snip]

First, the numbers ARE there, Doc. You didn't look hard enough. Try ...snip...that I happily glommed and plagiarized in my response above. :)

Well Poole why didn't ya link there in the first place? What kinda of a GAME are you playing? I need to dig? Maybe you need to grow-up and stop with the dumb happyfaces indicative of a 5 year-old when he tricks an adult. In this case sending to a link having little if anything germain to the discussion, knowing full well you are doing so.

Second, why am I not surprised that you would dismiss this link? It is a comfortable, predictable world that you've built for yourself, Doc. If it supports what you want to believe, it must be right, even if it's produced by a group of left-wing educators with no military credentials whatsoever. If it doesn't, it's obviously the product of right-wing wackos or the Military-Industrial Complex (gawd, does anyone really use that hackneyed phrase anymore?) or the Evil CFR.

You send me to a webpage with nothing but pro-war spin from talkingheads, what did you expect? Again what kind of game are you playing here? The link I provided was not perfect, and I said so.

And you claim that I have the "meme?" Heh.

Aw, you're a lot of fun Doc. Truly, some day, we have to get together for a huge waterpistol fight. But *I* get to choose the weapons, since you're obviously a pacifist.[EG]

Either/or dribble, predictable. Missed the part where I said I am all for the best military we can muster did ya? Apparently Carlos is as well suffering from dualistic hell.

AS to Janes, well talk about tainted data, what exactly is their business Poole, arms is it?

If you had taken the effort to check (they have a Website), you'd have seen that their business is compiling and selling weapons information and analysis. They do not sell weapons.

Gee really? Did I say they SOLD weapons? No I said their business is arms. In their case they are journalists. They live and die from growth in the Arms biz, you connect the dots.

Following your logic why have ANY military?

You are NOT following MY logic; you are following an ambulatory strawman that popped into this conversation like a quantum event from some other dimension.

and here is the strawman by the man himself, Stephen Poole...If one madman with a gun decides to start taking potshots at me, the fact that I have an arsenal in the living room closet isn't going to stop me from being terrified.

hint for the dim, the keyword is MADMAN!

It should be obvious to anyone without a meme that my logic would lead to precisely the opposite conclusion: that you should build a strong military in the hopes that you won't have to use it.

Weakness invites attack, strength discourages attack. It's really just that simple, Doc.

maybe so, but do MADMEN care? Did Sadaam Insane care? Does Bin Laden care? BTW, I know it is impossible in your either/or reality but I am NOT against a strong military, and NEVER said I was.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), February 08, 2001.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

In an interesting sidebar from the Janes.com link. If one goes to Thomson.com (they be the umbrella corporation which owns Janes apparently)one finds an interesting javascript ticker near the bottom of their page. Shows all of the Thomson's web interests.

Began clicking on them to see what they held. Well if it ain't the Stepford World. Have quite a few to Stock pages, investment banking and all manner of fancy financial tricks and schemes for the today Stepford Member. Even have a link to some Women's fashion website, I swear! Basically how to get THAT look ladies all good Stepford men want in their trophy wives!

Let me guess, the average Thomson stiff invests in the market as religion. Their wives are dumb but have that "look". Did I mention Thomson also has a "baking" website, yep just what the barefoot and pregnant littlelady needs to fill her days and prepare the home for the return of the king.

Additionally they all drive Ford Explosions(I mean Expeditions). They send all their kids to "alternative" schools. They can be found with a cell phone glued to their ears 16/7. They avoid regular healthcare the sheep use, and see Stepford docs and the like which is ultimately paid for by same sheep. They all have fancy lawyers working to promote the Stepford way of life!

means nothing but I found it pretty funny, maybe some here will too.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Well Poole why didn't ya link there in the first place? What kinda of a GAME are you playing? I need to dig? Maybe you need to grow-up and stop with the dumb happyfaces indicative of a 5 year-old when he tricks an adult.

Boy, the happyfaces really annoy you, don't they? As I said one time before: lighten up, will you?

Nor am I playing a "game" here. As usual, I'm simply stating what I believe and why. Also as usual, Doc completely misunderstands what I'm saying and uses it as an excuse to launch into another tirade that basically boils down to the same old thing: we poor, dumb, meme-infested sheeple are being led around by the nose by the Powers That Be. It's all interconnected Evil Corporations, and oh!, Why can't we understand this?

You send me to a webpage with nothing but pro-war spin from talkingheads, what did you expect?

Heh. Thanks for *PROVING* what I said: if it disagrees with you, it must be "pro-war spin from talkingheads." You're a piece of work, Doc.

Either/or dribble, predictable. Missed the part where I said I am all for the best military we can muster did ya?

No, I caught that. But you propose to make the car strong by removing 75% of the frame and body, which is hardly logical.

Doc, the way this works is simple: if you state something, don't be annoyed when some people disagree with you. That's how discussion works. :)

Oh, sorry, there's another happyface.

They live and die from growth in the Arms biz, you connect the dots.

See? Here you go again. Because they don't agree with Doc, they're obviously "cooking" the data; is that it?

and here is the strawman by the man himself, Stephen Poole...If one madman with a gun decides to start taking potshots at me, the fact that I have an arsenal in the living room closet isn't going to stop me from being terrified.

This is actually proof that you don't read everything that I say in a discussion like this. *YOU* are the one engaging in your beloved "dualism" now, Doc. (Taste the irony.[g])

That was an extreme example. I also gave a detailed little scenario about China v. Taiwan, didn't I? *YOU* connect the dots.

but do MADMEN care?

And thank you for making one other point for me. My argument is twofold: First, we need a strong military (including SDI) in the community of nations. But second, we can also use something like SDI to protect against MADMEN.

It serves a *DUAL* purpose, Doc.

You have just ADMITTED that the idea of "mo missiles and bombs" overkill *DOES NOT* deter madmen! Thanks for agreeing with me. :)

Ergo, we need SDI.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Stephen, none of my business here, but you do EXACTLY the same thing you're accusing Doc of doing -- when something disagrees with YOUR POV, you claim it's "left-wing spin" or the "liberal media". Heaven forbid someone who disagrees with you should point you to a perceived "left-wing source"!! Oh the horror. Yet, the links you've provided reference such notable "moderate" sources as The Heritage Foundation.

And then you decry Doc for pointing this out. Go figure.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Stephen, you seem to be basing your overall argument on the assumption that: if SDI stops all incoming ICBMs, then SDI stops all incoming nuclear weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth.

SDI will be the equivalent of the Maginot Line - a massive fixed emplacement costing a mint and inviting easy circumvention that will quickly render it useless - worse than useless if it gives most Americans a misplaced sense of security against nuclear weapons.

In my opinion, building SDI will make us less secure, because it will spur the development of smarter alternative delivery systems that SDI can't handle, and the massive expense of SDI will become an all-eggs-in-one-basket sort of budget hog. What's worse, its useful life will be measured in negative years.

Think about it for a moment. All a nuclear weapon delivery system needs to do in order to circumvent SDI is to not act like an ICBM. That's a piece of cake. If I were a nation determined to deliver a nuclear weapon against an enemy target and I couldn't use an ICBM, I'd just start developing a cheap, small, low-flying drone with a miniaturized warhead and an onboard computer guidance system - something like a cruise missile, but cheaper.

For any range up to 800 miles or so, this would be all that I need. For targets farther away, I'd have to transport my drone closer before launching or else get clever about extending its range.

Make nukes small enough (and that is what started this whole thread) and - whammo - the whole idea of SDI falls apart like the Maginot Line before the blitzkrieg. And with miniaturization being the primary thruse of most high tech these days, it wouldn't take long to achieve that - probably the solution would be ready before SDI was tested and in place.

I still say SDI is a terrible waste of money and a harmful mistake. No analogy to handguns, madmen and body armor can make it a good idea. Wars are not fought by madmen with handguns. Body armor does not cost a trillion dollars.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Patricia is so right. I would estimate the main reason I present myself the way I do online is because of exactly the utter crap I encounter. Why "discuss", "debate", "chat", "interact" or "share" with people who are operating from preconceived notions? People who THINK they ARE their beliefs, their thoughts. Y2k was a great lesson.

All the facts, insights, amount to mush. Why? Because when one is operating from a meme, you are fighting a battle science now understands is akin to fighting with genes.

And what should be obvious to you Poole, is yes I have as many memes as the rest of ya. However, and I think my life experience can show this(if you knew me beyond cyberspace), I do not live to the depths many do from their "beliefs". I clearly understand the place beyond belief and thoughts. A place most have never been.

Mr. Poole you are NOT being honest on this thread. I asked you at least twice about your links. You have provided no answer. Knowing something about you, I would say your treatment of this issue indicates to me you are engaged in some type of trick here as well as your nonresponse. Like you said, and posted before, you used(gloomed was it?) data from the ultimately linked page. Why then did you not afford me and the other participants here the luxury of a source document? This is dishonest and an indication of disrespect directed at nobody and everybody. Which ultimately shows you have little respect for yourself.

You did not provide the link in question. Instead you sent me and others (with happyfaces blazing) to an opinion page run by an organization having little interest in appropriate military science. And we are talking appropriate here. YOU are talking extreme, but I am talking appropriate. To indicate as much I use the phrase of killing the enemy 100times over. I doubt anyone but an extremist could respond with a straight face in defense of that. Sorry but you may think it appropriate, I do not and most do not. When strong is defined, it ain't YOUR definition I assure you.

Back a week or so ago I presented a link concerning a major Myth involving the Nazi rise to power. I think it was important for many reasons. None more important than to maybe point out the threat to any nation is INTERNAL. Nations are best to follow nature and build their power structure on balance. To be avoided is extremes.

I do not believe, based on the facts, we now have a politcal situation which honors balance. I also think our core governmental structure grounded enough to handle this imbalance, but I do have serious doubts. I have these doubts based on the USSC involvement in the Florida elections. The mere fact we are also electing folks with sexual addictions and former still-in-denial drunks is also very troubling to me.

Unlike the Left-extremists, the Right are far more organized and united. The left is a watered down mishmash of many groups. The right swirls in unison around some wacky notion about God and what the United States was meant to be. Their rhetoric is universally similar. They operate as if ONE mind. Doubt this? When was the last time a Lefty mounted any type of effective defense when called? They don't, they are quieted. On the otherhand the Right grows stronger around the rallying point. The airwaves are filled with one rightwinger after another. Balance is as foreign and avoided by all. The game is to rehash and point out over and over again how the problems are all the result of the Left.

Again the Florida election is proof enough of this reality. Where oh where is the Liberal media reporting back the results of "their" own recounts? If they are not favorable to Gore, why isn't Drudge spewing what every red-blooded Republican told ya so? Base problem with any of these private recounts involves audience. The Right has already won and could careless. The left is tiny and very unorganized. Rest of Americans have accepted the results largely and done what all do, gotten on with their lives. If the shoes were on the other fooot, would this be the reality?

The current ongoing California Energy crisis provides yet more evidence of a Right united under simplistic, universal themes. While even the Left works thru the details, the Right simply labels the whole as defective and paints the entire subject as the work of Liberal Treehuggers. There exists plenty of evidence to show a few underregulated sellers at the wholesale level are largely to blame for the current dive into crisis. Nobody is denying there is fundamental issues, flaws in the deregulation scheme in California. The parties are working it out, or were prior to the installation of the Rightwing extremists in Washington. These be the folks who just write California off as TOO BADD. The deregulation plan in California is a work-in-progress, a test. Why aren't the pro-business, pro- deregulation folks offering real help? Why is the policy to ignore?

BTW Poole, to understand the California energy crisis better, think back to discussions we had over FCC license auctions. The same exact rigged processes are contaiminating both from my findings. Findings which I will be the first to admit, are not the end-all. But I do sense a similar theme, almost a scripted plan. Plan titles might include ,,,"How to use OPM and turn the tables on the Bureaucrats", "How to finance your BallPark with dumb taxpayer money and become rich in the process", titles available thru some Wade Cook 800 number.

I call-em as I see-em. I don not use Word and transfer. I do not use a spellchecker. I do not go back and edit my posts even if I have this ability(keys to the forum). I rarely if even use the tired old usenet theme of cut and pasting anothers post and then inserting "the truth", making any response by the original poster almost impossible. My underlined response to you above is what this tactic leads to, a mess. You get what you get usely, an unorganized, many times rambling post from a guy using a dumbass handle and email. But if one will suspend judgement, apply grammar and style points liberally, one I have no doubt will glean some real gems.

My intent is always to share, to enlighten, to turn lightbulbs on. Is this your intent Poole? By playing link games?

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Trish,

Of course it's your business. This is an open discussion and you say what you like, even to the point of calling me a dunderhead. :)

you do EXACTLY the same thing you're accusing Doc of doing -- when something disagrees with YOUR POV, you claim it's "left-wing spin" or the "liberal media".

No, I don't, either.

Trish, have I not blasted World Net Daily? Did I not, in fact, give them a Flying Pig Award? Have you taken a moment to consider *WHY* I did that? Would I do that if I were defending all conservatives and attacking only liberals?

I disagree with sources that operate from perceived bias. I have tried to explain this several times now (in general); I am apparently doing a piss-poor job. :)

I condemn spin on both sides and ANYTIME I see a source that has an agenda and which I suspect is bending data to fit preconceived notions, I will take it with a grain of salt -- left wing OR right.

I don't trust many of the right-wing anti-abortion pages. They make statements like, "a woman CAN'T get pregnant if she's raped!" which are nonsense. So, I won't quote them when I'm in an abortion debate.

I don't trust many of the right-wing sites about bias in the media (Paul Davis is the one who caused me to take a hard look at that, and I'll always be thankful to him for it). They take specific, isolated examples in many cases and spin them into a huge problem. So: I don't quote them, either. (I have *NEVER* quoted from Accuracy in Media here, for example.)

In this case, Doc's group happens to be left wing. Trish, I can't help that! Nor do I really care; I've quoted from so-called "left wing" sites from time to time, too (no one seems to remember that). It's all a matter of whether I trust their data.

I don't mistrust this group's data *JUST* because they're left wing. I mistrust it because it is inaccurate and biased, period.

When World Net Daily produced "data" that supposedly "proved" that Russia was planning to nuke us on January 1, 2000, I dismissed that, too, for PRECISELY the same reason.

Now: we can certainly disagree about the quality of sources, too. Doc apparently thinks that Janes is biased, in spite of a 100 year track record of being almost priggishly painstaking in their work. I disagree with him, which is why I used them as a source. That's a different thing.

As soon as I saw the incorrect and DELIBERATELY understated numbers at Doc's link, I knew I was looking at a cooked site. I didn't even KNOW they were left wing when I first went there and made that decision.

We would probably disagree about the quality of data from Cato, Brookings and yeah, even the Heritage Foundation. Again: if the data can be backed up and appears to be well-done, I don't care WHO it's from, right wing or left. I may still disagree with it, but I can respect scholarship from people who've got experience and a track record, and who DON'T have an agenda that stands to gain IMMEDIATELY from acceptance of the data.

By the way. I did a Web search the other night when I prepared my initial response and found a "liberal" page (was it Physicians for Social Responsibility? Can't remember) that used Jane's numbers! Maybe I should have quoted THEM instead of CDI.

Of course, in their case, they hate ALL nukes, big and small and want to see them ALL go away. So they're going to use the highest numbers THEY can find to scare people.[g]

Doc,

I am not being "dishonest." I showed the link as soon as you asked for it. If you want to know the honest truth, I meant to include the link in that first post; I omitted it by mistake. I then provided the link as soon as I was asked. If that doesn't satisfy you, kill me. :)

(Oops, another smileyface.)

I *have* answered your questions, too, as much as I'm able. You just don't like my answers. Sometimes that happens. People disagree.

Part of the problem, I think, is that I do *NOT* agree with your view of the world, which (from what I've seen) is that Evil Corporations and giant global think tanks (like CFR) are actually running everything behind the scenes. THAT kind of stuff usually comes from people like the old Liberty Lobby folks (sheesh, what a scary group of righter-than-Birchers).

I've also said in the past that, in general, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, which is basically what the whole "CFR runs everythin'!" stuff is. I don't buy it, sorry.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Golly gee whiz,

I wonder what Patricia meant by this statement:

(LOL -- expect four years of this [or less, with any luck]. Payback's a bitch.)

You wouldn't be getting an itchy trigger finger would you Patricia?

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Doc,

By the way, I have been listening to reports that Bush plans to delay pay raises to the Military, too, with grave concern. I flatly and TOTALLY disagree with that, I think he's backing down on a solemn promise made to the military and I'm going to let my representatives know what I think. I am VERY unhappy about that.

I have never said that I thought that Bush could do no wrong. Not so. He's flat WRONG in this case and I just said so for the record.

Doesn't mean I regret voting for him, because I wouldn't have expected Gore to keep all of his promises, either. But I would have complained just as quickly in his case, too.

Fair is fair and wrong is wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Me thinks you will be writing many letters Poole, rotflmao, good luck!

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

BTW Poole, are you going to respond to the latest from Think?

Oh come now olde wise one, shirley you can drive thru the hole he left you.

"They will merely build below SDI", huh? Who is THEY? and what exactly will they be building? better scuds? a more effective blend of blackflag and raid to use on their own people? And where exactly will they get the brainmaterial necessary for real weapons?

Build below? Why haven't "they" done so already? Oh ya they don't want to tip their hands, I get it, silly me.

And when are them damn suitcase nukes ever gunna show up? And what becomes of all that missing Plutonium we alls hear about? where does it go? Pluto?

Scam boys, scam, but don't let me confuse ya,,, there are Threats out there! threats I tell ya!

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

I agree that the "threat" out there may be over stated, but the problem is that you cannot read the future. And I think that we are WAY over extended around the world, and the $$$$$$$$ flowing like a river into the Pentagon needs to be better spent (Make David Hackworth the Sec of Defense if ya ask me) but there is one thing to keep in mind. I don't know of many people who will walk into a biker bar and spit in the face of the biggest, toughest, meanest tatooed bastard there, the one who you know without a doubt will KILL you dead. The same thing applies to our military, we need to remain the meanest SOB in the valley, it's what keeps us from being attacked.

The point about SDI becoming our Maginot Line in the sky is a valid one. The Line was hugely expensive, and the protection it provided was vastly overstated. France believed it's own propaganda about the Line and let it's war fighting machine rust in the years before WWII, and we all know how long it took before Hitler got to dance his little jig in Paris.

If SDI could be built affordably it would be worth doing, but not at the expense of trillions of dollars.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Well, this thread certainly deviated from its beginning. I was asking about one weapons system, which I see as having a very limited or doubtful utility, not the whole military/SDI rational.

Be that as it may, a decent set of source documents for comparing the US to the rest of the world can be found here.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/wmeat98/rank98.pdf

As for the fairly common "military spending has dropped as a percentage of GDP" complaint one often hears, could someone please give me a rationale for just why the GDP bears a relation to military spending? In WWII, military spending was the GDP, for most purposes, during Vietnam it was much less.

Suppose someone in the US invented both cheap fusion and antigravity in the same year. Our GDP would skyrocket, probably by 500 or 600% over just a few years. Would our military needs have increased that much in such a short period of time? Doesn't seem likely.

So the only rational model I see for setting military expenditures comes down to examination of the potential threat, and crafting a military budget to meet that threat.

Looking at the source documents I related above, we find the US at the top of almost every chart.

So, let us look at US military vs the rest of the world.

In spending.

1 United States 276300 2 China — Mainland 74910 3 Russia 41730 4 France 41520 5 Japan 40840 6 United Kingdom 35290 7 Germany 32870 8 Italy 22720 9 Saudi Arabia 21150 10 Korea, South 15020

You have to add number two through eight together to surpass US military spending. Please note that many of those countries are our allies.

Men under arms.

1 China — Mainland 2600 2 United States 1532 3 Russia 1300 4 India 1265 5 Korea, North 1100 6 Turkey 820 7 Korea, South 670 8 Vietnam 650 9 Pakistan 610 10 Iran 575

Yes, China has more men in the military than we do. Do you think they are as well equipped as ours? Is the Chinese Navy capable of carrying out a credible conventional threat against the US?

Arms Exports

1 United States 31800 2 United Kingdom 6600 3 France 5900 4 Russia 2300 5 China — Mainland 1100 6 Sweden 900 7 Germany 750 8 Italy 700 9 Canada 550 10 Spain 525

When it comes to selling arms to the world, we are number one.

Arms Imports 1 Saudi Arabia 11600 2 China — Taiwan 9200 3 Japan 2600 4 United Kingdom 2100 5 Kuwait 2000 6 Egypt 1600 7 Turkey 1600 8 United States 1600 9 United Arab Emirates 1400 10 Israel 1100

US is 55th in military expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Which just shows we have a huge GDP.

So, the US and its allies have a huge advantage in arms over the rest of the world. That is a solid fact.

The US is second only to China in the number of men under arms, and has better equipment and more of it - while I'm not calling the Chinese army a 'tattered band of peasents', I do know that if China had ever felt secure in their ability to defeat Russia, they would have done so.

So, in comparisons of expenditures, we are the bully boy of the planet. Even assuming we pay double for everything, we are still in the top spot, without even counting our allies. And our NATO and other allies also are high on the military budget lists.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone can call CATO a liberal anti- military organization. They have some opinions on these matters.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-332es.html

And this chart shows a direct comparison of our spending vs likely threats.

http://d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/dds/16_comp_expenditures.htm

The next chart in that list shows a graph of US military spending in constant dollars over the last 50 years or so. Simple examination of that chart shows we are now spending at the same level we have always spent, in times when we were not actively at war, for the past 50 years, saving only the Reagan buildup years. Reagan spent at a constant dollar level higher than peak spending during the Vietnam War. This hardly seems necessary, now, with the major threat of the Cold War reduced to its current state.

And that represents the status of the US and its allies re conventional military power.

Now, to address nuclear power.

First, the US has more nuclear weapons than anyone else, and more delivery systems, and more accurate delivery systems.

Since we are leading here, that leaves SDI.

For me to support SDI, it has to meet four qualifications.

1. A workable system that can perform its mission at least 80% of the time must be demonstrated as a prototype. And I don't mean some joke of a rigged test, I want a dummy missle launch from at least 1000 miles away, and 'kills' before they reach MIRV height four times out of five.

2. The system must be cost effective. In other words, if it costs a trillion dollars per unit, we simply can't afford it, no matter what the consequences of not having it are.

3. The system must be built AFTER it is developed. I know, that sounds stupid, but the Pentagon has run 'develop while building' programs for so many years that it IS stupid. Develop first, then build.

4. The system must be maintainable. Working for the military, I read a lot of technical maintainence bulletins and so forth. Entirely too many of them are full of things like "to make the TO-OAK-11M function reliably, take it to the chief of maintainence and have him weld an extra support strut (any 6" piece of 3/4 angle iron will do) to the side area as shown in the diagram to lessen the chance of cracking due to metal fatigue". Can we please test this thing and fix the maintainence problems BEFORE we bet the farm on it?

Since number one has not, as yet, been demonstrated, it isn't even worth talking about the next three. SDI is still pie-in-the-sky. Research it, fine, but don't start trying to build the system before you have even shown you CAN build it.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Thanks Paul for the info!

Poole was blinded by the Nutsos(as he called them at CLW)using IISS data, Oh the horror. Seems Poole likes his figs from trade groups like Jane's.

Gee have we learned nothing from Y2k? Do the names de Jager or Gartner Group mean anything? I tend to think IISS data a tad more "in the stadium" than agenda driven sales from Jane's. Besides, both basically say the same damn thing anyhow,,,China has been hyped.

Look Memes, we have Billion Dollar aircraft. Lets pay the guys and gals running these things just compensation. How? By eliminating the WELFARE program which is sold as "Be all you can Be". Again, it is about appropriateness. It is not about continuing to line the pockets of Rockwell and ending up with a force diluted and ineffcient by squandering resources without any rational basis to even have.

SDI? sinkhole.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Actually, Doc, I trust Jane's numbers on Chinese warheads. Its just that I can't do anything about them.

"What can't be cured must be endured".

IFF a workable SDI system can be demonstrated, and a means for building it can be found that will not set the Russians or Chinese to attacking us to prevent its completion, and it doesn't cost so much that we would not have anything left after building it - then we probably should build it.

Doing it any other way would put us much in the position of the old timers who would hire a rainmaker - lots of smoke and noise, but not much in the way of success.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Deedah,

If SDI could be built affordably it would be worth doing, but not at the expense of trillions of dollars.

That's really about how I feel on it. Personally, I think it can be built for a rational (in government terms[g]) amount of money. If not, though, I agree fully: don't bother.

Doc,

I'm getting around to Think's other reply. It takes time to shake off all the puppet strings that you're trying to tie me up with; sorry for the delay. :)

(OUCH, *another* dadblamed smileyface! It must be an addiction ...)

(Do you argue with yourself when no one's around? I used to, but the cats told me to quit.)

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Mssr Think,

Stephen, you seem to be basing your overall argument on the assumption that: if SDI stops all incoming ICBMs, then SDI stops all incoming nuclear weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And nothing could be further from what I'm saying; I certainly don't believe that. But by the same token, just because SDI can't stop all nukes doesn't mean that it's not worth looking into. If it's going to cost 2 trillion dollars for maybe 30% effectiveness, I'm not interested. But if it can be done for 1/4 (or even 1/2, spaced over a decade) of that and be 80% effective against ballistic objects, then I am most assuredly in favor of it.

SDI will be the equivalent of the Maginot Line

I think that remains to be seen. The ML's biggest disadvantage was immobility -- it was a STATIC defense. A space-based anti-ballistic object system would NOT have to be static; the satellites could be moved and concentrated as needed against spots where the threat happens to be the highest.

In my opinion, building SDI will make us less secure, because it will spur the development of smarter alternative delivery systems that SDI can't handle and the massive expense of SDI will become an all-eggs-in-one-basket sort of budget hog.

That's a valid objection. I want to see what's actually being proposed before I say, "yeah, let's do it." I *AM* in favor of the concept; I think it can be done.

More to the point, I see no problem whatsoever in increased funding for SDI research.

Think about it for a moment. All a nuclear weapon delivery system needs to do in order to circumvent SDI is to not act like an ICBM.

No. That's why I said that it should be an anti-BALLASTIC THREAT system. Remember my basic scenario, raised many months ago over at the original Roost: here comes a warhead, floating gracefully through the sky toward NYC. At present, all we can do is watch it fall.

I'm simply saying that we can do better than that. What I disagree with is the idea that we shouldn't even *TRY*. Even Moscow has an ABM system; how effective it is is anyone's guess, but at least they made the effort. We don't even have THAT. Why not?

Wars are not fought by madmen with handguns.

No, but the most frightening are started by madmen like Hitler and Sadaam, who are quite willing to immolate their own populations if they deem it necessary.

Remember, I see multiple levels of threat here. China is just one (Doc seems to think I'm focusing solely on them; I am not); the Lone Madman is another. And I FULLY agree that small nukes could be smuggled over the border ... in fact, I will give you EVEN ODDS that such nukes ALREADY HAVE been smuggled over the border and are in place right now. And yes, I agree that there ain't a whole lot we can do about that.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do ANYTHING against ANY form of nuclear threat except say, "if you blow us up, we'll blow you up real good in return."

Thus my analogies, which are just illustrations of that argument: (a) since there's no way we can stop ALL nukes with an SDI, (b) it's therefore pointless to even try.

THAT'S what I disagree with.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Paul,

For me to support SDI, it has to meet four qualifications ...

I can't disagree with your qualifications. Well said.

I think it can be done, but I agree that we'll have to make changes in the WAY things are done.

I also agree that it's not going to be easy to get those changes implemented.

But, to quote the great Robert Heinlein, "I've got to try." :)

MAD is madness. We need something better.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Paul,

Back to your original post here.

I *do* believe that we have to be careful not to be snookered with "sky is falling" scare tactics from the military. I'm not naive; I realize as well as anyone that the military HAS to have a bogeyman to get mo' money from Congress.

The Russians made a terribly convenient ogre for many years and the military has been casting about desperately for another Threat (capital "T") since the Soviet Union collapsed. China is simply the best candidate to wear the scary mask for a decade or two.

(Unless Putin can work a miracle and rebuild the Soviet Union, which ain't darned likely.)

But as ol' Gravel Voice himself once said, "even paranoids have enemies." I accept that the military is overstating the threat that China represents; but this doesn't mean that China (or Iraq, or N. Korea, or you name it) presents no threat whatsoever.

The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

And I FULLY agree that small nukes could be smuggled over the border ... in fact, I will give you EVEN ODDS that such nukes ALREADY HAVE been smuggled over the border and are in place right now. And yes, I agree that there ain't a whole lot we can do about that

This is based on what? Seriously where in the hell did this come from? you can't be serious, can you?

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

What would your odds be Doc? I'm not sure that 50-50 is right, but I don't think zero cuts it either.

Now to the point about making a nuke not act like an ICBM, for example acting like a slow moving aircraft. That is a cruise missile, we already have missiles that can deal with a target like that, the problem is identifying it as such before it is too late.

IF SDI can be put in place for a reasonable expense, and IF it has a reasonable degree of effectivness (75% or more) the ICBM threat is greatly reduced. Having done that, or coinciding that, we can develop means for dealing with cruise missles lauched from subs or aircraft, which would be much less expensive to do than SDI, IMHO.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Well where is your evidence Unk? Seriously why do you believe it?

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Deedah,

Now to the point about making a nuke not act like an ICBM, for example acting like a slow moving aircraft. That is a cruise missile ...

Right. An F-16 with a half-alert pilot can shoot down a cruise missile, once it's spotted. The reason why they're so effective against people of lesser technology is because they're stealthed and fly under the radar cone.

They've been very effective against people like the Iraqis and Sudanese, but I've always wondered how they would have fared against the Soviets. The Soviets had multi-layered radar coverage, satellite surveillance, thousands of personnel who did nothing but WATCH those satellite images, etc., etc. I don't think *nearly* as many would have gotten through unscathed.

Doc,

That's a no-brainer. It's a case of knowing the Other Guy's capabilities and our weaknesses, coupled with the old fact that, if something CAN be done, it probably WILL be done -- if not now, then in the future.

Our borders are essentially unguarded. A boat with a small bomb could pull into the quay at any of a zillion different small ports anywhere. Or, you could fly it in, just like illegal drugs. (After all, we've been SO successful at stopping THEM ...[g])

In fact, it has been rumored for years that the Soviets have a small nuke at their embassy in Washington. We, in turn, have one at our embassy in Moscow. It's supposedly just one more (insane) part of that whole MAD thing. It's not publicized, but each side knows.

As to how I *know* this has happened, of course I don't, not for sure. But I wouldn't like to take odds against it, which is really what I said, isn't it? :)

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Doc,

An update: Bush has announced that he'll seek 1.4 billion in pay raises for the military and an additional 1 billion to improve their housing and other benefits.

So, he's keeping that promise after all. :)

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Stephen, before you go off proclaiming "I told you so", bear in mind that seeking and getting are, at times, mutually exclusive.

It's really quite sad to watch all you so-called W "supporters" begin to come to the realization that you have made a very grave error. All scrambling around, trying to justify his illegitimacy, trying to cover up for his idiocy ("Oh, but that isn't what he meant" -- LOL), many of you still hounding Clinton in order to divert attention away from the Commander in Thief, denying, denying, denying.....

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

1.4 billion sounds like a lot, but actually is about $1000 each. Since part (yes, I saw that news release) is to be targeted towards bonuses for re-enlistment of us technical types, the average raise will be less than that.

So it really isn't much towards bringing the forces in line with the rest of the country.

And the housing situation is getting pretty smelly in some places, too.

We'd do better to drop development of some of these silly weapons, like the thing I started this thread over (I can't imagine more than one or two of these things ever being used, more likely none, as the guys in the deep bunkers are exactly the ones you want to capture and question, or need for political purposes), and spend the money on improving conditions for the enlistees.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Paul,

Absolutely. We need to concentrate on technology that works, that's easy to repair in the field and which doesn't cost half the national budget. No argument there, either.

Since Korea ended as a nominal failure, the Pentagon has been fascinated with Joystick Warfare. Sometimes the technology works surprisingly well -- as in the Gulf. Believe me, it made a deep and lasting impression on Iran, N. Korea and quite a few other little states who thought that having large stocks of Soviet weapons would permit them to be belligerent.

But other times, it's just a huge boondoggle. I regularly post links to George Smith at Crypt because, in addition to combatting computer hysteria, he looks into some of the virtual weapons that the military is fascinated with -- such as EMP guns, "non-lethal" munitions, etc. Most are (in his words) "chubacahabras." (Hope I'm spelling that right.[g])

Patricia,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't think that voting for George W. was a "grave mistake." He has yet to do anything that I see as terribly out of line with what I expected.

And in the case of military raises, ALL he can do is ask. Congress holds the purse strings. I can't blame him if he asks and Congress ultimately says "no."

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"grave mistake" "funeralgate" "grave mistake" "funeralgate"

Has a ring to it don't ya think?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

A lot of the weapons research is silly. Or for things that have no practical application.

I could see the development of some sort of EMP bomb, perhaps, but how on earth could you protect yourself from the backfield radiation of an EMP gun? But what would the mission of an EMP bomb be, anyhow?

And non-lethal weapons are almost an oxymoron - anything that hits a 290 linebacker hard enough to stun him will KILL any small person of 150 lbs or so.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001