Scott Ritter Says Don't Even Bother

[Guest aevans]

Bras,

 

Are you actually suggesting that character counts?

[Guest aevans]

Fair enough. Its just as a taxpayer If I was paying for it, I would point out to the DOD that Trident, and the rest of the nuclear triad was put together for exactly the same reason. Im afraid Im not yet convinced we face a new threat were 'these guys might actually use them this time'. The soviets had their fair share of loopy leaders, yet they didnt actually fire one. Gratis the Soviet Union was not Iran or North Korea.(though in their lack of democratic expression they are identical) I just have grave difficulty believing that anyone in either those countries could believe inviting the US retaliatory respone is anything like a viable option. I mean, they are unstable, granted, but have they exhibited anything like the behavior necessary to loft a Nuclear tipped missile on anyone? No.

 

As I say, its your country, and its up to you to spend you tax dollars on what you feel is necessary. I just happen to think that of all the threats America faces at the moment, this is the least realistic one. I say leave the technology on the shelf, but continue to develop it. Priorities change after all.

144506[/snapback]

 

The Soviets could be counted on to act rationally. Even if their rationality wasn't the same as ours, it was known, and was ammenable to deterence of the type you mention. BMD is designed and intended as a hedge against an actor who truly cannot be deterred, no matter what the consequences are.

[Garth]

Glad to hear it.

 

You know, here's an amusing scenario that just popped into my head while reading your comment. Imagine if Kim were to really freak out and pop off a nuke aimed at Denver or LA or something. But thanks to shitty guidance it detonates right over ... the nuke testing site in Nevada?

 

--Garth

 

Although, to be honest I'm not sure that their missiles are even capable of hitting this continent consistently today.

144483[/snapback]

[Brasidas]

Bras,

 

Are you actually suggesting that character counts?

144505[/snapback]

 

Yes, it's a new pet theory of mine. Feel free to use it, as long as I get a reference in whatever you write that uses it!

[UN-Interested Observer]

and on the straw manized basis of a challenge being unconquerable

144365[/snapback]

 

Lol, I just figured out what that means! I was assuming you were just drunk, before.

 

"The Soviets could be counted on to act rationally."

 

You are going to have to find some evidence to prove this assertion. In fact you may have trouble providing any evidence that any player in nuclear arms will act rationally. Rather a bad assertion, in that way.

 

"BMD, as currently conceived, is an insurance policy against irrational behavior."

 

I refer you to Phil's post. The ABM systems were a mathematical modifier to probable outcomes, and as Phil points out they make things More destructive and More expensive. This is the result of building, storing and firing More missiles to achieve the same results. Thus there was a treaty limiting their numbers, (see 'ABM treaty').

 

The assertion that ABMs were designed to shoot down rogue missiles is, as you imply, a modern and convenient story. One would be better to not propogate this myth, especially when all evidence counters the assertion.

[Jeff]

Something tells me that if/when we get this limited system functioning(which was NEVER intended to stop Russian ICBM's) and Iran announces in a few years that they too have a weapon and a missile that can hit parts of Western Europe there'll suddenly be quite a line at the counter to buy a European version of this misbegotten "waste of money". Just how much is Prague, Berlin or Paris worth these days?

[Guest aevans]

Yes, it's a new pet theory of mine. Feel free to use it, as long as I get a reference in whatever you write that uses it!

144536[/snapback]

 

Are you under the Artistic or Open Source license?

[Sparviero]

Something tells me that if/when we get this limited system functioning(which was NEVER intended to stop Russian ICBM's) and Iran announces in a few years that they too have a weapon and a missile that can hit parts of Western Europe there'll suddenly be quite a line at the counter to buy a European version of this misbegotten "waste of money". Just how much is Prague, Berlin or Paris worth these days?

144570[/snapback]

 

Remember Italy has valuable US bases, and more importantly half my family, that need to be protected. Can we get ours for free? Or at least a deep discount for the good old days when Berlusconi was in office and doing his best to win the best impression of US lap dog award?

 

Not to mention our nice cars.

 

Seriously though why work on both a missile and laser defense system at the same time? The missile system seems to have only made everyone mad and to this point proven to be of questionable value. Seems that energy weapons are the way to go in the long run. Plus you'll be able to assasinate rogue leaders or warm up a house full of popcorn eventually using the laser system.

[UN-Interested Observer]

Seriously though why work on both a missile and laser defense system at the same time? The missile system seems to have only made everyone mad and to this point proven to be of questionable value. Seems that energy weapons are the way to go in the long run. Plus you'll be able to assasinate rogue leaders or warm up a house full of popcorn eventually using the laser system. 

144577[/snapback]

 

I think that there are good examples of money well-spent on missile and laser systems both. If memory serves the latest laser interception system is in use in Israel, along with the newest version of the Patriot. Using the Patriot as an example, there was great hype and speculation about it's capabilities, just like the system we discuss in this thread - but in practice it failed. This lit a fire under some people and led to a vastly improved version, which thankfully has not needed to be tested to it's fullest.

 

I don't think that most people argue the idea that incoming nuclear-tipped rockets are bad, but many seem to argue that money could be spent in much more efficient ways to prevent or destroy incoming nuclear warheads. Even further research could be a better investment than sinking money into a loss-leader.

[Jeff]

If you show a coupon at the time of purchase you'll get 10% off and a free potholder.

 

Seriously though why work on both a missile and laser defense system at the same time? The missile system seems to have only made everyone mad and to this point proven to be of questionable value. Seems that energy weapons are the way to go in the long run.

144577[/snapback]

 

Perhaps but I hilighted a key part. We need something in the short run with a smaller technical risk while we work on the more geewhiz stuff.

[Guest aevans]

You are going to have to find some evidence to prove this assertion. In fact you may have trouble providing any evidence that any player in nuclear arms will act rationally. Rather a bad assertion, in that way.

144551[/snapback]

 

The whole concept of deterence relies on the rationality of the party to be deterred. I refer you to Kahn's work on deterence theory, as well as Possony's and Pournelle's on the strategy of technology. This is all pretty standard stuff.

 

I refer you to Phil's post. The ABM systems were a mathematical modifier to probable outcomes, and as Phil points out they make things More destructive and More expensive. This is the result of building, storing and firing More missiles to achieve the same results. Thus there was a treaty limiting their numbers, (see 'ABM treaty').

 

The assertion that ABMs were designed to shoot down rogue missiles is, as you imply, a modern and convenient story. One would be better to not propogate this myth, especially when all evidence counters the assertion.

 

Uhhh...Brilliant One, it's not a story. The purpose of the current BMD system is to act as a defensive hedge against irrational actors. A ten -- or even twenty -- interceptor system has no deterrent value against the Russians and only a very moderate one against the Chinese. Once again I refer you to the work of Kahn, specifically to the calculations of viable deterent force strength in On Thermonuclear War. If you'd like, I'm sure fair use covers scanning and posting a few of the most salient graphs and discussions out of my first edition.

[UN-Interested Observer]

The whole concept of deterence relies on the rationality of the party to be deterred. I refer you to Kahn's work on deterence theory, as well as Possony's and Pournelle's on the strategy of technology. This is all pretty standard stuff.

Uhhh...Brilliant One,

144590[/snapback]

 

Ok, then. FYI in the future you can leave out 'Uhhh...Brilliant one.' You waste both our time.

 

Now I'm going to disagree with you, but I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, ok? This is just a person expressing a different opinion, or asking for substantiation of your's. No-one has anything against you personally, so please don't take this as an insult.

 

I still ask you why you assume rationality when everything points against it. You can list as many game-theories as you have fingers and toes, but that doesn't change the reality that rational behavior is at best a gross simplification of mean aggregates in behavior profiles.

 

"it's not a story. The purpose of the current BMD system is to act as a defensive hedge against irrational actors."

 

It's not a story, it's the same product using the same means in the same method with a new name and new funding. You can't really use the Soviet Union as justification for funding when they cease to exist, but it's a shame to dismiss 20 years of research and development.

[Guest aevans]

Ok, then. FYI in the future you can leave out 'Uhhh...Brilliant one.' You waste both our time.

 

Now I'm going to disagree with you, but I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, ok? This is just a person expressing a different opinion, or asking for substantiation of your's. No-one has anything against you personally, so please don't take this as an insult.

144609[/snapback]

 

Sarcasm may not be nice, but it is warranted when someone is repeatedly spouting the preposterous. As in:

 

I still ask you why you assume rationality when everything points against it. You can list as many game-theories as you have fingers and toes, but that doesn't change the reality that rational behavior is at best a gross simplification of mean aggregates in behavior profiles.

If the people with their fingers on the button -- a far too small a number to be validly treated in any kind of "aggregate" fashion -- do not behave in a rational fashion, then deterence cannot possibly be expected to work. Simply put, if you cannot rely on your opponent to respond reliably to a given suasion, then attemping deterent persuasion is pointless. Are you in fact asserting that five decades of deterence was based on nothing more than dumb luck?

 

It's not a story, it's the same product using the same means in the same method with a new name and new funding. You can't really use the Soviet Union as justification for funding when they cease to exist, but it's a shame to dismiss 20 years of research and development.

 

Horse pucky. Once again, I refer you to Kahn. Do your homework.

[Guest aevans]

Fear-mongering at it's best Aevans... Do people really believe Kim is that crazy? Do people really believe the Iranians dont have enough problems of their own? Talking about crazy, do you know how many people and leaders think GWB is irrational and being advised by religious fanatics? North Korea have been asking for non agression treaty with the US for a very long time but guess how much coverage that got on BBC/CNN....

 

Either way i refuse to believe in make believe monsters simply to give my government more incentive to tax me and build weapons that cant protect me. It is my governments duty to NEGOTIATE settlements and not try force them by trying to carry to biggest gun.

 

No one had a problem with Scott Ritter untill he started saying unscripted truthfull things....

 

Stellar

144643[/snapback]

 

Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Hitler's declaration of war against the US? The American Civil War? What appear to be irrational acts to us in hindsight appeared to be rational acts to the actors of the time. I am manifestly not fear mongering, I am advocating the continued development of a defensive hedge against the all too real possibility -- no matter how remote in appearance -- of deterence breaking down.

[Guest aevans]

But I dont recall anything said like that at the time, more like the exact opposite. In fact I seem to recall a similar amount of recrimination and rhetoric directed at them, very similar to what we have seen at North Korea and Iran.

Not saying they (Iran and North Korea are innocents. I merely illustrate the point that with the passing of years, a rather more balanced appraisal of soviet attiudes and abilities has arisen. One of the reasons why I have difficulty buying into the current attitude that NK and Iran are dead set on Armagedden and that is why the US requires an ABM system.

144649[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but you are demonstrably incorrect here. Deterence could only have worked if the Soviets exhibitted a detectable and reliable rationality, no matter how skewed the logic of that rationality might appear in some people's eyes. If we had truly believed the Soviet leaders were irrational, the rational act would have been to do unto them before they could do unto us. Obviously that course was not chosen, and just as obviously deterence worked. The close calls of the Cold War, contrary to what some might like to tell you, are demonstrations of the validity of deterence. They exposed mistakes in calibration but, byt the same token, they showed that even in extremis, a deterent formula could be found and communicated to the adversary in such a way that he would respond in an acceptable fashion. You can't get from here to there without a basic level of rationality and responsibility on the part of the opponent.

 

When talking about Nuclear theory, there was an interesting point made in a recent book I recently read. The author asserts that when there is a technological breakthrough in weapon systems, doctrine is rewritten to require it, rather than the normal way as in the past, of requiring the system then developing the technology. The technology is the driving force, not the requirement. That was certainly true with the Hydrogen Bomb, and was also largely true with the development of GLCM. The latter had no real advantage as a strategic weapon as it  was too slow. It had no real advantage as a Theatre weapon, as it didnt offer anything Pershing had anyway. So its doctrine was to provide 'linkage' between American Strategic and tactical weapons, overlooking the fact the F111 force in England did that already.

I won't say you have things backwards, but you do appear to have them a bit sideways. There has never been a technological development applicable to warfare that hasn't been adopted. Far from doctrine being rewritten to require this or that technology, doctrine is rewritten to accomodate it. (Quite frankly, any author that thinks that doctrine is developed just so somebody can have their little toy to play with is working from a pollitical, not analytical, agenda.)

 

The possibility of the hydrogen bomb was discussed at Los Alamos (under the name "super") before the first atomic bomb had been detonated. Fusion weapons were eventually developed because it was not prudent for either side to not have them.

 

As for the GLCM, I don't carry a brief for the system per se, but judging by the row that the Soviets' various tools and sympathizers stirred up over it, I'm convinced there was a "there" there, so to speak.

 

Like I say, its an interesting theory, and in discussing Nuclear weapons at least (designed not to be used) it appears to have a certain amount of logic in it. I wonder if by extension that it also applies to ABM? Because ultimately you have a system in search of a threat. It was initially intended to destroy Soviet/Russian missiles. Thats on record, and you only have to look back to Reagans speech of 1983 to see it. Now that the threat has largely gone away, they look for a new reason to develop and deploy the technology. And as far as I can see, there is little if any evidence that the North Koreans have a workable ICBM system. Of course, I suppose Iran and NK can work together on getting one working, but how likely is that?

 

Once again, you are casting a philosophical objection as a practical one. The correct observation that beauracracies tend to find justifications for their existence, whether or not it is valid, does not necessarily mean all justifications are invalid. ABM was justified in the context of the Cold War because it would create doubt on the part of the adversary that even the most massive nuclear strike would be effective. BMD, which is an entirely different concept, even if it avails itself of some ofthe same technologies, is justified on the grounds that it could mitigate and possibly even neutralize a small attack perpetrated by an irrational actor. In either case, it is logical to want and to deploy such systems, provided they can be made to work.

 

This is the important point to make. arguments against ABM had to confine themselves to practicalities, because the desirability of the system could be demonstrated in any one of a number of ways, from the afforementioned doubt that it would place in a potential aggressor's mind, to the mitigative possibilities of the system's use in the even of deterent failure. Conversely, once it started looking like portions of the technology might be made to work -- and don't kid yourself on this point, the technology can be made to work -- the application of that technology to BMD is now attacked on the basis of the threat being non-existent, despite man's known appetite for just the kind of behaviors the system is meant to defend against. IOW, in both the case of ABM and BMD, the opponents have consistently availed themselves of convenient arguments to mask what are essentially philosophical objections. I don't have to respect that, nor does anybody else.

 

In short, If American wants the system, deploy it. Its just If I was an American taxpayer, I would just take a long hard look at who says its required and why. Because apart from one CIA report online I saw online that claimed NK and Iran (and iraq) were an emerging ICBM threat over the next 20 years (an exceptionally long time to continue to develop the system), I cant see any evidence for that fact they are a threat now. After all, how many ICBMS has North Korea lofted to the California coast? If you were Japan, I would make it a crash priority to develop this programme, but you are not. As it is, I would spend the Cash on more B2s, or upgrading the B52 fleet. Those have  proven track record at preventing strategic attack on the US mainland, and are pretty good at plinking Tangos also.

 

Similar arguments were made in this country against aircraft carriers and in favor of battleships, including the supposed incapability of the perceived enemy of the day to do what he in fact eventually did. Let me ask you this, since you are British: if transported back to 1938, supposing you knew its utility, how would you feel about people who opposed radar?

[DKTanker]

Let me ask you this, since you are British: if transported back to 1938, supposing you knew its utility, how would you feel about people who opposed radar?

144684[/snapback]

 

What a huge waste of money. Nobody is going to attack Britain; France and Poland might have a perceived need for it, but not Britain. In any case, Radar cannot prevent nor destroy an attack. It can probably be easily countered by the use of decoys, so why bother? Truth be told, the building of a Radar network will cause an arms race to run out of control as potential antagonists build more, faster, and more powerful aircraft that can circumvent Radar.

[Chris Werb]

What a huge waste of money.  Nobody is going to attack Britain; France and Poland might have a perceived need for it, but not Britain.  In any case, Radar cannot prevent nor destroy an attack.  It can probably be easily countered by the use of decoys, so why bother?  Truth be told, the building of a Radar network will cause an arms race to run out of control as potential antagonists build more, faster, and more powerful aircraft that can circumvent Radar.

144691[/snapback]

 

Counterargument: "You're a paedophile, so anything you say on this (or any other) subject can safely be ignored."

[rmgill]

Fear-mongering at it's best Aevans... Do people really believe Kim is that crazy?

 

You're kidding right?

 

The guy wears platforms, has big poofy hair, dresses like elvis, has erected himself as a demi-god (along with his father) in his country and never flies, he only takes the train. He has rounded up all the triplets in the country to prevent one replacing him as leader. Then there's that hotel he had built. The one that's never been finished, but it took all of 2% of NK's GDP to get to that phase. That's the Ryugyong Hotel.

 

I'd rather have Kruschev shaking his fist on TV saying he'll bury us than Kim Jung Il doing his little happy dance of doom.

[Chris Werb]

I'd rather have Kruschev shaking his fist on TV saying he'll bury us than Kim Jung Il doing his little happy dance of doom.

144729[/snapback]

 

Kruschev didn't (AFAIK) base his life around the fact that an unseen deity had created us and that another unseen deity was striving to win us over from Him. Nor (again AFAIK) did he consult astrologers. One mans nut-job is another man's Dear Leader.

[Guest aevans]

Kruschev appeared to be unbalanced, but we now know he hated nuclear weapons and just threatened their use so not to be attacked, he knew damn well if he was attacked he would lose. Isnt it just possible that North Korea and Iran are doing exactly the same thing?

144745[/snapback]

 

That they are acquiring nukes a regime survival insurance certainly seems rational on its face, but if the people in charge were truly rational, they would know that the only thing that could possibly induce us to even think about attacking them would be aggression against neighbors and tht the only reason they would need nukes would be as a deterent against outside interference in such actions. I'm afraid that I must seriously question the rationality of any regime that thinks it needs nukes to protect itself against an unprovoked attack by the US.

 

BTW, in response to your other comments a bit further down, I'll simply observe that needing something someday, you are safer to acquire it as soon as possible. Less risk of being wrong that way.

[UN-Interested Observer]

The whole concept of deterence relies on the rationality of the party to be deterred. I refer you to Kahn's work on deterence theory, as well as Possony's and Pournelle's on the strategy of technology. This is all pretty standard stuff.

Uhhh...Brilliant One, it's not a story. The purpose of the current BMD system is to act as a defensive hedge against irrational actors. A ten -- or even twenty -- interceptor system has no deterrent value against the Russians and only a very moderate one against the Chinese. Once again I refer you to the work of Kahn, specifically to the calculations of viable deterent force strength in On Thermonuclear War. If you'd like, I'm sure fair use covers scanning and posting a few of the most salient graphs and discussions out of my first edition.

144590[/snapback]

 

In further deliberation I agree that posting graphs or even a quote that supports the assertion that actors will be rational is a good idea. One can't very well give Kahn a ring and ask if he agrees with you, so a contextual quote supporting would be the next best thing.

 

BTW most game theories prove that humans are collectively IRRATIONAL, just an FYI. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe they prove the opposite. You fail to make a distinction between individual and collective, micro and macro.

 

Allow me to explain - A pair of drug-dealers are arrested under suspicion of a crime. The police separate them into two rooms, and each is told that they have 3 options. #1)neither dealer talks - they both get to go home #2)both dealers talk - they both get 7 year sentences #3)only 1 talks - the one who talks gets a 1-year sentence, the one who doesn't gets a 10-year sentence.

 

What happens? Both prisoners rush to rat each other out, and both receive long prison terms. Now pretend these are missiles - you assert that those with fingers 'on the button' (rather a dated and misleading analogy, see 'football') are guaranteed to be rational - your basis is that they are few in number. So, their small numbers guarantee rationality. This is an arguable point to begin with, but let us ignore it for now.

 

The rational act on the macro scale is that neither side fires missiles, that neither side builds missiles, that neither side researches missiles. We see a little bit of this with SALT(s) and other relevant treaties, but only after we were brought to the brink by madmen Generals and politicians, who showed us that they absolutely should not be trusted with our security.

 

On that note let us quickly examine the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Rational decision at the moment was Airstrikes aganist Cuban installations. They were inoperable, they were a threat, Airstrikes were the RIGHT decision. This decision was not made!? Curious. Co-incidently we now learn that there were over 100 warheads ready to fire at the time, and the IRRATIONAL decision saved us all.

 

Now as we mentioned the rational macro act, the rational Micro action would be to build as many missiles as fast as possible, and fire them first. This did not happen either! As soon as one side had an advantage, and they knew the advantage could not be maintained, the only rational individual action would be to strike first!

 

"Kahn was not advocating a preventive war but was calling for first-use in the face of conflicts that could not be deterred otherwise." http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/frame2/articles/borg/kahn.html

 

So, to sum-up, rational act on the Micro-scale would be to destroy the Soviets before they were even a nuclear power. Next it would be to destroy them as soon as you see you have more weapons than they do. Neither happened. In the Macro-scale the abolition of nuclear arms would be the rational act, and it did not happen. The presence of arms limitation treaties show that players were not COMPLETELY irrational, as do the covert attempts to weaken each other on the micro-scale, but for the most part we see that in every aspect actions were in irrational manners, with the odd exception being 'rational'.

[Rickshaw]

That they are acquiring nukes a regime survival insurance certainly seems rational on its face, but if the people in charge were truly rational, they would know that the only thing that could possibly induce us to even think about attacking them would be aggression against neighbors and tht the only reason they would need nukes would be as a deterent against outside interference in such actions. I'm afraid that I must seriously question the rationality of any regime that thinks it needs nukes to protect itself against an unprovoked attack by the US.

 

Please define "unprovoked" in this context. Considering the harsh language eminating from Washington which appears to imply that their mere existence is an affront to Washington, you don't think that they should be worried about a possible US attack?

 

Just as Washington reacts to the rhetoric which eminates from these states, so do they it would seem react to the rhetoric that eminates from Washington.

[gewing]

Please define "unprovoked" in this context.  Considering the harsh language eminating from Washington which appears to imply that their mere existence is an affront to Washington, you don't think that they should be worried about a possible US attack?

 

Just as Washington reacts to the rhetoric which eminates from these states, so do they it would seem react to the rhetoric that eminates from Washington.

144860[/snapback]

 

 

The fact that NK trys to negotiate exclusively with the US, imo, is an attempt to de-legitimize the SK state. This is, imo, irrational.

 

Sending special forces in to try to kill the government of SK isn't totally rational.

 

THreatening to nuke US and AUstralia, launching "booster" over japan...

 

The level of weaponry they have assembled along the DMZ is imo FAR more than is rational for defense...

 

I trust them to be rational like I trust Feinstein to not try to ban my guns.

[Jeff]

Geez, there really is no limit to the extent some people will go to be apologists for anyone or anything anti-american. Poor little North Korea? You must be kidding me. And Hitler really did need that lebensraum and Japan was just the victim of unfair trade practices. I'm amazed certain people on this grate sight have any respect left, self or otherwise.

[Guest aevans]

Please define "unprovoked" in this context.  Considering the harsh language eminating from Washington which appears to imply that their mere existence is an affront to Washington, you don't think that they should be worried about a possible US attack?

 

Just as Washington reacts to the rhetoric which eminates from these states, so do they it would seem react to the rhetoric that eminates from Washington.

144860[/snapback]

 

Read a history book. When was the last time the US attacked somebody that didn't attack the US or an ally first? (Hint -- there was a time when this kind of thing did happen, but it's been several geological ages in foreign policy time.)