twilight2000-digest Monday, July 10 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 160 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Re: Missle Defense Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense Re: What ever happened to the Air Force? Re: What ever happened to the Air Force? Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:40:15 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > --snip for brevity-- We do not know that this missile defense system will not work, or that it can be fooled. This is yet to be determined. >> >> > It's not lunacy, as it was >> >in Reagan's day, but it's still destabilizing >> >> Russia has a missile defense system. Why isn't that destablizing, >> too? >> > > Because it protects one site. > Some experts would disagree with you. Found at: http://www.security-policy.org/papers/2000/00-F37.html Second, for such time as the ABM Treaty was legally binding upon the U.S. and the Soviet Union, only the United States adhered to its prohibition on territorial ballistic missile defenses. As is made clear by the following excerpts from a landmark essay by the CIA and DIA's former Senior Intelligence Officer William T. Lee, published in the April-June 2000 edition of the journal Comparative Strategy, first the Soviet Union and now the Russians have deployed such a defense. It turns out the only missile defense the Kremlin opposes is ours. Moscow's opposition, however, should not be a basis for either delaying by one more day the deployment of the most effective possible missile defenses -- or for pretending that such a deployment is not wholly incompatible with the terms of the obsolete, violated and defunct ABM Treaty. Excerpts from Comparative Strategy, Vol. 19 No. 2, April-June 2000 The ABM Treaty Was Dead on Arrival By William T. Lee According to several polls, some 70 percent of Americans do not know that they have no protection from even one ballistic missile. Most likely, they also do not know the reason why: In December 1993 President Clinton signed a directive to perpetuate their lack of protection from hostile missiles by preserving the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty at all costs. Consequently the administration has terminated, or cut back to technology research, all programs inherited from President Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative that could protect the United States from strategic (long-range) ballistic missiles. Engineering development has continued only on systems designed to protect U.S. forces in the field from short-range missiles, which would not be effective against strategic missiles. Clinton's 1993 directive stated that the U.S. objective was to control or prevent proliferation of ballistic missile and nuclear weapon technology beyond the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the so-called Missile Technology Control Regime. In no small part because of the administration's policies and actions, proliferation control has failed, which belies a 1995 U.S. national intelligence estimate (NIE) alleging that there would be no ballistic missile threat (except from Russia and China) to the United States until 2010 or beyond. In his zeal to observe the ABM Treaty prohibiting effective missile defenses, Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act mandating U.S. ABM deployment but said he would not carry it out. Instead, the United States has gone hat-in-hand to Moscow to ask permission to defend the United States by amending the ABM Treaty. As of this writing the Russian response has not been encouraging, to say the least. Prior to 1967 there was a consensus that the SA-5 could be a SAM/ABM, with the Hen Houses as the battle-management radars. After 1967, however, the CIA argued that the SA-5 was only a SAM, and that the Hen Houses provided only early warning of a missile attack. By about 1970 the majority agreed. Subsequently only a handful of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts, plus occasionally the Air Force and a few Department of Defense officials, made the case for Soviet national ABM defenses based on the SA-5/SA-10 SAM/ABMs and the Hen House/LPARs as battle-management radars. The CIA relied almost exclusively on the "hard evidence" from U.S. technical collection systems despite the fact that such evidence was inconclusive and plagued by major "intelligence gaps." Now Russian sources have filled in most of the intelligence gaps, thus refuting the CIA's analysis on every critical issue. >From the mid-1950s until 1991 the Soviets followed a two track program: ABM systems designed by Kisun'ko and his successors to protect the apex of the party-state nomenklatura at Moscow with battle-management radars (Dog House, Cat House), from NIIDAR, and SAM/ABM systems designed for nationwide deployment by Raspletin and Bunkin with battle-management radars (Hen House, LPAR) from Mints' RTI, which also designed the Pillbox multi-functional radar in the ABM-3 system for Moscow. Although the SAM/ABMs could be relocated fairly quickly, however, and could be deployed nationally at relatively low cost, the battle-management radars were expensive and fixed. Construction of the second-generation LPAR battle-management radars began in 1972 as negotiations on the ABM Treaty were completed. The U.S. delegation's attempt to limit ABM battle-management radars resulted in agreeing to construction of 18 such radars (article III), which was precisely the number the Soviets needed for redundant coverage by both first-generation Hen House and second-generation LPAR battle-management radars. The LPARs provided more precise target tracking to enhance the effectiveness of SA-5/10 SAM/ABMs but did little to improve early warning. When the Soviet Empire went out with a whimper in 1991, about 10,000 SA-5/10 interceptor missiles were operational at more than 250 complexes, and 15 of 18 planned battle-management radars--nine Hen House and six LPARs--were operational. Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years. Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology. Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty. Moreover, development of the S-400 no doubt benefitted greatly from the virtual end of technology-transfer controls under the Clinton administration, because "its components are based on the most advanced know-how in the field of radiolocation [i.e., radars], missile manufacturing, microcircuitry and computing technology." Not coincidentally, all reported S-400 characteristics are compatible with the 1997 protocols to the ABM Treaty that the Clinton administration proposed and signed to define the technical boundaries between "theater" and "strategic" ABM systems. Once again the U.S. goose has been plucked largely at our own behest. But none of this evidence has caused the CIA to review its positions on any of the issues. With the demise of the Soviet Empire in 1991 the CIA's performance has, if anything, gotten worse. In late 1997 Congressman Curt Weldon posed a series of questions to the CIA concerning the new evidence documenting Soviet/Russian national ABM defenses in total violation of the ABM Treaty. The CIA's response denied any knowledge of the new evidence in its files. The CIA reported that in 1997 "the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic Programs and Nuclear Proliferation sponsored a two-day conference to assess the status to Russian ballistic missile defense. The review of current activity did not appear to indicate the need for a new NIE at this time." As of August 1999 there are no indications that the CIA, nor any other component of our $28 billion (per year) intelligence community, officially has addressed the evidence, much less reported it to Clinton administration policy makers or to the Congress. As documented in The ABM Treaty Charade, in 1967 when the United States began imploring the Soviets to negotiate "arms control" agreements on strategic weapons, the Politburo believed defending the Soviet Union from nuclear missiles was the right and proper thing to do. A recent release from classified U.S. archives lends more insight into the issue. Nevertheless, the United States will proceed on the premise that the Soviets agreed that ABM systems were destabilizing. By late 1967 the Soviets saw their opportunity: They could use U.S. self-deception to negotiate a treaty banning national missile defenses but continue to develop and deploy SAM/ABMs; and the United States very likely would not detect the violation. The United States confirmed Soviet expectations, first deceiving itself and then buying Soviet deception elicited by U.S. hubris. As reported previously, the general staff designed their negotiating positions to maximize their military advantage and also bought time to try to catch up with the United States in ABM technology. Most U.S. negotiators did not understand it, but that is simply the way the Soviet system worked. Russian sources provide conclusive proof that Soviets violated the ABM Treaty with massive deployment of SA-5/10 SAM/ABM missile systems and Hen House/LPAR battle-management radars. The Russian sources and the NIEs are consistent on all points of fact in the history of Soviet ABM programs over four decades. Russia is modernizing its illegal SAM/ABM because the Russian military realizes that strategic nuclear forces are the only military counter to the U.S. that they can afford. The Russians understand that the side having both strategic offensive and defensive forces has a strategic advantage over the side that relies only on offensive weapons. The Russians also understand that advantage multiplies as offensive arsenals are reduced by the START agreements. But the U.S. doesn't get the message. Through mid-1967 the Soviets repeatedly told the United States that they did not share our views that ABMs were "destabilizing." But the United States refused to listen. So by 1968 the Soviets realized that they could negotiate the ABM Treaty barring U.S. defenses but violate it with impunity by continuing to develop and deploy SAM/ABMs, and they did so. Led by CIA, the United States first deceived itself about Soviet ABM programs and then fell for the Soviet deception. The problem with the treaty is not the legal technicality raised by the demise of the Soviet empire but the fact that it was dead on arrival. >From 1967 on the CIA systematically violated the age-old rule that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The CIA did not have the evidence to conclude that the SA-5/10s were not SAM/ABMs and trashed evidence contradicting its position. The CIA's position that the Hen House and LPAR radars were only for early warning was pure invention. The few people in DIA and elsewhere who did not commit these errors have been vindicated. Whether the CIA's continued professed ignorance of the evidence in its files on total Soviet and Russian violation of the ABM Treaty is the product of incompetence, or is dictated by Clinton administration policy, is unclear, but neither interpretation is complimentary. The same applies to the other members of the U.S. "Intelligence community." The Clinton administration is holding the security of the United States and our allies from ballistic-missile attack hostage to the myth that the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty in good faith and that Russia continues to observe it. The United States should abrogate the Treaty forthwith and protect the country from hostile ballistic missiles. We have the technology to do so. Let us use it. end excerpt TA found this in a newsgroup. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:28:11 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense I guess I should throw in my 2 cents worth since I started this thing. Personally, I don't think the Russians reasons for agreeing to reduce the nuclear arsenals has anything to do with what we should do now (for or against). If Russia gets really bent out of shape over us building a defensive system, and our foreign policy guys detect they are getting really mad about it and we have to do something, then why can't we just help them build one of their own? Unfortunately they are too expensive to just build by the dozen and hand out like candy, but that would be even more ideal. If we can't afford to build a second, then share control of it with the Russians. The point is that, I don't give a f*&@ about the Russians! They aren't the threat I'm really worried about. We should do what we have to do to ease their fears and get on with it! Suppose the following scenario. And I know there is a LOT of supposes in this. I'm not interested in defending this scenarios plausability. It's just an idea. There are many others, this is just what popped in my head first ... As many of you have probably heard, there are significant reasons to suspect that China is aiding Pakistan in rocket technology. Suppose that Pakistan and India start actually fighting a war, instead of just sabre rattling like ususal. Suppose China steps up its aid to Pakistan, since it sees India as it's largest regional threat. Suppose the US starts aiding India to ward off communist aggression (a favorite US pastime). Suppose Pakistan gets a couple ICBM's working. Suppose India starts winning and Pakistan is on it's last leg. Just before the last outpost gets overrun by Indian forces, the Pakistanis fire their missles. Probably most would go toward India. But suppose 1, just ONE, was aimed at New York as revenge for our aid to India. Who would we relatiate at. The Indian troops that are overrunning the Pakistani launch facility? Remember that Hurricane Andrew caused approximately 25 Billion US dollars in damage in 1992 in southern Florida. And that's mainly just a bunch of roofs blown off. Wanna put a price tag on New York City? And it's population? If it really happened, would you ever be able to live with yourself knowing you could have prevented ~10 million lives lost (more than the entire Holocaust in less than 10 seconds) and 10 trillion dollars in damage (probably more). The lost tax revenue alone would have paid for the system the first year. The price of failure is simply too high not build it. In human cost and in money. And if it isn't India/Pakistan, then maybe China/Taiwan, or Isreal/anybody else in the middle east, or whoever ... it doesn't matter. There are a couple points that are indisputeable (in my opinion): Rocket Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. Nuclear Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. Given those 2 facts ALONE, every country on earth will eventually have the capability to have ICBM's. Maybe not for 50 years. Maybe a 100. Who cares? But eventually it WILL HAPPEN. So do you want version 1.0 of ballistic missle defense up saving your butt when the time comes, or a version 4.2? I'd prefer version 14. Sooner or later we WILL need it, in my opinion it is inevitable. It is simply wishfull thinking to assume that it wont be needed. Like the people that thought WWI was the war to end all wars. Ha! Some idiot is going to get a nuclear missle eventually, and I just hope that we have had the sense to defend ourselves before they press the button. As for the suitcase bombs, that's a totally separate issue. Why should we leave 2 avenues of destruction open, when we have the ability to close one? And since you brought it up, ok, lets spend even more money trying to come up with a way to defend against the suitcase bombs. Good idea. And while we are spending money, how about we just increase the defense budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm sick of hearing about privates that are married with kids having to live off food stamps. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:02:44 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments >And while we are spending money, how about we just increase the defense >budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm sick of hearing >about privates that are married with kids having to live off food stamps. >Walter I think everyone one on the list agrees with that! If you make ABMs available, doesn't that shift the nuke from the "If I use this, the world is over" category to the the "This thing might just swing the war my way, my ABM will protect me" category? I don't mind the US being strongly defended, I encourage it which is why I don't mind your big armed forces. But nukes is a global problem, not just a US problem and we view a destabilisation just as poorly as 'rogue nations' having nukes. The trouble with a nuclear weapon is that it's not just a 'me and the enemy' issue, it involves everyone. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:36:56 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Walter Rebsch wrote: > > I guess I should throw in my 2 cents worth since I started this thing. > > Personally, I don't think the Russians reasons for agreeing to reduce the > nuclear arsenals has anything to do with what we should do now (for or > against). > > If Russia gets really bent out of shape over us building a defensive system, > and our foreign policy guys detect they are getting really mad about it and > we have to do something, then why can't we just help them build one of their > own? > > Unfortunately they are too expensive to just build by the dozen and hand out > like candy, but that would be even more ideal. If we can't afford to build > a second, then share control of it with the Russians. The point is that, I > don't give a f*&@ about the Russians! They aren't the threat I'm really > worried about. We should do what we have to do to ease their fears and get > on with it! > > Suppose the following scenario. And I know there is a LOT of supposes in > this. I'm not interested in defending this scenarios plausability. It's > just an idea. There are many others, this is just what popped in my head > first ... > > As many of you have probably heard, there are significant reasons to suspect > that China is aiding Pakistan in rocket technology. Suppose that Pakistan > and India start actually fighting a war, instead of just sabre rattling like > ususal. Suppose China steps up its aid to Pakistan, since it sees India as > it's largest regional threat. Suppose the US starts aiding India to ward > off communist aggression (a favorite US pastime). Suppose Pakistan gets a > couple ICBM's working. Suppose India starts winning and Pakistan is on it's > last leg. Just before the last outpost gets overrun by Indian forces, the > Pakistanis fire their missles. Probably most would go toward India. But > suppose 1, just ONE, was aimed at New York as revenge for our aid to India. > Who would we relatiate at. The Indian troops that are overrunning the > Pakistani launch facility? > > Remember that Hurricane Andrew caused approximately 25 Billion US dollars in > damage in 1992 in southern Florida. And that's mainly just a bunch of roofs > blown off. Wanna put a price tag on New York City? And it's population? > If it really happened, would you ever be able to live with yourself knowing > you could have prevented ~10 million lives lost (more than the entire > Holocaust in less than 10 seconds) and 10 trillion dollars in damage > (probably more). The lost tax revenue alone would have paid for the system > the first year. > > The price of failure is simply too high not build it. In human cost and in > money. > > And if it isn't India/Pakistan, then maybe China/Taiwan, or Isreal/anybody > else in the middle east, or whoever ... it doesn't matter. > > There are a couple points that are indisputeable (in my opinion): > > Rocket Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. > Nuclear Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. > > Given those 2 facts ALONE, every country on earth will eventually have the > capability to have ICBM's. Maybe not for 50 years. Maybe a 100. Who > cares? But eventually it WILL HAPPEN. So do you want version 1.0 of > ballistic missle defense up saving your butt when the time comes, or a > version 4.2? I'd prefer version 14. Sooner or later we WILL need it, in my > opinion it is inevitable. It is simply wishfull thinking to assume that it > wont be needed. Like the people that thought WWI was the war to end all > wars. Ha! Some idiot is going to get a nuclear missle eventually, and I > just hope that we have had the sense to defend ourselves before they press > the button. > > As for the suitcase bombs, that's a totally separate issue. Why should we > leave 2 avenues of destruction open, when we have the ability to close one? > And since you brought it up, ok, lets spend even more money trying to come > up with a way to defend against the suitcase bombs. Good idea. > > And while we are spending money, how about we just increase the defense > budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm sick of hearing > about privates that are married with kids having to live off food stamps. Having been in the military, I was sick of watching it happen to people around me. Hmmm... I might be tempted to go back in, if I had confidence that the military wasn't going to be used as an international "meals-on-wheels" or as a way to divert attention from the crimes of the president. John II -- climbs down off soap box > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:41:24 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > >And while we are spending money, how about we just increase the defense > >budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm sick of hearing > >about privates that are married with kids having to live off food stamps. > >Walter > > I think everyone one on the list agrees with that! > > If you make ABMs available, doesn't that shift the nuke from the "If I > use this, the world is over" category to the the "This thing might just > swing the war my way, my ABM will protect me" category? I don't mind the US > being strongly defended, I encourage it which is why I don't mind your big > armed forces. But nukes is a global problem, not just a US problem and we > view a destabilisation just as poorly as 'rogue nations' having nukes. The > trouble with a nuclear weapon is that it's not just a 'me and the enemy' > issue, it involves everyone. No, it doesn't. Your arguement implies that it's the US that's the bad guy. That the US will just start nuking everyone because they won't be able to defend themselves while we will be invulnerable. If that's the case - then why haven't we started doing that already? John II > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:14:58 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense At 02:57 AM 7/10/00 EDT, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: > >There was another study done in the 1950's, the name escapes me at the >moment. The Milgram experiments. Note that in all the ones you mentioned, the subjects' sources of information were effectively limited to the researchers--that makes a BIG difference. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:17:58 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Air Force? At 03:21 AM 7/10/00 EDT, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 07/09/2000 2:38:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >jimpeta@primus.com.au writes: > ><< Well, as for the Navy, I can see the Marines claiming most of them and > the Air Force going to Army units, but what are they going to do? >> > >The RDF Sourcebook states that excess Air Force personnel have been formed >into security groups. (pg. 33) The module King's Ransom gives a brief >example of one such security group, Detachment 14, 619th Security Group. (pg. >19) Besides defending the airfield, Detachment 14 also escorted convoys. >Interestingly, the section on Detachment 14 states that when these security >groups were formed from excess personnel, many commanders saw them as a way >of getting rid of disciplinary problems. Although both of these deal with >the Persian Gulf, I'd expect the same to be done in other theaters. There is >no comment on excess Navy personnel in either book, but the same would >probably happen. > >orrin >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:19:03 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Air Force? At 03:21 AM 7/10/00 EDT, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: > >The RDF Sourcebook states that excess Air Force personnel have been formed >into security groups. (pg. 33) The module King's Ransom gives a brief >example of one such security group, Detachment 14, 619th Security Group. (pg. >19) Besides defending the airfield, Detachment 14 also escorted convoys. >Interestingly, the section on Detachment 14 states that when these security >groups were formed from excess personnel, many commanders saw them as a way >of getting rid of disciplinary problems. Although both of these deal with >the Persian Gulf, I'd expect the same to be done in other theaters. There is >no comment on excess Navy personnel in either book, but the same would >probably happen. > By this point, all almost _all_ the original personnel would be "excess", so I'd expect the units in question not to be particularly troublesome (though of course of the troops still working on airplanes, you'd only have the very best left). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:27:11 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 12:31 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >> >What about the Red Scare of the 50's and the blackballing in our rich >> >democracy? Some people didn't go along with hitler's policies too... >> >> Well, there are two key things to note here. First, the Red Scare, while >> hardly promoting democratic ideals, didn't significantly threaten political >> competition in the U.S.--that is, it never even came close to overturning >> the democratic system. > >What is "the democratic system"? :) At root, it's competitive politics. If you want more detailed definitions, I'd be happy to forward you a reading list. >It sure made it hard for communists, >perceived or real to have a voice. Isn't that a blow to democracy? > Yes, which is why I said it was. However, many countries considered democracies do limit competition by extremist groups--in particular, Nazis. I don't agree with this, but I don't think that it has any big influence on real political choices or policies, either. >> If the Red Scare had tried to impose Hitler-like >> measures ("to defend against Communism"), it wouldn't have been popular >> enough to get anywhere. > >Well, actually it did, it was very much like Hitler's early anti-communist >sentiment to the core. Especially on a philosophical level. Hitler sent >people to the camps only in the later half of his "rule." It didn't do the things that made Hitler Hitler, even if it did some thing he did early on. But the one BIG thing it didn't do (and couldn't conceivably have done) was to execute a coup that made the country a dictatorship, which is something Hitler did right at the beginning. >> But you can only take over the media if you have a firm grasp of the >> society in the first place, which wouldn't happen in the U.S. or a similar >> place. > >I dunno, the US media is a pretty ugly little machine. Certainly not like >a state run propaganda machine, but I wouldn't call it unbiased, worthy >coverage, or without agenda...at all. Whatever you may think of it, it's competitive and it's not controlled by any one person or group. There is no practical way for a single person or group to take it over. >> "Industrialized democracy" is shorthand for the group of rich countries >> that've been democracies for some time. "Rich democracies" might be a >> better term nowadays. > >Like I said, in a wealthy nation, there isn't need for revolution. You can >be industrialized and poor though. > This isn't really relevant to the question (especially since revolutions never happen in democracies). >> >> If you don't believe the above, look at history--a democracy more than 15 >> >> years old or so in a rich country has _never_ fallen. If it were something >> >> that really could happen, it would have happened occasionally, and it >> hasn't. >> > >> >It has little to do with democracy (republics and democracies suck IMO), >> >but more to do with the general standard of living. If the majority of a >> >populace is living comfortably, there is little reason to put your ass on >> >the line for a better future. Violent modern revolutions almost always >> >occur in areas of extreme poverty and injustice. >> > >> People have suggested this before, but it hasn't really borne out. There >> are in fact places that are rich but not at all democratic (Saudi Arabia, >> Kuwait, Singapore), because, while they've gained rapid wealth from >> resources or trade, they haven't undergone _political_ development. > >What did you think I was suggesting? I stated that revolution has more to >do with economics then political ideals. I stand by that. I haven't heard >about violent rebels in Arabia, Kuwait, or Singapore trying to overthrow a >gov't or regime. > Then I don't see what your point has to do with the discussion--no democracy, even in the poorest country, has ever fallen to a revolution, so I'm not sure why you care about revolutions. Democracies (mostly new and imperfect ones) _have_ in fact fallen to coups, so that's what you should be worried about in trying to explain why some fall and some don't. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:35:33 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 06:03 PM 7/10/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > >From: Scott David Orr > >> People have suggested this before, but it hasn't really borne out. There >> are in fact places that are rich but not at all democratic (Saudi Arabia, >> Kuwait, Singapore), because, while they've gained rapid wealth from >> resources or trade, they haven't undergone _political_ development. > >Singapore? How do you figure no political development for Singapore? > There's no place with "no" political development--but Singapore hasn't developed as much as, say, Australia, Thailand, or even Hong Kong. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:50:42 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 07:23 PM 7/9/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> Apparently YOU did--it was exactly the enactment of the ABM Treaty that >> made both sides willing to reduce strategic arsenals. > > I WAS PART OF the Cold War. I was DIRECTLY involved. > The ABM treaty did exactly the opposite. There's no factual basis for this statement. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:48:07 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 07:38 PM 7/9/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> There may well have been afew violations on either side during hte 1980's, >> but there simply was NO "tremendous build-up of Soviet nuclear forces". >> The reason it was "strangely ignored" was that it didn't happen. > > Sorry, IT DID HAPPEN. > You should stop getting your news from cnn and dan rather. > I got it from history books, which I had to read when I was getting a degree in the field of international affairs, with an emphasis in security studies. The person who taught me was one of the arms control negotiators during the 1970's and 1980's. >> Okay, that's true (though I can't imagine anyone believing that threat, >> since it's not believable that they'd start a nuclear war over the >> issue)--but the ABM defense wouldn't be aimed at China. We've specifically >> said it would be designed to handle only a few missiles, and China has more >> than a few. > > How many do you consider a "few"? > More than a handful--China, the last I recall, had about 100 missiles, with nukes, that could reach the U.S., and that's a lot more than "a few". >> >> It's also entirely possible that they're doing this just because they know >> >> it scares us and will make them a little more fearful of crossing >> >> them--even if that fear isn't entirely rational. >> > >> > How would it scare us if we have a missile defense? >> > >> We don't have a missile defense; ergo, they believe they can scare us by >> developing missles, even if that fear isn't justified (because smuggled-in >> bombs are just about as effective). I personally refuse to fund a >> multi-billion-dollar project whose only purpose is to assuage an irrational >> fear. > > Then you want unilateral US disarmament? Huh? > Nothing irrational about protecting yourself. MAD is irrational. > How? >> >> Relying on deterrence rather than a positive defense is not "allow[ing] the >> >> potential enemy to run roughshod over you." Both are forms of defense, and >> >> both can be effective in different situations. As it happens, in the field >> >> of nuclear warfare, most experts on the subject believe that deterrence is >> >> more effective than anti-missile defenses, particularly sense anti-missile >> >> defenses make it more likely that the defended side will start a nuclear >> >> war (which in turn tends to make the other side a little crazier itself). >> >> Mind you, deterrence doesn't allow you to "win" a nuclear war, but instead >> >> defends you by preventing the war entirely--but who wants to fight a >> >> nuclear war, anyway? >> > >> > Sorry, but I can name just as many experts who don't believe that. >> >> I don't think you can. > > I can name even more. BTW, my experts aren't from the PC crowd, they >believe in real science. > Name them. > The old "US is the agressor" arguement? Please find for me ONE >instance since 1935 when the US has tried to expand it's own territory >through intentionally invading someone else specifically for territorial >gain. > That wasn't the question. The question was, "Did the Soviets _believe_ the U.S. might be an aggressor?" They did, and they did so without bothering to find out whether _you_ thought that belief was reasonable or not. You have to deal with what the enemy's perceptions _are_, not what _you_ think they _should_be_. >> > If an enemy knows that his missiles can't get to you, but yours can >> >get to him, he's probably LESS likely to launch. >> > >> In that one situation, possibly. However, in the period before your >> defense is completed, he's MORE likely to launch. But probably more >> important, YOU are more likely to launch, if you misjudge and think his >> missiles can't hurt you. > > WHY would the US launch? You have yet to give even a SINGLE reason why >the US would launch a first strike. > If we use your theory, then we should be nuking everyone around the >world who disagrees with us, because we can. It isn't happening,. > We haven't been an in wars serious enough to merit it (though the threat was certainly made in Iraq, where by all accounts it deterred Iraqi NBC weapons). The idea here is not that the U.S. would go around nuking people all over the place, but rather that, in a tight situation, it might use nukes when otherwise it would not have (that is, the threshold for using them is lower). >> If he knows (or believes) you're likely to do >> this, he'll get very edgy, always suspecting you may decide to start a war >> in a crisis, and he may do something stupid as a result. A good historical >> example is how the Soviets reacted in the 1980's to our attack subs >> tracking their missile subs. > > And of course, this totally ignores their efforts to track our missile >subs with their attacfk subs. > Yes, it does, because those efforts didn't amount to a hill of beans. Had they been at all successful, they too would have been destabilizing. The fact that both sides were doing it wouldn't have made it less destabilizing--it would have made it _more_ destabilizing. >> One reaction he can take is to build up his >> own arsenal of offensive weapons--as it happens, nukes are cheaper than >> ABM's, with the result that in the end, you're no safer than you started, >> although both sides are now poorer (unless, of course, one side can afford >> _much_ greater expenditures than the other). >> >> If BOTH of you build a defense--which is what inevitably will happen >> eventually if one side builds a defense--either side could at some point >> believe that it will be able to weather a nuclear return strike, and as a >> consequence start a war. > > For years, the Soviet leadership believed that they could weather a >nuclear war and come out on top. Especially when their nuclear forces >were seen as larger than ours. > I don't recall any evidence to this effect--though they certainly _tried_ to reach this state, through civil defense and so on. Also, I don't recall any period in which their forces were significantly larger than ours, except in the heads of U.S. policymakers (during the period of the mythical "missile gap"). >>>>I don't really regard having someone demand you respect your commitments as >>>> "dictating terms". >> > >> > I do believe that the treaty stipulates that we can withdraw from it. >> >Treaties are written that way. >> >> Some are, yes. But we've proposed to do something that violates the treaty >> without withdrawing from it. > > Which is why we're negotiating. > Yes, and if we can negotiate something great--but doing it unilaterally would be a bad idea. >> More fundamentally, even though we could legally withdraw from the treaty, >> all the other arms control treaties will only apply as long as the ABM >> Treaty is in effect (I'm not sure if they all say that, but they were all >> made on that understanding). Basically, both sides regarded this from the >> beginning as an indefinite commitment. Even if we could legally "get out >> of it", we end up looking like jerks. >> >> In addition, most states regard our feelings on the ABM Treaty as >> indicative of our feeling about nuclear profliferation. A lot of small >> countries are willing to stop testing as long as we do, and are willing not >> to build new weapons as long as we don't. When we start putting up an ABM >> system, we're hinting that we have no intention of reducing our offensive >> arsenal, and that instead of arms control, we're relying on the ABM for our >> defense. This also means that our allies don't believe our commitments to >> arms control measures. > > I'm glad that they believe Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq better >than they do the US. That doesn't make them "allies" anymore. The whole point of non-profliferation is to stop exactly those countries from getting nukes. The more countries we have cooperating to stop them, the easier that is. >> > As far as "respecting commitments" goes, the US has more credibility >> >in that area than the old Soviet Union ever did. >> >> Yes, we do, because we usually respect our commitments. If we stop doing >> that, we won't. > > Who said that we're going to stop doing that? > No one yet. If we stop respecting the ABM Treaty, _we'll_ be saying it. >> The Soviets never ignored treaties altogether, at least not arms control >> treaties. They may have cheated on occasion, but the treaties limited >> their actions. > > On occasion? Sorry, a lot more than just "on occasion". > They obeyed far more than they cheated. As I said, the treaties limited their actions--so much so that we voulntarily chose to ignore the occasional cheating. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #160 *************************************