The Day the Earth Didn't Stand Still

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,690
Location
San Antonio Texas
I always wonder why politicians would want to limit ABM systems? If nukes are evil, then having a system to counter nukes should be a good thing? right?

Ten years ago today, June 13, 2002, the United States' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty took effect. Abrogating the 1972 arms control pact had been a foreign policy goal of the Bush Administration after it took power in January 2001. The Bush White House wanted the United States to be unconstrained in developing and deploying missile defenses, including a shield to protect the US homeland from ballistic missiles emanating from North Korea and the Middle East. Per the treaty's withdrawal clause, the Bush Administration on Dec. 13, 2001, gave
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
six-month notice of the United States' intent to leave. The Clinton Administration had tried in vain to negotiate amendments to the treaty with Russia so that the United States would have been able to field a limited National Missile Defense system while maintaining the treaty regime. On Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation, no friend of the ABM Treaty during its time in effect, hosts an event to mark the 10-year anniversary, featuring several former senior Bush Administration officials who were instrumental in formulating Bush's missile defense policy. (Feeling nostalgic? Here's the ABM Treaty text from the State Department's website.)
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,195
Location
CONUS
I always wonder why politicians would want to limit ABM systems? If nukes are evil, then having a system to counter nukes should be a good thing? right?
...

It's the security paradox... country A's attempts to make itself more secure automatically make country B less secure... which causes country B to create a countermeasure which negates country A's new security measure, causing country A to feel less secure... and the cycle repeats itself.

Nuclear MAD ensured no major country would use nukes against another country that had nukes or was under another country's nuclear umbrella. That worked fine for a while, until rogue and/or "don't give a shit if we burn too" countries acquired nukes. Now there is a genuine threat of nuclear missile attack, which creates the need for a nuke shield, which perpetuates the security paradox. :(
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,690
Location
San Antonio Texas
It's the security paradox... country A's attempts to make itself more secure automatically make country B less secure... which causes country B to create a countermeasure which negates country A's new security measure, causing country A to feel less secure... and the cycle repeats itself.

Nuclear MAD ensured no major country would use nukes against another country that had nukes or was under another country's nuclear umbrella. That worked fine for a while, until rogue and/or "don't give a shit if we burn too" countries acquired nukes. Now there is a genuine threat of nuclear missile attack, which creates the need for a nuke shield, which perpetuates the security paradox. :(

You sound like my wife;)

I see Army War College in your future:thumbsup:
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,690
Location
San Antonio Texas
Thanks... I think... ;)
She just finished AWC last year.
Lost all common sense now that she is a "Strategic Thinker".
But your MAD analogy was spot on, The big push for ABM is actually rogue states that don't give a fuck and would claim victory even if we killed every one of the citizens in a 2nd strike.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,428
Location
Not Afghanistan
AMB also makes sense given the few occasions where we've dodged a nuclear war.

Check out Russia's Perimeter or Dead Hand system too. It has safeguards built in, but a semi-automated means of launching nukes is scarier than flying clowns.
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Nuclear leaves to many foot prints even in dirty bombs. WMB attacks will come from other platforms that are much simpler to attain and less traceable. Missile defense technology isn't there yet and Mara pretty much covered the consequences of getting to big of advantage in nuclear arms.

Much of the reckless talk by regimes like Iran and NK is to garner negotiating positions for other needs (ie. NK needs more food to feed their starving population). Even if they were "rogue" enough to launch an attack against the US the attack would be portable and carried into the country. Nuclear missile technology, even if they achieve it, is about deterrence from invasion/attack.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,690
Location
San Antonio Texas
Nuclear leaves to many foot prints even in dirty bombs. WMB attacks will come from other platforms that are much simpler to attain and less traceable. Missile defense technology isn't there yet and Mara pretty much covered the consequences of getting to big of advantage in nuclear arms.

Much of the reckless talk by regimes like Iran and NK is to garner negotiating positions for other needs (ie. NK needs more food to feed their starving population). Even if they were "rogue" enough to launch an attack against the US the attack would be portable and carried into the country. Nuclear missile technology, even if they achieve it, is about deterrence from invasion/attack.
Disagree, Hit Seoul and the fallout will cover Japan and eventually the US. Chernobyl circled the earth three times before the heavy particles were gone.
 
Top