106 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Have you been paying attention to Star Wars Episode II--courtesy of the Bush administration? Is a 5 out 8 success rate a good beginning? What are the upper limits of Missile Defense's potential?

[Bruce Klein]

Leapfrogging other nations, the US will push itself to effective missile defense. The question is, where will this leave us, say 20 yrs. from now?

This may ultimately call for functionally perfect truth machines. This would allow member nations to determination if a leader is telling the truth. For example, "Do you have weapons of mass destruction, and if you do, will you use them?" Something like this would effectively allow the UN to enforce policy.Thereby avoiding WWIII.

[DJS]

Leapfrogging other nations, the US will push itself to effective missile defense. The question is, where will this leave us, say 20 yrs. from now?

This may ultimately call for functionally perfect truth machines.  This would allow member nations to determination if a leader is telling the truth.  For example, "Do you have weapons of mass destruction, and if you do, will you use them?" Something like this would effectively allow the UN to enforce policy.Thereby avoiding WWIII.

I wouldn't put my money on a "truth machine". Polygraphs are notorious for their inaccuracy, especially when countermeasures are used. Anyone in the intelligence community will tell you that Polygraphs are used more for their usefulness as an interrogation tool than for their ability to effectively measure bio-readings.

Hopefully missile defense will leave us completely invulernable to missile attack. I say this in all seriousness. I believe this for two reasons.

First, missile defense as it is currently designed will rely on redundancy. Allow me to elaborate. So far, 5 out of 8 defensive missile tests have been successful. Let's just say, based on those results, that we can expect a 50% success rate on missile interceptions. The key point to this is that we wouldn't just launch one defensive missile at an income rogue missile attack. We would have multiple launches aimed at destroying the rogue missile at different stages in its trajectory. This is called a "layered" defense. As more missile intercepts are launched, the higher the probability of terminating the rogue missile. So: 1st missile--50% chance of success, 2nd missile--75% chance of success, 3rd--87.5%, 4th--93.75%, 5th--96.87%, 6th--98.44%, 7th--99.22%. And this is based on the technology we currently have without any adaption or improvement at a 50% success rate! Obviously, we are going to improve on the 50% success rate. Therefore I can say with confidence that we will be able to defend against a rogue missile attack by 2004.

Redundancy is also effective in dealing with countermeasures and MIRVs, since A--current countermeasures are a one time deal so they could only "fool" one of the defensive missiles launched at it, B--(we would hopefully be able to hit the rogue missile early in its launch phase preventing MIRV deployment, however if not..)we would be able to follow the process I have listed above to take out each of the reentry vehicles.

Second (and this is the important point on why I think missile defense against a full scale attack is possible) is the fact that once a technology is developed it is relatively easy to replicate. The real cost is in the development. What would prevent us from deploying 100,000 defensive missile silos to Alaska? Then its just a matter of having an integrated system that can handle multiple threats. And in todays computer age I don't think that will be a problem.

Of course, the problem with all of this is that we run the risk of another arms race. The goal of the current Administration is to put us so far ahead in this field that other potentially hostile nations won't even try to compete. I think this is the correct strategy. We want to put ourselves in a position where we can say to a nation like China, "Hey, we can hit you if we want to and there's nothing you can do about it. But guess what guys, we're not going to hit you because that's not what we are all about. In fact, here's the missile defense technology we developed, build your own missile defense system. Let's make this bullshit irrelevant." Wasn't Reagan a visionary? Call me crazy but I think this could actually have the effect of building trust.

One final note on missile defense. In all likelihood we probably already have it. The Soviets have it. Its an established fact that the Soviets had nuclear missiles pointed up over the skies of Moscow during the Cold War. Their purpose: A crude form of missile defense that could blow up incoming missiles. Of course there would be incredible fall out, but its better than nothing, right? I'm sure the US has a similar contingency plan and just doesn't state so publicly.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 February 2003 - 12:01 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

The militarization of orbital and outer space will do more to set back the quest for extension of our civilization into the sky above than even today's loss.

This is not a "New Age of Conquest for Discovery" it is a shared "Age of Discovery Beyond Conquest".

It is time to recognize this ultimate frontier as belonging to us all in the tradition of a really free and fertile region open to us all. There is no actual security in the statistical promised that you let deceive you, the only security is ultimately in shared common cause.

Yes, militarism has been a force that has driven much of human progress throughout much of history but at what level of unnecessary and suspect loss?

What we need is a free and open frontier that holds promise to us all in common, not the high-ground battlements from which petty tyrants can threaten common citizens. There is no noble purpose in this plan, only false promise and a sleight of hand.

This entire direction bodes ill for it will constrict and reduce the accessibility of deep space to all that might venture into this new realm and hold hope to do so for themselves.

We don't need the protection that this technology offers even at its highest potential. It is not only a boondoggle, diversion, and distraction from the important investment that needs to be made. It will stand as a monumental barrier preventing most from gaining access and creating alternative options for the pursuit of exploration and development into this possible outlet for the growth of all humanity.

The ability to pioneer our solar system will not be enhanced by orbital forts, wing mounted ASAT's, and ground based beam weapons or launch vehicles used for destructive and useless intent. I do not buy either the argument, or the product. I will not willing contribute to this cost. Whine about taxation and realize that the war tax necessary to build this amounts to extortion for foul purpose a contribution to a crime.

[DJS]

The militarization of orbital and outer space will do more to set back the quest for extension of our civilization into the sky above than even today's loss.

This is not a "New Age of Conquest for Discovery" it is a shared "Age of Discovery Beyond Conquest".

It is time to recognize this ultimate frontier as belonging to us all in the tradition of a really free and fertile region open to us all.  There is no actual security in the statistical promised that you let deceive you, the only security is ultimately in shared common cause.

The loss today was great. Sometimes I can't helped noticing the cursed nature of the Jewish people. I say this with no prejudice, but it is uncanny isn't it? I know, I know, this is something a Christian would say, but there is a pattern that catches my eye.

Now to the matter at hand.

"This is not a New Age of Conquest for Discovery, it is a shared Age of Discovery Beyond Conquest."--Lazarus Long

You make this statement as if it were a fact, it is not. It is your opinion of how things should be.

I see that you keep presenting this Utopian world view, but you offer no valid solutions as to how we get there. So how about it Lazarus, state some specifics that can be followed to a logical conclusion. The nature of man is a riddle inside of a mystery rapped around an enigma. It is not easily solved and can't be swept under the rug by wishful conjecture.

I am analyzing reality and the possible evolution of that reality. You are simply putting out an alternative reality that does not exist. When I put up a thread for missile defense I am looking for conversation on how it might all turn out. Not a vindictive condemnation of its utility.

Missile defense is going to happen. That is a reality.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 February 2003 - 11:49 AM.

[DJS]

Future Nightly News Anchor’s Cable Show Reported Every
Missile Test Failure & Ignored Every Success

Exposing Williams’ Anti-Missile
Defense Bias

President Bush’s decision to deploy the first ten anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Alaska prompted more network derision of the missile defense program on Tuesday. Peter Jennings typified the liberal spin, stressing the costs (“a multi-billion dollar system”) while disparaging its capabilities (“even now it is unclear if it will work”).

But when it comes to bias against a national missile defense, the new anchors who’ll be taking over in the next few years could be even more biased than the old liberals they’re replacing. NBC’s choice to replace Tom Brokaw in 2004, current CNBC anchor Brian Williams, has never failed to publicize an anti-missile test “failure,” yet never bothered to report on any of the five instances when missiles traveling at nearly 15,000 miles per hour were intercepted and destroyed. MRC analyst Ken Shepherd reviewed CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams, which also aired on MSNBC until July 2002, and documented the anchorman’s skewed approach:

• October 3, 1999: On the NBC Nightly News, Sunday anchor John Siegenthaler told viewers that “the Pentagon conducted a special test overnight of a high-tech defense system which could eventually protect the United States from nuclear attack. It worked as well as the testers had hoped.” Williams’ cable show doesn’t air on Sundays, but the next night (October 4) he skipped over the successful test, although his show included a Dateline report coaching drivers how to use their anti-lock brakes.

• January 19, 2000: This time, the anti-missile missed its target, and Williams pounced. “A serious setback for the Pentagon to report to you tonight,” he crowed on The News. “A system designed to protect the U.S. from missile attack has failed. Defense officials say it could be weeks before they know just what went wrong here, and now a lot of people are questioning whether it’s worth it or not to move ahead with the planned $13 billion missile defense system.”
Brian Williams will replace Tom Brokaw in 2004, but his record suggests NBC Nightly News will be as liberal as ever.

• July 8, 2000: One of the missiles failed to separate from its booster rocket, another failure. The attempt was news on a Saturday, but Williams hit the story hard when he got back to work on Monday, July 10. He mocked “a Star Wars test that failed miserably, a $100 million attempt to make one missile shoot down another literally fizzled. It was supposed to show how easy it was, it was supposed to make it much easier for the President to give the missile shield the go-ahead.”

• July 14, 2001: In a Saturday night test, the military successfully blew apart a missile in flight. The following Monday, however, Williams didn’t utter a peep. Instead, his July 16 show focused on the search for Chandra Levy.

• December 3, 2001: On the December 4 Evening News, CBS’s John Roberts recounted that “the Pentagon’s latest missile defense test succeeded.” Williams was on the air that night, too, but he omitted any mention of the successful test.

• March 15, 2002: “The Pentagon says its proposed missile defense system has passed its most complex test yet,” ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas reported on the March 16 World News Tonight/Saturday. Brian Williams wasn’t on duty the following Monday, but fill-in anchor Forrest Sawyer kept news of the successful test to himself.

• October 14, 2002: CBS’s Dan Rather reported on the fourth consecutive success on the next night’s (October 15) Evening News, but Williams skipped it.

• December 11, 2002: After ignoring every test since July 2000, one last Wednesday morning finally seemed to suit Williams’ agenda. “Another disappointing test run to report for the Pentagon's hugely expensive missile defense system,” he intoned that night. No anchor has a more perfect double-standard on missile defense. -- Rich Noyes

[Lazarus Long]

[quote] THE MOON
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
14:1 The Hour of Doom is drawing near, and the moon is cleft in two. Yet when they see a sign the unbelievers turn their backs and say: 'Ingenious Magic!'
They deny the truth and follow their own fancies, But in the end all issues shall be settled.
Admonitory news, profound in wisdom, has come to them: but warnings are unavailing.
Qu'ran [/quote]

Come my young adversary join me again in the discussion of Diplomacy and understand very clearly why I have moved the thread from Iraq to Space Based Weapon Systems. This about how we are to negotiate with both friends and enemies alike in this future we are offering to create.

Tell me please of how you define the differences between Strategy and Tactics, between diplomacy and trade?

Policy determines Strategy and Strategy leads to methods, but the branches of divergent interest as they interpret policy see various strategies and concurrent tactical methodologies.

The recreation of a Cold War with other countries, principally China offers a sense of security to some who fear the sheer dynamism and numbers this society possesses but instead they should understand that we no longer need the threat of killing one another in order to compete. We are significantly far ahead, but only at this moment in time in a hypothetical "Space Race" to militarize orbital and Outer Space.

However, if we go down this course, we virtually guarantee the end of civilian development. Not only because the return to total militarization of Space Technologies and concurrent necessary level informational security, but because of the probable creation of a hostile Demilitarized Zone.

The Chinese feel compelled (for EXACTLY the same reasons we did in the 1950's & 60's) to compete with us for not only a presence, but hostile potential. If we take this preemptive stance, we are forcing the creation of Orbital Forts by opposing forces.

[quote]
Missile Defense, is it possible?

Yes, within ten years the US will be able to defend against a full-scale missile attack (up to and including MIRVs and countermeasures).
[/quote]

There is no credible evidence for this claim. This is a numbers game solely based on yesterday's estimates. It also presumes that there is no possible subsequent shift in technological approach or an ability to compromise the infrastructure for a defensive ballistic missile system. There is nothing less secure then a false sense of security based on a simplistic single-minded approach.

[quote]
Yes, within ten years the US will be able to defend against a significant missile attack (up to and including MIRVs and countermeasures, 10-20 missiles). [/quote]

This may be possible but to what point if it also implies a concurrent return to the past Arms Race as the logic requires. This approach was adopted in order to bankrupt the Soviet economy and it was not done without concurrent harm to our own. But it was the evolution of the conflict by the principal protagonists World War Two and predicated on the kinds of technology that had evolved at that time.

We have already presumed, and are in general aggreement that in order to engage this topic we are already in a next generation of weaponry so why are we debating outdated tactics and inadequate strategies?


[quote]
Yes, within ten years the US will be able to defend against a limited missile attack (including MIRVs and some countermeasures, up to 5 missiles).

Yes, within ten years the US will be able to defend against a minor/rogue missile attack (not including MIRVs and countermeasures, 1 or 2 missiles). [/quote]

If the above is possible THEN this must be even more so. So again I ask, at what diversion of critical resources at this juncture that could instead be put to vastly higher purpose?

Please do not test my credulity with promises of a Cheap and Effective system, particularly in light of the HISTORY of the cost of such programs and technologies.

[quote]
No, within ten years the US will not be able to defend against any kind of missile attack (you can't hit a bullet with a bullet). [/quote]

It isn't about defending against one or two MIRV's by a rogue State the way it is only at this moment, right now. It is about forcing a totally new kind of Arms Race upon the world that is guranteed to have a means of overriding EVERY Safeguard imaginable.

You never read "Failsafe" did you?

Or Catch 22?

[quote]
Have you been paying attention to Star Wars Episode II--courtesy of the Bush administration? Is a 5 out 8 success rate a good beginning? What are the upper limits of Missile Defense's potential? [/quote]

BJ says:
Leapfrogging other nations, the US will push itself to effective missile defense. The question is, where will this leave us, say 20 yrs. from now?

This may ultimately call for functionally perfect truth machines. This would allow member nations to determination if a leader is telling the truth. For example, "Do you have weapons of mass destruction, and if you do, will you use them?" Something like this would effectively allow the UN to enforce policy. Thereby avoiding WWIII. [/quote]

The Chinese press has been threatening to enter another round of Incremental Nuclear escalation if we go forward with a Star Wars Program and as our mathematicians explain all they need to do is create significantly larger arsenals of complex MIRV's holding dozens of smaller warheads. These would also include mixed payloads with deceptive dummy warheads designed to simply divert enough tactical firepower to allow a sufficient quantity of warheads to get through. It all boils down to numbers, and if any, I repeat ANY AT ALL, get through cities will be destroyed.

We target first military targets but our military targets, like theirs, are too close to major metropoli to avoid large-scale civilian casualties. Now you want to think of American Citizens as just collateral damage too?

Some of the methods for stopping incoming warhead include using "High Altitude Nuclear Detonations." This technology is unproven for safety in that the potential risks to entire global environment may exceed any possible benefits from their use. Recently 41 Nobel Prize winners in physics, economics, as well as peace, signed a petition warning that this approach is fraught probable disaster and all too little benefit.

Personally, I see this not as business opportunity for the majority of smaller businesses.

Ironically, it would promote a military monopolization of market resources that will divert critically diminishing developmental capital AWAY from viable Deep Space Technologies that would offer vastly greater opportunity for the living then dead, unmanned weapons ever could. This development alone could set back serious manned exploration decades if not longer.

I would add I DON'T think that this technology offers any serious deterrence to threats from NEO's or Bollides and any other possible object that might come in out of the blue. Frankly, it seems like extortion to me, and the idea of taking my taxes to pay for this is like paying off the mob. I don't feel protected and the protectors are beginning to scare me.

These groups act more dangerously than the threat they claim we must meet. We don't need to take this approach at all, what we need to do is OPEN UP SPACE EXPPORATION, NOT TURN SPACE INTO AN ARMED AND HOSTILE STANDOFF.

You are still fighting "Old Wars" with outdated strategies and inadequate tactics. The motive for this is a budgetary grab in the face of a White Elephant Military Industrial Establishment that can't pay for retooling to meet challenges it is simple not designed to meet.

[quote]
And Mr. Kissinger goes on to explain:

Breaking up the Sino-Soviet Bloc was a tactic aimed at advancing the strategy of weakening the Soviet Union/communism (the same or different? that's another debate). Weakening the USSR advanced our "grand strategy" of winning the Cold War and elevating the US to hegemonic status.

Once again, your critique lacks historical perspective. The biggest threat to US security in the 70's was not China, but the USSR. So simply on that basis Nixon's decision to open of China was the correct one. Thirty years into the future is not the "near" future, especially in modern times. A lot of things change in thirty years. Further, Kissinger was aware that opening up China was a calculated risk. He goes into it a little in The Necessity For Choice: Prospects of American Foreign Policy. Saying that he should have known that China's economy would grow at unprecedented rates in unfair.

Finally, let's not be arrogant Americans . China's economic boom was not just because America opened up trade relations with them. China made the strategic decision that moving towards the principles of free market economics was the best way to make their nation a competitive global player.
[/quote]

Oh so you have decided to grant the Chinese are competent and competitive? How nobly magnanimous of you. Historically the infusion of Mongolian Consciousness into Islam is the source of the opposition we are in facing. The Chinese are not Mongolians.

No they cannot claim such vitality, though it this force that in turn claimed them, and the Temple Mount, and left a legacy of power struggle between the Mamluks and Ottomans that lasted till World War One. And one that is part of the shadowy world we are about to engage. One that rules not only the dark night of combat but the hearts of the many protagonists.

Please do not test our credulity any longer with naive prediction that says more about your lack of study than offer any meaningful hope.

[Lazarus Long]

Sorry BJ it looks like I finally overdid it and broke your toy. :(

The *Quotation* function appears inoperative. My bad
So sorry

[Lazarus Long]

[quote]
Farewell happy fields,
Where joy forever dwells: hail, horrors!

A mind not to be chang'd by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.

Here we may reign secure; and in my choice
To reign is worth ambition, though in hell:
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

John Milton. 1608-1674, Paradise Lost[/quote]

A truly Free Man knows no Master and Keeps no Slaves.

[quote]
Kissinger prophecizes:

My prognosis is this: the impending war in Iraq is the breaking point for the United States and the United Nations. The time line for conflict in Iraq will be as follows...

January 27th--UNMOVIC gives its report on weapons inspections. It states that there has been no conclusive proof of violations by the Iraqis and that they will need more time to verify compliance.[/quote]

This is not quite correct in a very important manner. The distinction is that they did find verifiable violations and suspect behavior, pay attention.


[quote]January 28th--President Bush's State of the Union address in which he points out that Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must be proactive in dismantling its WMD programs. He will then state that Iraq is in material breach. At this point he may also offer "smoking gun" evidence to gain momentum within the international community.[/quote]

Give the Boy a Ceeegar! [!]

I congratulate you for presenting the party line. Succinct and substantially correct that is why I am talking to you.

Gotttaa .... love him

[QUOTE
January 28th-February 10th--Iraqi opposition in the North and/or West declares Independence.
[/quote]

Whoooops gross exaggeration there huh, guess you need to better analyze the threat you face.


[quote]
February 10th-February 25th--US forces are in place and US offensive begins. I'll predict February 22nd as the start of offensive operations. [/quote]

Here we are...

Get a grip...

It just isn't going according to plan. I suggest you rethink policy, strategy, and tactics..

[quote]
March 1st--Oil fields and Scud boxes have been secured. Baghdad (and possibly Tehkrit--Saddam's home town) will be the only areas of resistance left. [/quote]

I think I will go out on a limb and suggest that not only are your dates far fetched as premature, more importantly so is your policy.


[quote]
March 3rd-April 1st--Baghdad falls and order is restored. Nation-building commences.

The time line for Baghdad falling depends on the US decision as to whether it will resort to urban combat or whether it will cut all power to Baghdad and lay siege to the city. This is the one really difficult decision the US has to make. [/quote]

This isn't just unrealistic, it is a false promise made to commit the People to a course of action that will have profound and grave long term consequences of commitment not a damn urban renewal. Nation Building begins in the Hearts of those defining the Nation.

[quote]
Another unknown is whether the United States will push for a second Security Council resolution against Iraq. After the January 27th Inspections Report there is going to be pressure to allow the inspectors to have more time. The US is not going to allow this.

Instead the US will push for a resolution authorizing force. Opposition to authorization of force will come from Russia, China, France and Germany. A compromise will be reached in which the Security Council states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441. However no authorization for the use of force will be given. This allows the UN to save face. [/quote]

While you had your position understood you failed to appreciate that the rest of the world would not follow in accord. In other words your plans are...

Nooott gonna happen,... jus not gonna happen...

and it didn't go the way you planned at all.

Do you even have a Plan B?

[quote]
Mr. Kissinger deflects::

I ask you again. Who is going to stop us?
-------------------------------------------------------------
"War is never morally justifiable."--LL

I simply disagree.
[/quote]

Have you ever hunted? How about big game? Ever hunt without a gun?

If we were trapped in the jungle I would survive, would you?

Pygmies Hunters take down elephants and feed their tribes for weeks. They can do this with little more than a trick, a trap, and under the beast's own weight and inability to move too quick they find the soft underbelly of this great behemoth and sever its crucial blood vessels.

This is our enemy's strategy.

Knowledge really is dangerous and our enemy KNOWS US better than we know them.

Routinely I am forced to remind you that there is no moral justification for war, there is at best the expedient of defense for survival or the ethos of acquisition. I am an ethicist and I do not confuse these two. I would apply the surgeon's cold logic to cutting out the heart of an enemy that is resolute in plotting my destruction but I would not pretend that such wanton violence was "moral". It is at best, practical.

We don't simply disagree, you are either wrong or duplicitous, and attempting to manipulate the memetic character of common morality to your advantage and that would include the building of Empire.


[quote]
As far as your predictions of a civil war-- I think you are way off base. My calculations simply provide a different outlook. When this is all said and done I will say, "I told you so."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think Washington was a primitive and uneducated clout. I have great respect for Washington, but using his statements from 220 years ago are like using statements from FDR 220 years from now. It probably won't fly. Whether Washington would have understood the complexities of our world is idle speculation. [/quote]

I trust that the words of FDR I used above will be as valid in 220 years as the words of Cicero are today. Such are the power of ideas that transcend the age in which we live. Even as these words are valid more than two millenium after being spoken:

[quote]
" Silent enim leges inter arma." Laws are inoperative in war.
M. T. Cicero, Pro Milone, IV, xi
[/quote]

If Augustus had instead made peace with Anthony and Cleopatra rather than ravaging the Middle East and the Republic with War we would all probably still be speaking Greek and Latin in the West.

Pax Romana brought five centuries of Peace, Prosperity, and Empire that lead directly into a Dark Age.

The greatest potential of the Dark Age we now face is not simple ignorance, poverty, oppression and suffering it is Armageddon and Oblivion. Your most apparent weakness of the study of history is very much your Achilles Heel.

[quote]
Kissinger goes on to add:

When I give you your moral justifications I am placating you.

Bob retorts:

I believe it is vital that the overwhelming number of the general public (at least in the United States) buys into this invasion at the front-end because of my experience during Nam.
[/quote]

And come back to remind US all on topic:

[quote]

The militarization of orbital and outer space will do more to set back the quest for extension of our civilization into the sky above than even today's loss.

This is not a "New Age of Conquest for Discovery" it is a shared "Age of Discovery Beyond Conquest".

It is time to recognize this ultimate frontier as belonging to us all in the tradition of a really free and fertile region open to us all. There is no actual security in the statistical promised that you let deceive you, the only security is ultimately in shared common cause.

Yes, militarism has been a force that has driven much of human progress throughout much of history but at what level of unnecessary and suspect loss?

What we need is a free and open frontier that holds promise to us all in common, not the high-ground battlements from which petty tyrants can threaten common citizens. There is no noble purpose in this plan, only false promise and a sleight of hand.

We don't need the protection that this technology offers even at its highest potential. It is not only a boondoggle, diversion, and distraction from the important investment that needs to be made. It will stand as a monumental barrier preventing most from gaining access and creating alternative options for the pursuit of exploration and development into this possible outlet for the growth of all humanity.

The ability to pioneer our solar system will not be enhanced by orbital forts, wing mounted ASAT's, and ground based beam weapons or launch vehicles used for destructive and useless intent. I do not buy either the argument, or the product. I will not willing contribute to this cost. Whine about taxation and realize that the war tax necessary to build this amounts to extortion for foul purpose a contribution to a crime.
[/quote]

You have not in fact addressed any of the claims I have made Mr. Kissinger. You have consistently sidestepped and avoided direct rebuttal and be advised that while I have taken great pains to specifically address the numerous arguments you have made with fact and alternatives that are logical and plausible you in turn have not done so in your turn.

You have instead squandered your opportunity to make counter argument to the issues as they in fact can be defined both historically and in the present tense. You favor repeating the party line, making veiled threats, and attempting to defame my character as unpatriotic or subversive, interested in the destruction of my precious land, people, and principles.

You do so at great peril for I am the greatest ally that you might ever make and offer true hope of Victory, which is not a claim you can really make.

So here I re-post my basic argument and ask you again how the claims of security are served?

How should the promotion of Deep Space Development go forward?

and

What rational response would you expect from our adversaries from the policies that you put forward?

Your proposals are a guarantee of a return to a monolithic economy based on the preservation of the Military Industrial Establishment for the exclusive purpose of keeping the Cold War Alive for Centuries as the practical methodology of global hegemony, the balance of US and the many THEM.

In agriculture such monolithic methods lead to the Potato Famine that almost destroyed the economy of the British Empire at a crucial time not just decimate its subject people in Ireland. In economics monolithic economies also so vulnerable and this is well known to the enemy but not our citizens.

[quote]
Dr. Strangelove chides me:

Now the reality. The United Nations was created by the United States. The United Nations is funded predominately by the United States. The UN headquarters is located in New York City. Let's be honest, the UN is the US's bitch. [/quote]

Is this how you refer to a love, your paramour, companion, and partnered competitor for power?

Yes it is true, it is an uneasy marriage between the US and the UN but while it is not a marriage made in heaven it is also not just a marriage made in hell.

It is a simple example of competing desires and divisions of power within the family of man, and ironically the competition for power and legitimacy between the patriarchy and the matriarchy. It will be here where the relationship of humans will be judged as anything more than just another relationship of exploitation.

It is within this New Age Institution where we as a species come to grasp reason.

Or fail...

[Lazarus Long]

Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds:
At which the universal host up sent
A shout that tore hell's concave, and beyond
Frighted the reign of Chaos and old Night.
John Milton, Paradise Lost

And so my Countrymen and Hosts do you think to lay your plans as none would be able to discover?

And once the whole world over is turned brother against brother what words do you wish to share with the dead?

What thoughts shall you pass above their graves and use to make the mourners feel that it was all not in vain and useless effort bereft of sane purpose and love?

The United States will justify using force by saying that it is simply enforcing Security Council resolutions.

In reality, the US acting without explicit authorization from the Security Council will be a major blow to the UN. An international body such as the UN lacks credibility when the sole super power in the world doesn't pay it any credence.

I personally believe that the decision has already been made at the highest levels of power in the US to pull the rug out from under the UN because it is no longer serving its purpose. The power taken from the UN will be reallocate in NATO which is easier for us to control and is entirely western in its composition. Of course publicly things will appear status quo at the UN for some time to come.

Overthrowing Saddam and installing a pro-US regime is crucial to our long term strategic objectives in the region. Think about it like this; 9/11 was a terrorist attack and was the result of the "radical Islamic movement" and specifically Al Qaeda. The causes of terrorism are numerous. The Liberal establishment, true to its nature, will try to objectively analyze the root causes of terrorism. "We need to know the nature of terrorism before we can conquer it", they say.

I disagree. We didn't try to psycho-analyze Imperial Japan after Pearl Harbor, we simply defeated them. The Islamic world has never experienced an enlightenment. Trying to "enlighten" them will not only prove futile, it will prove fatal. In reality, the root causes of terrorism stem from the fact that the Islamic world can not combat the hegemonic power of the United States (and the West in general) in any conventional way. We are simply superior to them militarily.

Therefore, they needed to find a backdoor. They found that backdoor in terrorism which effectively negates our conventional military superiority and turns the conflict into an asymmetrical affair.

The location of Radical Islam is, geographically, the Middle East. Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda need friendly nation-states to properly plan and coordinate attacks. (These nations are on our state sponsors of terror list) They are often simply called Terrorist states.

Some of them include Syria, Lebanon (a puppet state of Syria), Iraq, Iran, formerly Afghanistan, etc. In other Middle Eastern states, terrorism is not state sponsored , but the government instead turns a blind eye towards terrorist activity. This is indicative of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Eygpt, etc. Because of the complexity of the terrorist problem in the Middle East, the Administration has adopted a multi-layered approach.

Iraq is part of a network of terrorist states in the Middle East. After we topple Saddam we will occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. (When we conquered Germany and Japan in WWII we occupied both countries, there are still troops in both countries to this day. Iraq will be no different.) By having troops in Iraq it will establish a permanent, intimidating military presence in the region with quick strike capabilities. We will no longer need to ask for permission or seek SOFAs (status of forces agreements) to be there.

Additionally, form a geo-strategic perspective:
1) Syria will have its legs kicked out from under and will basically be isolated. It will feel increasing pressure to halt the terrorist activity that it encourages in Lebanon (Hezbollah). This will have the effect of easing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2) Iran will be staring down US troops to its east (Afghanistan), west (Iraq), and south (US navy in Persian Gulf). Hopefully this will be enough to destabilize the current government, but if not it will make military preparations easier.    

This is worse than foolhardy and a harbinger of doom, it is self-prophetic to that effect. You are increasing the scope of the "Theater of Operations" Asymmetrically. Escalation needs to be systematic or it loses its effectiveness and Exponential Escalation is a Destructive Quantum Leap.

The Leap accross the Quantum Divide also suffers from the limits of Zeno's Paradox.

Further, freeing up Iraq's oil supply and distributing the wealth equitably among the Iraqi citizens will give the average Iraqi wealth beyond their wildest dreams. By establishing a viable, wealthy, democracy in the region we will put pressure on the other regimes in the region to democratize.

Another indirect effect of taking control of Iraq's oil supply will be that we destroy OPEC's monopoly and consequently its ability to maintain artificially high oil prices. Why do you think all of the oil producing nations in the Middle East are so afraid of us occupying Iraq?

I can assure you it is not for their love of Saddam. The real reason is two fold; their fear of US troops in the region and their desire to maintain the price of oil. Expect oil to drop below $20 a barrel when we get Iraq up and running as the largest self serve the world has ever seen. One of the side effects of lower oil prices will be the possible destabilization of regimes in the region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, where almost half of their GDP is oil revenue, would face the real possibility of social upheaval when their revenue stream from oil dries up. The result would either be democracy-great but unlikely- or the rising of a Radical Islamic regime which would give us an excuse to go in and set things up the way we want them to be.

Brutal?

Yes, but also very effective.

9/11 changed a lot of things in the US. One of them is the belief that international law is paramount. We are embarking on a path of unilaterism in which we will rewrite the map of the Middle East. In my opinion, it is the only way.

Interested in the neo-conservative movement? Check out
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org and www.newamericancentury.org

You are in serious jeopardy here. And I think you run some serious risk of putting me in trouble with you and I won't float your boat. You are correct to see us as diametrically opposed. I seriously hope we are both making that is clear. For I wouldn't want the rest of the world too confused by this argument of American Patriots. For as I said when I invited you back my young and worthy opponent I like this and am having fun.

As I write this Blix has found evidence and is laying a valid case. As the German Chancilor has said succinctly "In a Democracy you must come before the People and make your case". He was not convinced, neither am I, and I would suggest you pay attention the majority agree with us.

One last thing. Everyone keeps saying that Iraq has no direct links to terrorism. This is not true. Iraq has a long history of sponsoring terrorism and has had connections with Al Qaeda in the past. Even if you don't think it is likely that Saddam would help out Al Qaeda, are you willing to take that chance? Are you willing to take the chance that chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons could proliferate from Iraq to Al Qaeda?

We are fighting a war. Excuses for procrastination are not going to fly anymore.

When are you then in turn going to adopt new strategies and tactics and discard the extinct mindsets of ancient history and eons of Cold War and Regional Conflict.

Why don't you apply your own advice to your self?

A demand of thoughtful analysis is not an excuse to procrastinate.

Misdirected force at this scale is implicitly catastrophic, not collateral damage.

"We should solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first!"-- Excuse for inaction. The conflict has been going on for 50 years and may go on for another 50. Are we suppose to sit on our hands until the matter is resolved?

Is this a call for a Second Coming?

Because this is the common request of protagonist parties that are driving the conflict. Are you volunteering to be martyred?

"We should win the war on terror first!"-- The war on terror might take 30 years to win. Once again, an excuse for inaction.

Islamic states such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are gnats that need to be swatted. They pose a mortal threat to western civilization.

So far the logic that you have applied as the best method to accomplish this was by killing a billion people. I will not be party to the building of a New World Reich.

Your approach is not only duplicitous I wonder if this not intentional. Do you seek disaster for its own sake or are you just so misguided? Or are you just so indulgent of your fear and terror that you would overreact so blatantly?

Mr. Kissinger continues:

Here is some progressive logic on the matter:

If terrorist states threaten western society, then they threaten western progress. And if they threaten western progress, then they threaten western technological innovation. And if they threaten technological innovation, then they threaten progress in the field of life extension. And if they threaten progress in the field of life extension, then they pose a threat to my quest for immortality. And I can not tolerate that. They must be conquered and recast in a form which is conducive to democracy and progress.


Peace through Strength  

The greatest strength is through knowledge and reason, when too much "Force" (as "Brute Strength" is too often confused to only be) is applied to a problem it can be even more damaging to the very system it claims to uphold. Like trying to use a hammer to fix the computer.

Knowledge is true power, but it didn't save Archimedes. Irony is a wonder of history too.

In 1991 Iraq signed a cease fire agreement in which it agreed to proactively submit to weapons inspections. This meant that it was suppose to cooperate in destroying all of its weapons programs. At first Iraq complied, but as the years passed it became more and more resistant to the inspections. The economic sanctions that we hear so much about were put in place by the UN as a reaction to Iraqi defiance (yet another example of failed containment). The resistance continued to grow until 1998 when the Iraqis took the opportunity posed by domestic troubles in the US (Clinton and Lewinsky) to kick the weapons inspectors out. They realized that Clinton was a lame duck President who didn't have the moral authority to wage a war over UNSC violations. Clinton proceeded to launch an air campaign on Iraq. This was, of course, anticipated and no critical programs were effected by the coalition air strikes. Since 1998 the UNSC has passed numerous resolutions to no effect. Iraq has violated every resolution that has been issued and has showed flagrant disregard for international law. On September 12th, 2002 President Bush gave a speech to the UN outlining Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. (Basically, the current administration has inherited a problem that has become progressively worse over the 1990's.) The President's speech had the desired result and gave the international community a little backbone. The Security Council voted on a new resolution (1441) which stated that Iraq must not only submit to weapons inspections, but be proactive in dismantling and destroying its weapons programs. Since the resolutions inception Iraq has continue to deny that it has any WMD. This denial is, in and of itself, a violation of Resolution 1441. WE ARE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ENFORCING THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND THE 1991 CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT.  

This is correct what we differ on is the best manner of enforcement, clearly there exists more options than have been explored. Please don't tell me that overkill is the only rational response.

But we can't claim to be legally upholding any Just Order of Law if we decimate the Istitution that issued the edict and hold authority over the direcitve.

The Clinton Administration tried under-kill and bribery, with limited to no true success and the current administration appears hell bent on taking the other extreme. Is there not a path to success and progress that we can see is more effective, more practical?

Define success?

Ask yourself the question so many of us are asking:

Is this really a global strategic objective that has little to do with our claimed intentions and much more to do with this Administrations unspoken fears?

QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)
It will be the occupation of Iraq that is the real issue. We are not yet so secure in Afghanistan as the media would have most believe and there was even less opposition and we will not be out before we have put more in. We are beginning to have expeditionary forces on the ground in dozens of countries throughout the world and we will be maintaining their presence not for weeks or months but for years and decades. Is the American public really willing to foot that bill?

Alone?

Mr. Kissinger concurs;

I agree, the occupation of Iraq and the nature of that occupation is the real issue. Let's not get crazy on Afghanistan though. There are limits to the amount of reform we can hope for there. The main thing is that we destroyed the training camps and made it difficult for them to reconstitute.

As far as footing the bill, that is part of the commitment of fighting a global war on terror. However, the bill may not be as large as you think. Special forces do not require the funding nor the accommodations that conventional military forces do.

And so? We just get to make any promise we like and then do what ever we want?

After word what ever happens we just want to claim plausible deniability and cry about our limits to address social develomental concerns?

Get real Mr. Kissinger, War costs less than Peace, but Profits very different Sectors of Economies.

QUOTE
When you aspire to an Infinite Lifespan, all of life becomes precious.

Another American speaks up and answers this Lady of South Africa and us all:

SAILLE WILLOW and all,

Some measure actions purely in dollars and cents or merely to further their agenda. Those that do (by placing an irrelevancy on life) eventually become threats to others. Here is where the danger begins.


QUOTE
I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach. The stench of the dead came after that with the arrival of the flies. It sounded so easy getting the experts in and you would be rid of them. The reality was quite different. But the rats were gone and posed no more threat or so we thought.


It is so easy to dehumanize and consider war a video game unless you have been close to war or experienced horrors similar to that of war.

QUOTE
The world needs a paradigm shift. We cannot move to the next level unless we learn to solve problems without violence.

bob agreeing adds and laments:

Unless a paradigm shift is made, this current civilization is at risk.

Unfortunately, the current recorded history on this planet is that of war. The concern is that as technology continues to advance, the consequences of war escalates in the negative direction. We can illustrate this concept by comparing one person throwing a rock versus one person setting off a tactical nuke.

The issue is that the character of the humans on this planet has not changed significantly since the current recorded history while the technology continues to advance.

QUOTE
Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right? I for one cannot find happiness through the suffering of another.

bob replies pragmatically:

The unfortunate reality is that there are some who dehumanize others in order to attain their agenda or to blindly follow a leader.

QUOTE
The pest control came and the dying started. I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach.

bob goes on to conclude:

Now, here is the dilemma: If Iraq sponsors and supports terrorist organizations, Iraq becomes a threat. To compound that threat, if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; the threat could be significant. Iraq could provide these arms to terrorist organizations, giving them the means manifest their hatred. These terrorist groups could attack or attempt to blackmail various countries. With these possibilities, the price of taking just symbolic action could be catastrophic.

In view of what Colon Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council regarding Iraq, what should be done? Do you believe Iraq is a threat to some other countries? If so, what are the options?

bob  

I can only be grateful for someone that clearly is first of all interested in the truth but also how do we address his serious questions?

bob asks poignantly:

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

Powell provided evidence today to the U.N. Security Council.

Is the evidence sufficient for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

bob

That our means is in accord with our goals and that those goals are not greed and power but the development of a practical peace is the prime moral objective. That we are bound to fulfil our Commitments for going in and those Commitment be Stated clearly beforehand, and subjected to at least a decision of Plebiscite.

Sec. Powell's promise that Iraqi resources will be used exclusively in the rebuilding of Iraq is propaganda or is this the voice of the Common Will? I take Mr. Kissinger at face value and feel that the Bush Administration is using Sec. Powell as a Sacrificial Offering and is more in accord with Mr. Kissinger.

Though in this matter, I sincerely hope I am disproved for I like Mr. Powell and more so I hope that this group can retain an ability to see past their insecurity and avarice they will act in stead in accord with their Oaths of Office and Discharge their Duty to Defend and Respect the Constitution.

Frankly Patriot Act II is a direct example of the fact they are not.

In relation to the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty Mr. Kissinger states:

No, it is not a direct violation. It is an indirect violation. There is no specific language restricting the development and use of HPM. By the way, the treaty already is dead. Wake up from your dream world and come to grips with the fact that countries develop weapons covertly regardless of "treaties". I have never been a believer in the rule of law. The rule of law is too dependent on countries playing by the rules.

You have made yourself clear Mr. Kissinger, for you it boils down to "Might makes Right", Your Tried and True Method it's true.

But in what way is it a change in tactics, strategies and motives for developing a concept of International Relations to meet these New Age Challenges?

I propose a different approach,

I propose a marriage.

Happy Valentines Day

[Lazarus Long]

[quote]Think not that thy word and thine alone must be right.
Antigone, 706.
Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot.
Electra, 1007.
Sophocles. 496-406 B. C.[/quote]

Of this I am sure, there is little that passes for thought among those that claim to be modern humans that has not been tested in time or pondered by like minds.

History is the safeguard that allows a thinking human the opportunity to pass beyond mere rhetoric and memetic manipulation, but the education this requires and discipline to exact, makes a mockery of any warrior's art, for in this we are discussing a Life's Work and the means of giving Life worth.

[quote]
Mr. Kissinger recites:

The US uses the UN for two things.
1) To keep the international community operating under a legal frame work which makes our job easier in maintaining the balance of power through out the world.

2) Having to enforce international law (instead of our will) against rogue regimes gives us a certain amount of moral authority.

However, both of these points are irrelevant if the UN doesn't follow our lead. In my opinion the UN is a kind of Frankenstein. A monster that has turned on its master.

When the US and its allies created the UN it wanted it to be a moral body. However, over the years the UN has become more and more political. The result is that the United Nations has turned into a League of Nations. It is ineffective and slow to act. Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power which means it is hard to form a consensus on anything.

A majority of the nations on the Security Council view the UN as a tool of the United States. This is because the international order, which the UN tries to maintain, has been created by us. Major nation-states which oppose our hegemony in the world have, as a goal, the obstruction of any action taken by the United States. They realize that any action that the United States takes without UN approval is bad PR domestically.

Therefore they use their veto power on the Security Council as a new age "balance of power".

While we view ourselves as a benevolent super power, other major nation-states view us as a hyper-power (a term coined by the Russians in the 90's). The term refers to a super power that is unchecked and aggressively expanding. [/quote]

So is this "Official Stance of Third Age Reich", Doctor?

It is our game...

Or we will take our bat and ball and beat you over the head with it?

The diminishment is not through coincidence, or accident; it is by design. The consistent and constant efforts of the extreme Right Wing Body Politic in the United States acting in concert with Select Interest groups worldwide to undermine and destroy this Great Institute of Modern Unity since its inauguration has been a factor. Before that, these same philosophical ideologies went to war only after they had gutted the first attempt at a League of Humanity.

Did they, this First League of Nations, as any Institutional Bureaucracy tends too, also self-destruct with materiel excess and misdirected efforts?

Again correct.

What "Enterprise of Man" has never encountered this upon its learning curve to survival?

Let me turn the topic again to a historical analysis and again I suggest you study both your chosen foe and the art of war.

[quote]
The Mongol conquests, which began in the early 13th century, caused a general series of movements of the Turkic peoples that continued for several centuries. The Mongols eventually brought under their domination almost all the areas held or inhabited by Turkic peoples.

The Kipchak, a Turkic people who had moved from the Irtysh River southwest across Kazakstan to establish themselves in what is now southwestern Russia, were destroyed by the expanding Mongols in 1239, and the last remnants of the declining Seljuq empire in Iran were likewise subjugated. But when the Mongol empire was divided following Genghis Khan's death (1227), a process of Islamization and Turkification ensued that resulted in the virtual absorption by the Turks of those Mongols outside Mongolian territory.

The influence of the Mongol rulers diminished, and real power in Central Asia passed to their Turkic provincial governors, one of whom, Timur, was able to extend his own authority over most of southwest and parts of South Asia in the late 14th century. In the 15th century, Russian expansion south toward the Caspian Sea drove the Turkic inhabitants there eastward into what is now Kazakstan, where they are now known as Kazaks.  

The most numerous of the Turkic peoples, after the Turks of Turkey, are the Uzbeks of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Their name seems to have originated from Öz Beg, the greatest khan of the Golden Horde (q.v.), who embraced Islam; the name came to be applied to the Muslim ruling class of the Golden Horde.
Another numerous group are the Kazak, who are thought to have been formed from the Kipchak tribes that constituted part of the Golden Horde. Most of them live in Kazakstan; there are also a large number of Chinese Kazak in Sinkiang and neighbouring Kansu and Tsinghai provinces of China.

The Kyrgyz, whose origin is obscure, chiefly inhabit Kyrgyzstan. There is a small minority of Kyrgyz in Afghanistan and western China.

The Azerbaijani, who inhabit Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, are one people; they were divided between the Russian and Persian empires in 1828 by the Treaty of Turkmanchay.

The Karakalpak, who are closely allied to the Kazak, inhabit Karakalpakstan (q.v.), which is a portion of Uzbekistan. The Tatars consist of two groups, those living in Tatarstan, a republic in Russia, and those inhabiting the Crimean Peninsula; the latter were deported from their homes en masse in 1944 and forcibly resettled in Uzbekistan, but since 1989 they have been returning to Crimea. The Tatars in Tatarstan are thought to be descended from indigenous Turkic tribes of the Kipchak group. It is probable, however, that they also contain Bulgarian elements.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999 ed.
[/quote]

You need to look deeper at the roots of the fighting my friendly Mr. "Cannon Fodder", here let me help show more of the history of your supposed Turkish Allies.

[quote]
A year after the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders, the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was established (Christmas Day, 1100). Thereafter, there was no effective check to the expansion of the crusaders' power until the capture of their stronghold at Edessa (modern Urfa, Tur.) by the atabeg of Mosul, 'Imad ad-Din Zangi ibn Aq Sonqur, in 1144. Zangi's anticrusader campaign was carried on after his death by his son Nureddin (Nur ad-Din Mahmud) and, more effectively, by the sultan Saladin, a protégé of the atabeg's family.

After consolidating his position in Egypt and Syria, Saladin waged relentless war against the "infidel" Franks (Western Christians).

On July 4, 1187, six days after the capture of Tiberias, he dealt the crusaders a crushing blow at the decisive battle of Hattin (Hittin). Most of Palestine was once again Muslim. Further attempts by the crusaders to regain control of Palestine proved ineffective, primarily because of incessant quarrels among the crusaders themselves.

Ironically, it was left to an emperor of dubious Christian standing, Frederick II, to negotiate in 1229, while under excommunication, a 10-year treaty that temporarily restored Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem to the Christians. In 1244, however, the Ayyubid sultan as-Salih Ayyub definitively restored Jerusalem to Islam.

While the Ayyubids of Saladin's house were losing ground to the Turkish-speaking Mamluks in Egypt, the Mongol sweep westward continued, placing the crusaders, as it were, between two fires. To make matters worse, the crusaders themselves were hopelessly riddled with dissension. In 1260 the Mamluk leader Baybars emerged as a champion of Muslim resurgence.

After taking part in the defeat of the Mongols at 'Ayn Jalut in Palestine, he became sultan; in the years 1263 to 1271 he carried out annual raids against the harassed Franks. His efforts were continued by the sultan al-Ashraf, during whose reign the last of the crusaders were driven out of Acre (May 18, 1291). A chapter in the history of Palestine thus came to an end.

The Mamluks and subsequent Muslim regimes ruled the area with only brief interruptions for the next 600 years.

Palestine under the Mamluks in the 14th century saw a period of prosperity for some; this was especially notable in Jerusalem, where the government sponsored an elaborate program of construction of schools, lodgings for travelers and Muslim pilgrims, and renovation of mosques.

Tax revenues, collected mainly from the villages, were spent largely on support of religious institutions. Palestine formed a part of the district of Damascus, second only to Egypt in the Mamluk domains.

The region suffered the ravages of several epidemics, including the great pestilence, the same Black Death that in 1347-51 devastated Europe.

The fall of the Bahri Mamluks and the rise of the Burji Mamluks (1382-1517) contributed to a gradual economic deterioration and a decrease in security. During the reign of the second Burji sultan, Nasir Faraj (1398-1405), the last onslaught of the Mongols, which made the name of Timur (Tamerlane) a synonym of destruction and plunder, took place.

Although Palestine was spared the pillage of his hordes, it could not escape its disastrous repercussions as the Mamluks moved through in a vain attempt to defend Damascus against the invader. The death of Timur in 1405, and the weakness of Iran in the ensuing century, pitted the Mamluks against the rising power of the Ottoman Turks for the control of western Asia.

Hostilities broke out in 1486 when Sultan Qait Bey contested with Bayezid II the possession of some border towns. The climax came three decades later on Aug. 24, 1516, when the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, routed the Mamluk armies. Palestine began its four centuries under Ottoman domination.

Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica
[/quote]

The Warrior Clans and their dominance of local regions gets its start in both the resistance and later assimilation with the Mongols that brought the blood drinking Horsemen down off the Steppes of Asia. Wahaddhi is such a branch of Islam and its roots run deep among the peoples you are depending upon to guard your back in this coming conflict.

This is also the real origin of al Qaeda and the real threat we face.

But what part of the Star Wars Program is in fact directed at this significant threat?

The Star Wars program is not a valid strategy it is an obsolete concept that is a dinosaur of the Cold War. It purpose was to force the Soviet economy into a combined Escalation of weapons requiring GNP they barely had with a parallel development of Anti ballistic Missiles that their economy couldn't afford at all.

What the Star Wars program is in fact is a modern variant of a Land Grab. It is a way of generating Windfall profits for a lagging industrial sector that is highly unpopular with the public unless they are made sufficiently "AFRAID and INSECURE" in order to foment their willingness to contribute to this sector. External threats are preferable but if these fail then the tried and true method is to return to the principles of Nationalism, the questioning of Loyalties and calling the opposition seditious ( McCarthyism), and when all else fails the rescinding of Civil Liberties and open suppression of individual Rights.

The image I have of popular over reaction is one that describes the testing for a knee's reflex only to find the patient kicking himself in the head once the sensitivity is found. Again I remind all that read this and attempt to evaluate the dilemmas facing our age, we pave the way into the future upon shifting sands with uncertain design. This is not a time to return to the dinosaur-like megalithic practices of "Old Minds" making "Old Promises" about what has worked in past "Old Cold Wars". It is the time to face a hazy future with subtlety, flexibility, and intelligence. We can defeat the enemy by defeating the causality of the conflict, this is certain. We can defeat the enemy by isolating access to resources, support, and recruits. We can defeat the enemy by assimilating them.

Understand this simple fact my youthful opponent, those you fear don't fear you, they fear me because I know their vulnerabilities, their hopes, their fears, and their desires better than you do. I am one of those who can identify and recruit a Josephus to campaign against the rebels. Your disdain for history will find you fodder on the battlefield but my love of those that serve the Glory of our Noble Purpose will engender wise investment in both effective strategy and tactics. I am a non-violent terrorist. I use the power of ideas and suggestion to accomplish much more than destructive violence ever could.

When we face a serious need then I might agree with the idea of a Planetary shield. Until we make "First Contact" with aggressive alien intent I would rather direct the capital necessary for programs such as missile defense at the most powerful deterrent we can develop against this Dark Force of Ignorance we face as a Common Enemy. This is through Education, Heath Care, giving People a true Voice in Democratic Institutions, and the creation of a healthy global economy that ameliorates the scourge of poverty, disease, fear, and parochial prejudice that is the TRUE medium for the fermentation of the "enemy".

This will not be done by contributing to the budgetary grab for capital investment that the Military Industrial establishment is using to hoodwink the masses by exploiting their fears and ignorance at this time.

[quote] "We have but one thing to fear and that is fear itself"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
[/quote]

[quote]
Lazarus said:

If you expect serious students of Global Politics to take American analysis seriously then it had better become, how should I say this...

less provincial.

We tend to look like dangerously powerful amateurs because too many of our own analysts believe the propagandistic pabulum fed to masses as excuses. We are also not very subtle in our policies and look openly duplicitous to even a casual inspection by objective observers.

and Kissing retorts:

First, we tend to look like amateurs because the nature of democracy makes our foreign policy approach inconsistent. [/quote]

We tend to look like idiots because the people claiming to be experts got their positions through nepotism and have little understanding of the full ramifications of the actions they are taking. While lone voices in the wilderness of simple citizen individuals with better minds and fewer degrees make not only more common sense but demonstrate greater depth of comprehension of what is going on.

The fact is that we are inconsistent because we are behaving duplicitously. But in this game it is only Standard Operating Procedure.

This is the House of Saud.

[quote]
Wahhabi, also spelled WAHABI, any member of the Muslim puritan movement founded by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century in Najd, central Arabia, and adopted in 1744 by the Sa'udi family.

(see also Index: Sa'ud, House of)

The political fortunes of the Wahhabi were immediately allied to those of the Sa'udi dynasty. By the end of the 18th century, they had brought all of Najd under their control, attacked Karbala`, Iraq, a holy city of the Shi'ite branch of Islam, and occupied Mecca and Medina in western Arabia.

The Ottoman sultan brought an end to the first Wahhabi empire in 1818, but the sect revived under the leadership of the Sa'udi Faysal I. The empire was then somewhat restored until once again destroyed at the end of the 19th century by the Rashidiyah of northern Arabia. The activities of Ibn Sa'ud in the 20th century eventually led to the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 and assured the Wahhabi religious and political dominance on the Arabian Peninsula.

Members of the Wahhabi call themselves al-Muwahhidun, "Unitarians," a name derived from their emphasis on the absolute oneness of God (tawhid). They deny all acts implying polytheism, such as visiting tombs and venerating saints, and advocate a return to the original teachings of Islam as incorporated in the Qur`an and Hadith (traditions of Muhammad), with condemnation of all innovations (bid'ah).

Wahhabi theology and jurisprudence, based, respectively, on the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah and on the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, stress literal belief in the Qur'an and Hadith and the establishment of a Muslim state based only on Islamic law.

Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica
[/quote]

Mr. Kissinger you are far from home, have you enlisted yet?

I advise you seek Command for it may be your only way to ensure that the Army of Auxiliaries whose constituency are the People of Color does not turn upon you someday. You would make a fine Centurion. The uniform is a great way to get girls. I won't even tell your girlfriend though she might have her own uniform before this is over.

Soldiers can only win or lose battles they cannot make peace.

As has happened every time before, when you and your kind are done ruining the world and laying waste to one another it will be the healers, peacemakers, and true diplomats that are brought back in to do the real work of Nation Building with none of the glory, fanfare, or spoils, and all of the responsibility.

That is if there are any survivors.


[quote]
Kissinger says:

You know what I hope for Saille? I hope for world peace. I really do. And not just for the humanity of it. You see, I have my selfish motives. Imagine the US taking the $400 billion dollars it spends on defense every year and putting it towards science and technological progress! Immortality would really be within our grasp. Having to spend such exorbitant amounts on defense hinders the progress of society.

However, and this is a big however, you have still not answered how Saddam should be dealt with. Are you saying that there is never justification for war? What about self defense? Should we not have stopped Hitler?

In the end it comes down to this: I agree with you whole heartedly on the desired outcome. I disagree with you vehemently on the way to get there. [/quote]

In this we can all agree we disagree. There is no doubt that the real debate is ultimately about methods and the profound lack of trust that we share in common for one another's proposals.

[quote]
And then Mr. Kissinger adds:

I know this is scary shit, but you must realize one thing. We are not Israel. If suicide bombers start detonating themselves in movie theaters and dirty bombs start going off in major cities we are going to go nuts. We'll drop nukes. We will destroy their civilization. There will be no Arabs left. I say this with no bravado, this is the worst possible scenario. It is also what OBL does not realize--that we can be terrorists also. That when our survival is put into question we become what he is--primitive and brutal. And we got the toys to back it up.

You can criticize the nature of the beast, but do you doubt that my assessment is correct? [/quote]

Absolutely, I have tamed your beast and your assessment is short sighted and much too limited in scope to have any long term probability of success.


[quote]
Lazarus Long,

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

bob
[/quote]

Here is what I consider to be a serious question. First of all, Truman didn't sacrifice 500, 000 lives to save an equal number of American Lives. He did it to save what strategists believed was a probable death toll of as many as three to five million lives, mostly Japanese from broad scale invasion and used the power of Nuclear Weapons as a Staged Demonstration with ignoble purpose but demonstrable pragmatic effect.

I have few qualms of making an example of Saddam, I question the example we are making. We are too comfortable with collective punishment and I think we would be wise to avoid such draconian tactics, and I think so because of Principle, but I also think they have a low probability of giving the message we in fact want to send. What I do think is that we are falling into a trap of fighting by the enemy's rules.

I don't think we should just contain Saddam, I think we should start ratcheting up the pressure systematically and transparently begin the "Liberation" of specific regions. It is time to start a very careful dissection rather than a Holy war. We could force his Command and Control Infrastructure an alternative outcome along with a countdown, but instead of going in for an occupation we force them to clean house and begin regrouping. Then we continue negotiating.

[quote]
Kissinger says:

QUOTE (bobdrake12 @ Feb 5, 2003)
Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

As I have said earlier, I believe that there is an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection. Is there conclusive proof? No, at least not publicly. You keep asking for evidence. Unless you have absolutely no trust in your government then the Powell presentation offered proof of Iraq's WMD. However, in regards to the Al Qaeda connection you must realize that Iraq offers a perfect example of the problem we are dealing with today. There is not always going to be conclusive proof. That is the nature of these shadow terrorist networks. So by asking for conclusive proof you are living in the world of the past.

We have similar goals, you and I. We want to live forever. This is a worthy goal. These terrorist entities, these backwards middle eastern states--they are a threat to us achieving our goals. I want them dead. I want them destroyed. I don't care about justification. I don't care about right and wrong. I care about eliminating them. Do you understand my mind set. When I give you your moral justifications I am placating you. In my minds eye I do no need moral justification, I find them to be a handicap. The only reason I argue morality is because I know other people need to have things justified in those terms. Like any aspiring (potential) politician I have learned that morality is a tool of the trade.
[/quote]

You have the image backward and you are not seeing our enemy at all. Just because this group is against all forms of technological advancement doesn't mean they are ignorant fools. And if you haven't noticed it your propagandistic attitude about your opponent has not offered you a single clue as to his true strengths and whereabouts, no positively confirmed and locked on target at all. You are just another distraction in battle and more than likely to not only get yourself killed but all that would follow your Command. A good Commander never squanders his forces or spends Human Capital on the unnecessary slaughter of innocents.

[quote]
Your criticisms on Afghanistan are unwarranted. Before we went in all the doubters were whispering in the American public's ear, "We're going to get bogged down just like the Russians did." We didn't. Then afterwards, the success that we did have just wasn't good enough for them. We did destroy a lot of Al Qaeda. We took out the Taliban. We dismantled the terrorist infrastructure. We set our guy up in Kabul. I think our performance in Afghanistan was quick and pretty. The one regret is, of course, Tora Bora.

As far as putting boots on the ground at Tora Bora... I think we should have used nukes. The collateral damages would have been minimal because its in the middle of nowhere and you probably would have gotten most of the rats hiding in the caves from either the explosions or the fallout.

I also think that the reason we didn't put guy on the ground is because of Tommy Franks. The guy looks like a goof ball and I personally think he is incompetent. He is currently under investigation for allowing his wife to sit in on a classified meeting. I just know that behind the scenes Rumsfeld is dragging his sorry ass along for the ride. As soon as the combat phase in the Iraq conflict is over I predict Franks will make his departure.

As far as the Neo Hawks having an aversion to nation building, times change.  [/quote]


We did not take out the Taliban we forced them back into their Hills, Hills they have retreated into for thousands of years. Hills that have defended them from Alexander to Montbatten.

Second, we did not dismantle their terrorist structure and I have already provided the CIA reports from G. Tenet that confirms what I claim.

Third, Tommy Franks makes as good a fatted pig for the BBQ as any sacrificial goat you have in mind but he was only following orders and doesn't want to follow the order to fall on his sword.

Fourth, If we had used Nukes at Tora Bora the Chinese wouldn't even be considering our ideas they would have closed up their Operations and Observations and decided to support the North Korean Nuclear Missile Program openly. You just have no interest in winning do you?

You are so interested in making a good show. Nukes would have killed bin Laden but served his purposes more than ours. We would have irrevocably started WWIII. The incremental steps of escalation would have been impossible to stop and you are very wrong in thinking you can both pay the MAD Strategy of WMD and the Tactical Nuclear Card. It stops being preventable MAD when it starts being tactically acceptable.


[quote]
Let me get this straight. We're going into Iraq to supply Europe with more oil? And they're complaining about it!?! God the French really are assholes.  [/quote]

No more the asshole then any other solely self interested party to this crime. The French and the Germans have been developing successful contract negotiation for some time with the Iraqis. They are about to lose there highly lucrative contracts if we invade. But also your promise of oil spent for our profit as a people is also a sleight of hand, that is if the Administration is not forcing Secretary Powell to be duplicitous to the UN when he says that the Iraqi oil is for rebuilding Iraq. If this is the real agenda then it most certainly is not in accord with yours.

[quote]
Don't dismiss my knowledge of Ancient Rome. I am not ignorant of history. Originally Rome was an empire of conquest. They gained more wealth from the civilizations they conquered than the amount it cost them to do the conquering. Eventually it began to cost them more to hold onto these conquests than it was worth. Gradually their economy went from one of conquest to agriculture. Their empire started to crumble when their crop yields started to diminish and their rate of return started to decrease. There are other theories but that is the one I buy into. [/quote]

Well if that is the one you'll buy then I have a gently used bridge that I might interest you in. You did well in History at school I suppose, you certainly have memorized the answers. Too bad they are little more than hollow fairy tales meant for children. I suggest an independent and serious study of History is long over due.

[quote]
No the perspective of the world is not in accord with the US. I agree. And indeed, we should not trample on the interests of everyone else unless one day we may wake up to find we are all alone. But I ask you this. Aren't we as good as it gets?
[/quote]
NO. We are good but we have yet to fulfilled even a small percentage of our true potential.

[quote]
Do other free democracies really have a choice? Further, who is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 15 on the list combined. Let's run down the GDP #s, shall we?

US 10.6 TR
CH 4.6
JP 2.8
IN 2.5
GR 2.2
EN 2.0
FR 2.0
RU 1.0

AOL Time Warner lost $100 billion dollars last year. That's the GDP of Southern Africa! [/quote]

I don't see the figures for al Qaeda's budget.

I would suggest to you my young friend that in this Age of Asymmetric Warfare they are currently getting much more Bang For Their Buck then you, and all the Democracies combined are, and that is because they are like Banker's they are playing with other people's money. They are getting us to do their dirty work for them.

[bobdrake12]

Lazarus Long,

Do your last two posts better fit the topic:

Should The Us Go To War With Iraq?


As an aside, I noticed you quoted Kissinger as stating:

Further, freeing up Iraq's oil supply and distributing the wealth equitably among the Iraqi citizens will give the average Iraqi wealth beyond their wildest dreams. By establishing a viable, wealthy, democracy in the region we will put pressure on the other regimes in the region to democratize.

Another indirect effect of taking control of Iraq's oil supply will be that we destroy OPEC's monopoly and consequently its ability to maintain artificially high oil prices. Why do you think all of the oil producing nations in the Middle East are so afraid of us occupying Iraq?

I can assure you it is not for their love of Saddam. The real reason is two fold; their fear of US troops in the region and their desire to maintain the price of oil. Expect oil to drop below $20 a barrel when we get Iraq up and running as the largest self serve the world has ever seen. One of the side effects of lower oil prices will be the possible destabilization of regimes in the region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, where almost half of their GDP is oil revenue, would face the real possibility of social upheaval when their revenue stream from oil dries up. The result would either be democracy-great but unlikely- or the rising of a Radical Islamic regime which would give us an excuse to go in and set things up the way we want them to be.

Brutal?

Yes, but also very effective.

Is this what this upcoming Iraq War is really all about? Talk about bait and switch. [ph34r]

Currently, the Bush Administration is giving other reasons for wanting to go to war.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 16 February 2003 - 05:22 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

He said it, and I quoted.

And Yes, I have been trying to assert a duplicitous policy all along. I also apologize for the posting problems I appear to have overloaded the "filters"

ooops
so sorry :(

I will correct the posting problem as quick as I can but I also want to add that these topics don't just overlap they are being made to overlap through Admistrative Policy, I am trying the lay th efounddation oabout WHY they overlap.

Call it a Budgetary "Land Grab" by modern Corporate Robber Barons.

The Star Wars program is the Bait and Switch. A false promise whose true motive is more about diverting capital to specific corporate interests rather than about security.

[Lazarus Long]

You are correct that I should cross post these to Iraq but the reason I did this was also to demonstrate the logic of what the Koreans are doing to US and also to link the issues of Responsible fiscal policy and get everyone to realize that Missile shields offer ZERO DEFNSE against al Qaeda.

The irony of overkill is that this is how we bankrupted the Soviet Economy by forcing it to divert overwhelming and UNNECESSARY percentages of its GNP into an Arms Race that we could win. But in an Assymetric contest the probabilities side with David not Goliath.

I call this the Metaphor of MIRV's.

I hope my point is clear, any statistical probability thought to be derived from a Star Wars program can be easilly undermined with the slightest creativity.

[DJS]

My goodness, so many insults and so little time to defend...

My predictions on the time line for a war in Iraq are just that, predictions! I can take a shot at it, can't I? Of course, I am not privy to any special intel, so my guess is just a guess.

Let's see what else do I have to go over...

You really think that you are so enlightened, don't you Lazarus? Watching your nation's foreign policy approach must make you cringe. So unsophisticated, so brutal, so misguided. Did you ever think that maybe there is a reason that people with your mind set never make it to positions of power? Oh, I can hear you stating the inequities of the system.

Do you feel you have had a pyric victory because your side has mounted a sizable show of protest? It means nothing. The Administration would be more concerned if the average guy from the heartland was opposed to the war. Most of the protesters have radical agendas, the public knows this. You mock my time table for war, but in a few weeks you will not be laughing. I may be off by a week or two, but I am confident that my analyses will hold up.

And that is the real difference. We debate here on equal footing, but not in the real world. In the real world my ideas are being implemented. In the real world the main stream looks at your philophy as dangerous, naive, and impractical. You can mock me and feign moral superiority all you want. It doesn't matter to me. To me you are a relic, a product of a different era. You have 60's written all over you.

[Lazarus Long]

In the real world millions of people marched against the policies that you claim are being implemented. I tend to agree with you that they are being implemented regardless of their concerns, and if that does in fact happen there will be a reckoning, a major reckoning.

Relax my friend this isn't just about you and me and your failed predictions, it is about the fact that politics like war is far more arcane than you grant and I guarantee that if these policies don't get modified to meet the shifting challenges they will simply fail.

My side, your side, it won't matter and Our Ship of State will sink with us both aboard. When we hit the water you can scream it was my fault, and I will swim and work to survive.

So much anger you should relax.

I thought it was very brave of you to stick your neck out and make such bold predictions. Of course it did make it easier to take your head as such a well exposed target.

That is what happens in cambat, real combat that is.

In chess just consider it Checkmate for the first round.

The policies you have been promoting are the true relics of the seventies I am not a "Flower Child". Quite the contrary I am persona non grata among that genre of old friends.

I have defeated foes that significantly more powerful than me but I make sure to study my opponent better than you do Mr. Analyst. That is why even though you don't want to hear it I am advising you to beware that you aren't just over confident but that you are falling headlong into a trap with the proposed policies.

Oh and, before I forget to up the ante a little for the next round I would also remind you that everything rides on this crap shoot because if there are screw up you can guarantee a massacre at the polls in the 2004 elections and all bets are off.

This isn't WWII all over again, It isn't even deja vu all over again. It is a whole new ball game. And the Dinosaurs are the ones making real policy and strategy.

I am also nicknamed "Mr. Fix It" that is because I am usually the fall back proposition, the guy brought in all too often, all too late, to remedy the damage from bad policy. I am the one people often turn to to try and get the systems back up and running after the disaster.

In this instance I have decided to try and prevent the problem as opposed to just preparing for the aftermath. "An ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure".

[DJS]

The Star Wars program is the Bait and Switch. A false promise whose true motive is more about diverting capital to specific corporate interests rather than about security.--LL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really believe that SDI is about corporate interests? I thought you just said it was the result of a paranoid establishment afraid of China. [?]

[DJS]

[quote]In the real world millions of people marched against the policies that you claim are being implemented.

In the real world there is the silent majority.

[DJS]

Oh and, before I forget to up the ante a little for the next round I would also remind you that everything rides on this crap shoot because if there are screw up you can guarantee a massacre at the polls in the 2004 elections and all bets are off.--LL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ain't life a bitch [cry]. But if things do go well and the economy picks up...
Glass half full, thank you very much.

[DJS]

I thought it was very brave of you to stick your neck out and make such bold predictions. Of course it did make it easier to take your head as such a well exposed target.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't combating you pervasive appeasement when I made my predictions in mid January. Situations such as war and peace are fluid, you know this.

[DJS]

Please do not test my credulity with promises of a Cheap and Effective system, particularly in light of the HISTORY of the cost of such programs and technologies.
----------------------------------------------------
The Chinese press has been threatening to enter another round of Incremental Nuclear escalation if we go forward with a Star Wars Program and as our mathematicians explain all they need to do is create significantly larger arsenals of complex MIRV's holding dozens of smaller warheads. These would also include mixed payloads with deceptive dummy warheads designed to simply divert enough tactical firepower to allow a sufficient quantity of warheads to get through. It all boils down to numbers, and if any, I repeat ANY AT ALL, get through cities will be destroyed.
-------------------------------------------------------
I would add I DON'T think that this technology offers any serious deterrence to threats from NEO's or Bollides and any other possible object that might come in out of the blue. Frankly, it seems like extortion to me, and the idea of taking my taxes to pay for this is like paying off the mob. I don't feel protected and the protectors are beginning to scare me. --LL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I would never try to tell you this program will be cheap. Second, there are aspects of it that deal with the War on Terror (protecting against missile launches from erect mobile launchers on cargo vessels). Third, we are so far ahead of the curve on this technology that we can anticipate tech advancements way before our competitors.

MIRVs can only be dispatched during the "terminal" phase of the missile's trajectory. If the interceptor were able to reach the ballistic missile before seperation the MIRVs would be of no consequence. Also, current technology allows for seven (7) multiple indepedent reentry vehicles, which is not a great deal for a developed missile defense system to handle. I guess you didn't read my statement about the effects of redundancy on success rates.

What you are failing to understand is that we are so far ahead of the field in this area of defense that the odds of a new "Cold War" are miniscule. You see, we have China by the balls. If they don't try to catch up to our tech push they will be even more hopelessly far behind us. On the other hand, if they do try to catch up and in effect initiate a new Cold War we will have exposed them for what they are-- a hostile competitor. At which point we cut their economic life line and stunt them. It is better to try this opening gambit now when China's GDP is still in the mid $4TR range.

Finally, if you don't think this technology offers a significant deterrent to hostile states then you are the one who is showing your ignorance on SDI. Study some more and come back to me. I am superior to you in this field.

[DJS]

Giving Missile Defense a Chance
December 19, 2002

President Bush calls it a “modest” first step. True—but it’s one that promises to make Americans much safer in the long run.

Specifically, the president’s decision to deploy a missile defense means that our total vulnerability to missile attack—yes, total; we could do nothing in the event of an accidental or deliberate launch—will soon go the way of the Berlin Wall.

The 10 land-based interceptors the president plans to put in Alaska and California by 2004, along with 10 more interceptors by 2005 or 2006, will provide us limited protection from long-range missiles fired from North Korea and other rogue regimes. More importantly, as technology progresses further, this initial set-up can serve as the foundation of a more complex system designed to stop other types of missiles.

Critics call the president’s move a mistake. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the outgoing chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says it “violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work.”

He’s wrong. Yes, the most recent test, conducted Dec. 11, was a flop; an interceptor rocket failed to separate from its booster shortly after being launched from an island in the central Pacific. But some context, if you please: Five of the last eight tests have been successes, including the four that preceded the Dec. 11 test.

And that doesn’t even count the successful tests that have been conducted on shorter range missiles, including the Navy’s Standard Missile-3 and the Army’s upgraded Patriot system called PAC-3.

“When you look across the board, we have made, I think, significant progress in our overall hit-to-kill technology,” said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Missile Defense Agency. Critics who used to say that hitting “a bullet with a bullet” is impossible are reduced to grousing about the fact that we don’t have a perfect system ready to go yet.

Sorry, but perfection is a thinly disguised excuse for inaction. Besides, the critics don’t seem to realize that deploying a system now will bring us more quickly to the best system we can deploy. “The reason I think it’s important to start is because you have to put something in place and get knowledge about it and experience with it,” in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Other critics deride missile defense as a distraction from the war on terrorism -- something that will waste billions of dollars that could go toward other defense efforts. On the contrary: As increased security and heightened alertness make a Sept. 11-style attack harder to mount, we can expect to see terrorists turning to missiles capable of delivering the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they’re trying to obtain.

Critics also complain that missile defense will help fuel an arms race -- that it will undermine efforts to reduce the number of missiles aimed at U.S. targets. They prefer to put their faith in outdated agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which prohibited a territorial defense against ballistic missile attack.

President Bush has proven this argument to be utterly false. At the same time he was moving forward with his missile-defense program and withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty, he was concluding an arms-control agreement with Russia to reduce offensive strategic arsenals on both sides to levels not seen since the early 1970s.

But, critics may reply, what about diplomacy? Won’t missile defense hurt that? As Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist with the Cambridge, Mass.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, says, the Bush administration is “not going to do the other things they should be doing to deal with emerging threats, like negotiate with North Korea.”

Perhaps Ms. Gronlund doesn’t realize that we have negotiated with North Korea. The Agreed Framework, signed in 1994, called on North Korean officials to freeze their nuclear program in exchange for two civilian light-water nuclear reactors. They got their reactors … and, as they themselves recently revealed, kept moving their nuclear program forward. Indeed, the long-range missile capability of their nuclear program makes the deployment of missile defense even more urgent.

The American people should be heartened by what President Bush has done. Last December, he brought 30 years of deliberate vulnerability to a close when he pulled us out of the ABM Treaty. Now, a year later, he’s decided to give missile defense a chance to show how much it can do to protect us all from attack. His initial plan may be “better than nothing,” in Secretary Rumsfeld words, but it’s exactly what we need: A start.

[Lazarus Long]

The second best thing about space travel is that the distances involved make war very difficult, usually impractical, and almost always unnecessary.

This is probably a loss for most people, since war is our race's most popular diversion, one which gives purpose and color to dull and stupid lives.  

But it is a great boon to the intelligent man who fights only when he must -- never for sport.  
From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long by R.A. Heinlein

As I hope you are realizing from the Korea thread that I started, your policy approaches for the future are not only dangerously old fashioned, they are pragmatically inadequate to meet the real threats being posed.

Cheops' Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.  
From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long by R.A. Heinlein

The grandiose promises of a Star Wars program are dwarfed by the magnitude of bureaucratic boondoggling involved. It isn't that this is just about defense, it is all about raiding the Treasury. But the truth is that it is diverting vast amounts of capital away from technologies and strategies more applicable to the threats we are in fact facing.

It also provides a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. It is pandering to fear for profit, which in its turn has the counterproductive effect of weakening instead of strengthening.

An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.  
From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long by R.A. Heinlein

What is being proposed at its most fundamental level, is capable of being done for vastly less than most people think by applying technologies and strategies that aren't even yet being contemplated.

I promise that if we go down this course you will find out what I mean when our enemies demonstrate I am right by building the counter methods at a fraction of the cost of the defense mechanism you propose.

That system will not only be effective against all you are arguing, it will eliminate the value of your Strategic Offense by taking a pathway technologically that you have yet to recognize because of your monomania with the Old Ideas of Star Wars.

[DJS]

Your objections have been duly noted.

[DJS]

Missile defense: Deploy when?
James Hackett

The latest gambit of the never-say-die opponents of missile defense is to argue that more time and tests are needed. Over the years, opponents have agreed to research, development and even testing of missile defenses, but have steadfastly opposed actually deploying them.
Wedded to the concept of mutual assured destruction, they said defenses were destabilizing. And besides, they claimed, deployment would be expensive, implying that it might draw money away from their favored social welfare programs.
Arguing that missile defenses should not be deployed before completing more testing is the same as arguing that Iraq should not be invaded before undergoing more inspections. Both missile testing and inspections of Iraq have gone on for a long time. Opponents of action against Saddam Hussein really don't care whether he disarms, just as opponents of missile defense really don't care about testing. What they want is to procrastinate indefinitely to block what they don't like.
The testing issue arose after President Bush said in December the first 20 interceptors of a national missile defense would be put in the field in Alaska and California in 2004 and 2005 as part of an operational test facility that could defend the country if necessary. This will be the first deployment of a national missile defense. And it is none too soon, considering the recent revelation by CIA Director George Tenet that North Korea now has the capability of reaching the U.S. mainland with ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear weapons.
There have been 10 flight tests of the missile defense system to be deployed, of which eight were intercept attempts. Of those, five succeeded. There is solid confidence that the key hit-to-kill technology works fine and that the minor problems encountered are being corrected. The effort now is to complete development and testing of a new booster rocket for use in the operational system.
Flight tests of two new boosters are being conducted this year, with intercept tests suspended until the boosters are ready. Despite the call of critics for more intercept tests before deploying anything, Lt. Col. Rick Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency says the effort is on track and "there is nothing to preclude operational fielding of up to 10 missile (interceptors) by the end of 2004."
In order to get new weapons through the lengthy development process and into the hands of the warfighter, the Pentagon is adopting a new way of acquiring weapons called "evolutionary spiral development." This involves moving a new weapon into the field early and using it in operations for realistic and rigorous testing, then developing its capabilities further on the basis of that experience.
This is a departure from the slow, methodical method of testing new weapons for many years before going into production. It often takes decades to get new weapons into the field, an untenable situation when there is a current threat such as that presented by North Korea. In a Feb. 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "In the case of missile defense, I think we need to get something out there, in the ground, at sea, and in a way that we can test it, we can look at it, and find out — learn from the experimentation with it."
The Democrats' answer came a few days later in a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, who wrote, "If anything, [missile defense] should be required to meet more stringent test standards than normally required." In other words, don't deploy anything that might defend the country until it has been tested forever. This was followed quickly by supporting articles in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, the two press voices most stridently opposed to missile defense.
Then there appeared quotes from Philip Coyle, President Clinton's director of testing at the Pentagon, who said, "Without these tests, we may never know whether this system works or not." This ignores the test results to date, and the fact that missile defenses will undergo continuous testing over many years. What's more, the weapons initially deployed are to be improved through block upgrades every two years.
When Mr. Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he was grilled on deployment plans by Sens. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, and Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, longtime critics of missile defense. But the letter to the Pentagon was signed by Mrs. Feinstein, considered a moderate Democrat, to give it the appearance of broader support. That will not work, because her image is changing. On Feb. 26, Mrs. Feinstein attacked Mr. Bush in what was reported as "an unusually hard-edged speech," in which she called for more time for weapons inspections in Iraq and accused the president of making the world "more dangerous, not safer."
What is dangerous is the Democrats' call for extensive additional testing before putting defenses in place. Their latest argument is just more of the same old opposition. It should be ignored.

[Lazarus Long]

Arguing that missile defenses should not be deployed before completing more testing is the same as arguing that Iraq should not be invaded before undergoing more inspections. Both missile testing and inspections of Iraq have gone on for a long time. Opponents of action against Saddam Hussein really don't care whether he disarms, just as opponents of missile defense really don't care about testing. What they want is to procrastinate indefinitely to block what they don't like.

This is false for all the assumptions being made except one, the two arguments are alike in demanding that sufficient information is gathered to insure that the implied methods will work both for the strategy of invasions proposed and the weapons systems promise as well.

All the rest is then predicated on a false assumption. There is little worse then creating a large scale totla Defense System the doesn't fulfil its pormise and causes numerous proven defense strategies from being built instead. But above all else reducing the obsessive/compulsive investiture in an ARM RACE itself should be circumvented. But these are two separate issues. Proving the Anti Ballistic Missile and Anti Tactical Missile System actually works is of course required BEFORE we can even determine whether the system will provide geopolitical protection or just increase the level of tension and dissipation of American resources.

This is an escalation militarily if we are going to claim the Fronteir as ours in a colonial fashion. Orbital Space is a Frontier State held in COMMON by all Humanity. We operate there by agreement and so do all other Nations. Attempting to restrict access to other Nations that as yet haven't achieved access would be seen as extraterritoriality and an act of war by numerous other Space Age Technologies.

The United States does not hold title to the Moon, nor more importantly to the discussion, Orbital Space. The only early watch system that can have any real detterent value will be Orbital forts that are nuclear powered to drive the Intercept Beam and back up AMB interceptors.

Any attempt to dominate Orbital Space with such orbital forts will destroy all treaties that currently insure peaceful development instead of a Race to build battleforts by ALL capable Nations. Any attempt to say the United States possesses the exclusive right to such forts will place a number of Nations in direct Military Confrontation with us and will make WWII look positively innocent. Don't Close the frontier with Military Battleforts, Open it up to Private Enterprise.

[bobdrake12]

The United States does not hold title to the Moon, nor more importantly to the discussion, Orbital Space.

Lazarus Long,

Who does own "title" to the Moon?

I believe the last flight to the Moon, Apollo 17, was in 1972. How come none have been reportedly made since?

bob

[Lazarus Long]

The United Nations is the titular overseer under "Convention" as I understand it.

If it interests you, I am after all also known as "The Man who Sold the Moon".

I am sure something could be arrainged

The idea is that the "Rights" to the Moon are not unlilke all claims upon virgin frontier, first you must become intimate and inhabit.

No single Nation holds the territory as ALL hold it in common for ALL Humanity. But it is open for exploration and development and what you develop you would be able to claim as I understand the UN Convention on this. But perhaps we should make some searches, here and there. Colonies would own the resources they develop.

Of course, first one has to launch from somewhere.

Why haven't humans returned to the Moon?

This is a troublesome issue to me. How many shuttles will it cost? How many more sacrifices will it take till people realize that we need to get it right and go?

I would love to enter the X-Prize, all we need is solid team and the capital to back them.

Want to go? [ph34r]

[DJS]

Bob,

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prevents nations from claiming outer space.

Anti-capitalists in the Third World attempted to block private enterprise in outer space with the 1979 Moon Treaty, but it was a failure.

And I like how you used the word "reportedly". Are you one of those people who believes man has not walked on the moon? [wacko]

Edited by Kissinger, 08 March 2003 - 05:02 AM.

[DJS]

Serious about defending America

(Washington, D.C.): Some good may yet come in the wake of the disastrous decision to permit North Korean ballistic missiles to reach Yemen -- a nation long supportive of international terrorism and still awash with al Qaeda operatives. This latest evidence of the accelerating, world-wide proliferation of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction may contribute to a decision as early as Tuesday by President Bush to begin, at long last, the deployment of defenses against such missiles.

Ship-Launched Ballistic Missile Threats

The case for putting anti-missile defenses into place was underscored by this sobering fact: A ship like the North Korean vessel that was covertly carrying Scud B missiles and forcibly intercepted in the Arabian Sea last week could be steaming off the coast of the United States at this very moment.

There are some 25,000 ships plying the world's oceans at any given time. Who are the real owners of many of these vessels is often unclear, as is the true nature of their cargoes. Is it possible, therefore, that one could be transporting a Scud-type missile -- loaded, not in its hold under sacks of concrete, but onto a transporter-erector-launcher -- and remain undetected as it moved within range of one of America's many littoral population centers?

The limits of our maritime surveillance capabilities are such that we might not have any inkling of an attack until after the missile had been erected and launched. And, since we have no defense currently deployed in this country against even one such missile, there would be nothing we could do to stop it from arriving with deadly effect.

Think this scenario implausible? Think again. The United States demonstrated the capability to launch a ballistic missile from a surface ship nearly forty years ago.

Then, in 1998, the blue-ribbon Commission on Ballistic Missile Threats chaired by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that others might seek such a capability. The bipartisan commission noted that, by so doing, nations without long-range missiles would nonetheless be able to attack the United States. And, on October 24th, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told a conference organized by Frontiers of Freedom think-tank that an unnamed "rogue state" was known to be interested in such an option.

The episode with Yemen -- whose government had initially denied any knowledge of the North Korean missile shipment -- offers an even more alarming prospect: What if the rogue state enabled terrorists to get their hands on a missile and its launcher? As every day's headlines bring new reports of the deadly weapons programs of terrorist-sponsoring states (notably, Iraq, North Korea and Iran), it must be assumed that such a hand-me-down, sea-launched missile could be used to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to our shores.

President Bush is reportedly poised to respond to this and other missile threats by ordering for the first time the deployment of missile defenses. While the details of his decision remain closely held, it appears that Mr. Bush will direct the Navy to modify ships equipped with the Aegis fleet air defense system so as to enable them to shoot down ballistic missiles. Three successive tests in recent months have demonstrated the inherent feasibility of this system. Thanks to the existing 60-ship Aegis infrastructure, it offers the fastest and least expensive way to begin defending the United States against the threat of ballistic missile attack. The mobility of these ships, moreover, enables them to be positioned to provide protection as needed to U.S. forces and allies overseas, as well.

The President's decision will presumably also clear the way for other missile defense capabilities to be brought to bear as quickly as possible. These could involve ground-based anti-missile systems, airborne lasers and space-based sensors and, in due course, weapons (interceptors and directed energy).

Bottom Line

The most important thing is to begin putting defenses into place where they may be able to deter missile attacks, and to stop them if deterrence fails. Just as Mr. Bush concluded with respect to his difficult decision to allow the vaccination of all Americans against smallpox, under present wartime circumstances, it is more important to have some anti-missile capability -- even if it is imperfect -- than to remain completely vulnerable.

The time has come to defend America. If President Bush decides to do so by swiftly beginning anti-missile deployments at sea, he will not only be responding appropriately to the threat posed by the ongoing proliferation of Scud and more capable ballistic missiles. He will, for the first, time be creating a real disincentive for actual and prospective enemies to invest precious resources in these delivery systems -- an invaluable new strategic tool for addressing and countering the North Korean regime, without having to wage war against it.