Star Wars is Dead, but Missile Defence Isn't

[Lilly]

ARE WE GOING INTO A RENEWAL OF THE ARMS RACE?

On Tuesday Jan.18,00 the U.S. government unsuccessfully tested an experimental anti-missile system. A mock warhead was launched to simulate a nuclear attack. A prototype missile interceptor was supposed to detect and destroy the mock warhead, but failed to hit its target.

But it is far from the end for missile defence......

The Whitehouse plans on spending $2.2 billion to the coming year's budget to pay for more testing. The Republican-dominated Congress is in favour of developing a missile defence system. Texas Governor George W. Bush and
Senator John McCain of Arizona are also behind it.

A green light for missile defence would have profound implications for North American security.

For more than a generation, Western strategic docrine has rested on the principals of "Mutually Assured Destruction," or MAD. That principle helped prevent a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. To keep MAD in its place, the two super-powers agreed not to develop missile defences by signing an Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty.

If the USA succeeds in developing a working defence system, they would have the upper hand with 1st strike capability; MAD is thrown out of the equation.
Russia feels threatened and China is angry and that would leave them no other recourse but to go ahead with developing their
own systems.
If the Americans develop this, Europe would feel isolated and be compelled to side with Russia, and then we would again have, pacts and blocks; - continental blocks.

I know we have heard some sabre rattling from Moscow by acting Prime Minister V. Putin about the use of nuclear missiles, but most people have missed the key word in his speech.
"IF we are attacked, we will use every means at our disposal to protect our Sovereignity, and that includes...nuclear missiles."

Despite the end of the Cold War, the American government says, that Russia still has thousands of nuclear warheads.
Duhhhh!!!You think??????
Moscow would be tempted to improve and modernize its offensive arsenal to close the technological gap.

The Topol-M, can slip past the even best U.S. defence shield. (Don't you agree, MADRUSSIAN?)(by the way, where is the little
bugger?)

~~~~~~Welcome to the New Arms Race!~~~~~~~~

All the billions could be put to better use.

My questions are:

Do we need this, and what would the implications be?

Is it because Pakistan and India each have unveiled new missiles,
or the ultra-Communist regime in North Korea tested a missile that could possibly reach the West Coast of the USA?

Is it feasible that these countries have sophisticated technology
to build a carrier like a Minuteman II, that would be able to deliver a warhead as far as North America?

Is President Clinton agreeing to spend money on research just to take the thunder out of his Republican opponents?


Does anyone know about THAAD,(Theatre High-Altitude Area Defence System, which the army is working on?

During WWII, Admiral Yammamotto posed this question, "Do we want to wake the Sleeping Giant?" He was referring to the United States.
Today, one can ask the same question about China....

Phillip: Did those missiles whizzing near Australia keep you up and interfere with your watching the Australian Open? ~smile~

This is a step back into the dark shadows of the mushroom clouds.....leaves me a little edgy....
No wonder 29 Palms is on alert. ;-)

Regards,
LillyNomad




[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 21 January 2000).]

[Phillip]

Wow Lilly,

Great piece of info.

As long as Kournikova is still in, I won't care

These are important things to look at in the near future...

[Johnson123]

LILLY,

As long as there are technologies to defend lives in case of nuclear war they should be used. Your tactic is typical mid-70's logic in that fear of not having the technology is worse that improvements toward peace.
Those other countries are now in the race so good measures are needed.
I dont think your crying about it will do any good as the United States will do what is best for IT"S people and there safety.

REX XX

[johnstruthers]

Of course, technology will be used. But the US is currently sending all the wrong messages to everyone on the planet. It has singlehandedly granted moral suasion to all those countries that had nuclear ambitions. The US is shredding thirty years of international efforts to limit the spread, and use, of nuclear weapons. It is not in the US interest to do so. There is a powerful right wing contingent that seeks comfort in Cold War behaviours. The US no longer recognizes, let alone abides by, simple protocols that would alleviate the rightful fears of a monopolar world ruled by a dangerous hegemon. The technology is not the issue. The unilateral abrogation of treaties drawn in good faith is. There are procedures that the US could follow that would mitigate this. It refuses to do so. If this were a lone instance, it would be one thing. But the US has recently decided that the agreed upon interests of the rest of the world are of no consequence to it in many areas: pollution, biological weapons, answerability before the World Court, and elsewhere. This is dangerous and arrogant. The US' national spokesman on these issues recently became Jesse Helms. There is much to complain about, and it deserves a lot of attention in these forums and others. No one who is alarmed is a crybaby. They are rightly alarmed. The US is singlehandedly reintroducing dangers to the world that reasonable people believed were under control.

[Lilly]

J123: Haven't we met somewhere before? heheh!
Haven't I heard that line before????

Who's crying? You got that all wrong.
This would not improve peace, just breed mistrust and bring back the Cold War.

My concern is that nothing is fool proof.

I don't feel comfortable knowing that we have missiles pointed at us and vice versa. Even with a missile defence system, how many of the i.e. 2000 do you think will get through?

This is a step into the dark all the same. The old concensus that the best defence against nuclear war was no defence at all is disintigrating.

If one has first strike capability, it puts the others at a disadvantage, and only a balance of power would ensure that either side would strike first.

But there is nothing worse than false security.

I wonder whether Canada will be dragged into the debate. A MD shield would work best under the patronage of NORAD.

I do thank you for your comments; any other observations?

p.s. If you can remember the 70's, you were not there!!!~wink~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phillip: Yes, Kournikova is a great tennis player, and she is a cute little 17 yr. old blond too! ~smile~

LillyNomad



[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 21 January 2000).]

[johnstruthers]

only in the presence of great beauty and in-in-in-intellect.

[andrewblow]

Hi, guys, the significance of 'star wars....and beyond' just goes to show the reality (and I mean REALITY) of Biblical prophesy regarding 'End times' (Matthew 24, etc.) This is all planned, inevitable and must be accepted. Easy to say when you believe it in context with the rest of Scripture - but scares the proverbial pants off people who have no sure confidence in a God of action. Put reality and Scripture together and it all makes sense.