you need look no further than the Post Office.

why do they need to spend 100s of millions on advertising?

I thought you said let's look at the facts plural. Then you provided only one. Here is another fact for you. North Korea is developing and improving their nuclear program as we speak.

__________________
lambaste me not

If it didn't work because some launch command failed, that doesn't prove that the technology that was being tested doesn't work. To think that would be like opining that your car needs a new engine because it has a flat tire.

__________________
"You sound like a gen-x coffee house dick" - From the outtakes to Office Space

Here are a few reasons why inventing the lightbulb, going to the moon and joining WW2 are not logical "variations" on my statement.

In the 3 examples you cite...
*there is a greater benefit/payoff
*there is more chance of success
*there is more necessity
*there is a more direct relationship to actual political/social reality
...than there is with missle defense




A national missle defense system (NMD) is unlikely to materialize as a "great feat". It has been an expensive failure up to this point. Do you understand that it has not even been determined yet whether or not NMD is feasible? We are many many years and many many billions of dollars away from determining if NMD is even possible. A working system is not remotely in our sights.

And the protection it might potentially offer us is very limited. It does not address areas where the most pressing and imminent threats lie. In fact, pursuing the NMD folly only serves to hasten and enlarge the threats we face.

Iran and North Korea may "hate us", but that doesn't mean they'll launch a nuclear missile at us as soon as they are capable (if they are ever capable).

No state, even Iran and N. Korea, wants to launch a nuclear attack. They may hate us, but they are not insane. Launching a nuclear missile or two (in the case of small rogue states), with no ability to back that action up further, would have devastating consequences on them, and they know it. The US and the entire international community would condemn such an attack with utter ferocity and squash them like a bug. There would be nothing for a such a state to gain by launching a first strike nuclear attack.

But they don't want nukes in order to attack. They want them to deter an attack from others. It's a power play, born of insecurity, using the old Cold War playbook. And in pursuing a missle defense program, the US just feeds that insecurity and encourages a Cold War mentality, in superpower and non-superpower states alike.

The danger in these smaller states pursuing nuclear programs is not that they themselves will actually launch an attack. The danger lies in the potential for non-state actors to get their hands on nuclear materials and create a bomb that could be "delivered" to us by means other than a long-range ICBM. This is a danger in nuclear states like Russia and China as well, especially the more we anger and alienate them, and encourage their nuclear R&D, by our NMD pursuit.

Why spend billions on NMD ($10bil in 2005) when doing so not only ignores and draws resources away from current and very real imminent threats that it cannot protect against, but also hastens and enlarges those very threats?




The "truth", as you state it, is actually inaccurate. Castro urged Khrushchev to initiate a nuclear strike against the US if the US invaded Cuba first.

It is no longer 1962. It's 2004. The world is a very different place now.

I'm not sure where you get the confidence that NMD "will be perfected". We're a long way off from even knowing if it's feasible.

__________________
Yo, how can I get me one o' them White House press pass thingies?!

Quite an impassioned defense. I must have hit a nerve.

These points are all based on hindsight. The detractors of the light bulb, the man on the moon, and WW2 saw the difficulty in each, and felt it was too far reaching a task and felt that more important things should be pursued. I am talking about a certain timidity in thinking.

Exactly. It is hard. And it costs. But eventually it will succeed. Why? Because technology is the one thing that human beings are exceedingly good at. Abandoning it simply because it hasn't worked yet and declaring it an impossibility is relatable to the examples, or variations, I provided. And when it is successful, yes it will be regarded as a great feat.

I don't consider protection for oversees nuclear weapons as limited, especially if we are the only nation with the capability.

Why do you assume that you understand the psychology of people you don't even know and haven't even met? Do you suppose that all people on earth think alike? Is is not insane for someone to strap a bomb to their bodies and walk into a club and blow up everyone inside including themselves?

I see this as a false dilemma.

Yes, and who is to say that North Korea would not do the same if we do not withdraw from South Korea?

Not so much different in certain areas.

As I have stated, technology is something people are good at. Eventually it will work if we keep trying.

__________________
lambaste me not

You think that's "impassioned"?

And no, you didn't hit a "nerve", except perhaps one of those "man, that was a stupid analogy - my 6 week old kitten has more developed logic skills than that" nerves.




Oh, puh-leeeze. Making a rational, informed decision, based on experience and hard evidence, that pursuing a specific technology does not make sense for a number of practical, economic, political and national security reality reasons does not equate to "timidity in thinking".

It's a question of where we direct our resources ~ money, time, energy, personnel ~ to create the most desired result. In this case, the desired result is national security. And I, and a lot of other not-so-timid thinkers, believe that pursuing a NMD system is a foolish waste of resources that has a snowball's chance in hell of making us any safer, even if (big longshot IF) it can be made to work properly.




Well, aren't you the starry-eyed little dreamer?

Unfortunately for humans, wishing doesn't always make it so. We are limited by both finite resources and the laws of physics.

And I'm not saying we should abandon NMD "simply because it hasn't worked yet". Sure, humans are creative and innovative. If we worked really really hard, for a really really long time, and threw gobs and gobs of money at it, we could probably, eventually, come up with some kind of NMD solution. But would it be worth it? Would it address the real and present threats that face us? Would it make us safer? Or is it just a distraction that robs vital, relevant national security programs and initiatives of resources? I say the latter.

It seems you are making case for NMD that largely amounts to "We should do it because humans are great and we can".




Assuming a NMD system ever actually becomes feasible, gets built and performs effectively, it would still only protect limited areas of the US from long-range ICBMs launched from known points of origin. I'm not making this up ~ these are actually the limits of the system currently being R&D'd.

It would not protect against short- and mid-range missiles, launched from movable or unidentified platforms. It would not protect against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons delivered by any non-long-range-missile means, such as seaport containers, trucks, hijacked airplanes, backpacks, etc.

That's limited. Especially considering that a nuclear attack via long-range ICBMs by a known state actor is the least of our worries.

And being the only nation with that capability is not an automatic boon to our national security, especially considering the arrogance of our pursuit - such as our withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty in order to lessen restrictions on NMD R&D. It doesn't exactly endear us to our European allies or build trust with the other nuclear powers, like India, Pakistan, China and Russia. And poor international relationships on this issue do not boost our own security situation. Pursuing NMD, especially considering its highly questionable feasibility and substantial limitations, is irresponsible diplomatic foolishness. We could very well spur another nuclear arms race.




NMD won't protect us from suicide bombers in nightclubs, silly.

I'm talking about state actors. Governments. Governments, whether they are friendly or antagonistic to the US, want some variation of same basic things ~ power, respect, recognition, prosperity, autonomy, legitimacy. These state goals are not achievable by a state that launches a nuclear attack on another sovereign nation. States, even antagonistic rogue-states like N. Korea or Iran, know this. They want to exist. Nuclear deterrence is part of the game they are playing in today's incredibly uneven, post-Cold-War playing field. Granted, it's a dangerous "game". But actually launching a nuclear attack would unconditionally end the "game", as well as the existence of the state. That is against their interests and they know it.

I'm not "assuming" this. It's Cold War Lessons 101. I don't have to have personally met government representatives in Iran or N. Korea to understand this basic "psychology".

A long-range missile attack on US soil is a significantly lesser threat than a WMD attack delivered by non-missile means.




How so?

It's a fact that we have finite resources at our disposal. It's a fact that a long-range missile attack on US soil is not the greatest threat we face. And it's a fact that our actions in pursuit of NMD do have an impact on our international relationships and our national security.




Is that a threat and a demand that N. Korea is making?

There are a couple of strong deterrents to that scenario. One, the region has some influence and serves to keep N. Korea somewhat in check. It would not tolerate such destabilizing posturing. Two, the US would retaliate and would crush N. Korea.

The threat level of this scenario is too low to justify pouring our resources into an unlikely NMD program. There are smarter ways to deal with N. Korea.

__________________
Yo, how can I get me one o' them White House press pass thingies?!

Hahaha. So much hostility. Easy, little buddy, easy.

People who discouraged previous advances were thinking "rationally" also.

If it makes our nation safer from the threat of an oversees attack, I am for it. I never said we should abandon other projects either. This is a false dilemma. We can do more than one thing at a time.

Yes I am sure you are a genius when it comes to physics, and capable of determining what is physically possible.

You have said as much in so many words.

Great I am all for it.

Maybe at first. But technology improves over time. More timid reasoning out of you.

__________________
lambaste me not

Some time in the future? Dude, they have successfully tested it more than once. Again, if a $5 relay fails, that doesn't establish that missile defense doesn't work. It establishes that a $5 part broke.

__________________
"You sound like a gen-x coffee house dick" - From the outtakes to Office Space

As well as Clinton and every democrat controlled congress since Reagan. They could have all derailed it if they had chosen to do so. They did not.

Dont lay this at Bush's feet alone...

So why didnt Clinton kill it? Why didnt those democrat congress's kill it?

We already have a defense there, even if it is not 100%. We have no defense against missiles.

If a rogue nation was to make the demand "we are going to invade your ally...if you interfere, we will launch a nuke at a major city" what would we do? Call tehir bluff? All they would even have to do is threaten to use it.

Gimme a break. You liberals need to think more than one step ahead.

Please define "failure".

It has hit missiles before.

Please cite your sources for this.

last I heard it was due to be online by 2008...at least one stage of it is.

What areas are those?

How?

They dont have to. Just the threat of a launch may be enough.

I dont share your faith in their sanity.

You are assuming they are rational enough to fully consider the consequences. And they they are sane enough to care. I dont share your faith in their sanity.

Not to mention they are extremely volitile...can you speak for whoever may replace them in the future?

How do you know? The international community wasnt terribly motivated to deal with Saddam. Had we not acted on our own he would still be in power today.

We already have defenses in place for that. We have no defenses against missile delivery.

If you were a dictator looking for a club to hold over the US's head, would you attack where they had defense already, or threaten attack where they had none? You should read Sun Tzu one of these days.

Empty threat...they will do so anyway.

It is no longer 1962. It's 2004. The world is a very different place now.

I agree. in 1962 most despots did not have the resources they have access to today. That is why NMD is more important now than it was back then. MAD only works if both parties care about being retaliated against.

I'm not sure where you get the confidence that NMD "will be perfected".

It does not need to be perfected. Even 5% protection is still better than the 0% we have now.

There have been no, repeat NO, operational tests done on this NMD system.

Between Oct '99 and Dec '02, there were a total of 8 developmental tests. In the past 2 years, there have been numerous technical problems and longer than expected delays. Finally, 2 days ago, developmental test #9 was attempted and failed due to a currently unknown anomoly that caused the interceptor to shut down immediately prior to launching. (I have no idea what you're going on about with a broken "$5 relay"?)

Of the 8 developmental tests performed on this system, 4 have resulted in a successful interception, 3 failed after launching, and 1 was a draw (there was a "hit", but it was due to most probably to "luck", not proper performance of the interceptor).

All 8 of these developmental tests were limited and artificial. Realistic operational testing is far from being ready to commence, and the tests performed so far do not prove that operational capability is feasible or attainable.

Examples of the artificiality of the tests include:
~ the target being outfitted with a homing beacon
~ the interceptor knowing everything about the target in advance - its location, timing, trajectory, point of interception, and appearance of both the warhead and the decoys
~ they used a 2-stage surrogate booster that is far slower than the 3-stage operational booster planned for a deployed system, so critical issues of closing time, discrimination and manuevering ability and the effects of shock to the "kill vehicle" are complete unknowns (the test that failed Wednesday was supposed to be the first use of the faster 3-stage booster.)
~ the distance between the launch of the interceptor and the point of interception has been extremely short compared to real-world expectations
~ the interception point has been at a fairly low altitude compared to real-world expectations
~ the distance between launch & interception, the altitude of interception, and all the rest of the interception "geometry" has been the same in every test
~ the appearance (size, shape and number) of the decoys used, and the controlled method of deploying them to help the kill vehicle see and recognize them, have not come remotely close to creating a realistic operational scenario of effective countermeasures that enemy missiles would be sure to utilize
~ all the tests have been purposely performed under clear weather conditions
~ all the tests were conducted at the same time of day, when light conditions were optimal for sensor performance (except for test #8, performed at night, which failed

__________________
Yo, how can I get me one o' them White House press pass thingies?!