Holy Smokes, there has been a lot of posts about BMD lately. Here, Here, here, and here for starters.
Does is strike anyone else that if a nuclear weapon is denotated on U.S. soil, its more likely to come by sea through a port than by air? Am I the only one who thinks that BMD is obviously the wrong solution to the problem? I can't be, I mean, the US Administration is not that stupid.
Which begs the question, what problem would BMD really be a solution to?
8 comments:
BMD is only one piece in the puzzle. If you protect yourself for aircraft hijackings, sea borne nukes, etc BUT not ICBMs then you have a gaping hole in your defensive strategy.
Don't treat BMD as the whole solution - it's just one part.
One part that takes the vast lion's share of the available money even though the vast probablity is from a seaborne threat.
Its insane to build a BMD unless:
1) you're planning for bigtime war or
2) you have ulterior motives.
Over on BBG Paul has claimed it's not as expensive as people claim it is. You may want to ask him to pony up a link.
Your insanity claim is... well insane.... unless you feel that countries should not protect their citizens from ALL perceived threats.
I think countries should protect themselves from threats according to how likely they are of occuring. Its possible a meteorite could fall and kill thousands on Ottawa today ort tomorrow but I don't expect Canada to invest millions or billions in an Early Warning System for falling hunks of iron.
So it comes down to how likely is a rogue nation to lob a nuke using an ICBM, as opposed to smuggling it in a boat. To me all the money should go to port defense first until you've got it covered. Then think about the unlikely scenarios.
Last year there was an article on CNN (I'll try to find the link) that said more than half of the cargo coming into the US was not inspected at all.
They've certainly been talking about beefed up port security - if you find a link it could be interesting.
However, you don't implement your defense strategy in a serialized manner (unless you're a linear thinker :P ) so it would make sense that they're fortifying everything at once.
I really think your meteorite example is out to lunch.... there's far more chance of ICBM's getting into nasty hands than a catastrophic impact.
The Americans aren't exactly making more friends.... and technology doesn't stand still. Adapt to tomorrow's threats today - right?
Actually, Bill, missile defence is a military industrial complex welfare project that has siphoned billions of dollars out of the U.S. treasury since Reagan was President. Remember "star wars" missile defence from the 80s? Same bullshit, different Republicans.
Actually, Bill, missile defence is a military industrial complex welfare project that has siphoned billions of dollars out of the U.S. treasury since Reagan was President. Remember "star wars" missile defence from the 80s? Same bullshit, different Republicans.
Andrew: Your reasoning only stands if you believe that a "rogue nation" or terrorist group would use an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device and I maintain that the likelyhood of that is so small that even one dollar spent on BMD is a waste.
I will do some research on American port security.
Post a Comment