Bush woos Putin at his Texas ranch

November 15, 2001 7:27 AM

Bush woos Putin at his Texas ranch - after apparently failing to come to a consensus about the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Good for Bush for getting his diplomacy on, but -- I'm wondering how popular the proposed American missile-defense system is with members of the Metafilter community. If it means scrapping the ABM... is it worth it?
posted by SilentSalamander (37 comments total)

Answer which requires no further thought, given the current fear about suitcase bombs, which can't be protected by a freakin' shield: No.
posted by raysmj at 7:31 AM on November 15, 2001

Answer to comment:

Develop the Anti-Suitcase Treaty.
posted by trioperative at 7:32 AM on November 15, 2001

What bigger rat hole can we plug with money? Defense contractors pay to play in DC.
posted by nofundy at 7:42 AM on November 15, 2001

two guys with box cutters made the whole idea of a "missile shield" irrelevant... but yes, defense contractors need something to spend billions on...
posted by johnboy at 7:49 AM on November 15, 2001

> Bush woos Putin at his Texas ranch

Do you think Putin will let Bush go all the way? Or are they just kissing?

> defense contractors need something to spend billions on...

There's always the Anti-Box Cutter Defense Initiative (ABCDI) for them to look forward to. Spork barrel.
posted by pracowity at 8:00 AM on November 15, 2001

But what about the kitties?

Duh, no....
posted by y2karl at 8:00 AM on November 15, 2001

I propose the Luggage Armament Treaty, Terrorist Exception or LATTE.

More than two parties: Double LATTE

Only one side signs: Single LATTE

Yemen signs: Mocha LATTE

The possibilities are almost endless!
posted by Dagobert at 8:01 AM on November 15, 2001

with the threat of nuclear terrorism, i think that the proposed missle defense system is stupider than a box of hair.

but that's Just My Opinion.
posted by o2b at 8:08 AM on November 15, 2001

Bush Recalls the Day He Met Putin: from the Moscow Times. Memories of their first date; now they're going steady.
posted by Carol Anne at 8:20 AM on November 15, 2001

erm... i was searching for an article i read about the suitcase bombs which said that they were all made 30 years ago, and need regular maintenance (which you can guarantee hasn't been done in over 15 years) and they are very likely all duds now, but i couldn't find it.

instead i found this which is dated 12 April 2001 and makes scary reading, until you realise it has no references and was probably written from rumours heard down the local.
posted by johnboy at 8:21 AM on November 15, 2001

I misread that headline. I thought it said Bush was pooh-poohing Wu-Tang.
posted by kindall at 8:22 AM on November 15, 2001

That's interesting, Johnboy. Good to consider.

It's odd to me that Bush keeps calling the treaty "outdated" and yet he wants to move forward with cold war thinking: "Let's build a big shield that can protect against rogue missles!"

I thought for sure Bush would stop pushing this after 9/11. I'm not sure where his head is on this. We're opening our mail with salad tongs and he wants a missile shield?
posted by jragon at 8:27 AM on November 15, 2001

Well, if you can't give the public any measures that will actually help improve national security, then I guess it makes sense to spend oodles of money on something that won't, and then use the PR machine to tell the public that it will.

Sheer naivete to expect anything else.
posted by yesster at 8:40 AM on November 15, 2001

Funny, under the internationally recognized definition of terrorism, "the use of force or threat of force against civilian populations to achieve a political result," the continued existence of nuclear weapons is itself a form of terrorism.

On second thought, maybe not funny.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:02 AM on November 15, 2001

Do you think Putin will let Bush go all the way? Or are they just kissing?

Let's put it this way: If Putin puts out, Bush puts it in Putin, otherwise, Putin puts it in Bush.
posted by groundhog at 9:03 AM on November 15, 2001

[It's odd to me that Bush keeps calling the treaty "outdated" and yet he wants to move forward with cold war thinking: "Let's build a big shield that can protect against rogue missles!"]

Cold war thinking was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), not rogue missiles.
posted by revbrian at 9:08 AM on November 15, 2001

What many on this list seem to think is that if a crook can get in your window, why bother to lock the door?

The ABM is obsolete and needs to be scrapped. The world has changed a lot since that treaty was signed. Further, a missile shield makes good sense in a world where ballistic missiles are within the means of many governments hostile to the US -- North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq.

Just because a missile shield won't protect against a suitcase nuke doesn't mean it isn't any good at all.
posted by mrmanley at 9:11 AM on November 15, 2001

But hold on mrmanley, if there is a missile shield, doesn't that just mean these "rogue states" (which seems a pretty relative term these days) invest in suitcase bombs instead? I'm no expert, but I'd guess if you have X million dollars to spend, you'll get further faster with smaller, guerilla-type devices than with ballistic missiles, particularly if they have to be fired from the middle-east.
posted by flimjam at 9:34 AM on November 15, 2001

why bother to lock the door?

To a carding or well placed foot, anything less than a deadbolt is cosmetic...
posted by y2karl at 9:41 AM on November 15, 2001

Just because a missile shield won't protect against a suitcase nuke doesn't mean it isn't any good at all.

Exactly, mrmanley.

In my opinion, the missile shield is a good idea. But I don't look at it as an either/or measure. We should work on it, while at the same time doing everything we can to intercept and prevent what we think to be the most likely manner of terrorist attack: biological or chemical weapons, conventional explosives, a "suitcase nuke" or a so-called nuclear (radiation-spreading) "dirty bomb."

And airport security forces should be federalized, under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, ASAP. (Stop playing politics with our safety, Bush & Co.!)

Also, the government should force Starbucks to lower their prices, exempt me from income taxes for the rest of my life, and send Bill Clinton around every once in a while to give me a hug.

Okay, I think I'm done now.
posted by verdezza at 9:45 AM on November 15, 2001

Stay with me here: Suitcase bombs could be placed in nondescript locales all over the country. It's completely doable. Consequently, the multi-trillion-dollar shield is no good. Having the shield is akin to having a state-of-the-art security system that's taken two or three mortgages to finance, while continuing to hire help who can come with knives. Or, wait, that's not so good, because a country's not like a house with just yourself, a spouse or significant other, and maybe a (no pun intended) nuclear family. It's a nation with thousands of miles of borders, and you can't keep up with people within them as you can with people you let into your home or onto your property. Want to be safer? Put the freakin' money into intelligence, language trainning, foreign economic development and the promotion of democracy, human rights, etc.
posted by raysmj at 10:16 AM on November 15, 2001

silly rabbit, that would call for foresight, intelligence, and compassion. what kind of foreign policy would that make? where's the fear, the threats, the violence, the profit, the parnanoia, the racism? it just won't do.
posted by badstone at 11:13 AM on November 15, 2001

Just because a missile shield won't protect against a suitcase nuke doesn't mean it isn't any good at all.

...for the military-industrial complex, which is already preparing a similar case for anti-alien and anti-asteroid shields.
posted by holgate at 1:22 PM on November 15, 2001

What many on this list seem to think is that if a crook can get in your window, why bother to lock the door?

I think a better analogy is trying to protect your home by building a modified laser pointer mounted on your roof that blinds people from a few thousand dollars worth of parts at Radio Shack. I think it'll work if I can just get the magnifying glass to stay put with some gum and duct tape. Yeah, that should make me feel safer and my neighbors safer.

Many people here are saying it's too far-fetched to work, even if it did it might escalate us into another cold war, and that it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to throw some money at people building big defense systems (who happen to be big supporters and friends with the Bush administration).
posted by mathowie at 1:30 PM on November 15, 2001

...now they're going steady

Bush to Putin: "You're the kind of guy I'd like to have in a foxhole with me'' - I kid you not.
posted by ferris at 1:44 PM on November 15, 2001

Re: suitcase nukes. Every country that has developed a nuclear capability has proceeded to spend large amounts of money trying to develop ballistic missile capability. These are not countries with unlimited defense budgets, and the hundreds of millions of dollars they're spending on missiles could go a long way in other areas.

Either they're all completely missing the potential of suitcase nukes, or suitcase nukes aren't the panacea anti-BMD folks portray them as.

A more appropriate analogy for BMD would be an expensive home security system that stops people from breaking into your house while you're gone. Sure, someone can still pose as the UPS delivery guy and shoot you when you answer the door, or wait outside your bushes and mug you when you leave to go to work, but that doesn't mean that the security system isn't a good idea.
posted by jaek at 2:55 PM on November 15, 2001

...military-industrial complex...

Wow, I just flashed back to the 60's. Thanks, Holgate.
posted by joaquim at 3:29 PM on November 15, 2001

Wow, I just flashed back to the 60's.

And here's the context. Rereading it, I still think it's remarkable that Eisenhower coined the term.
posted by holgate at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2001

NMD doesn't even work against regular warheads, and never will.
posted by Eloquence at 6:06 PM on November 15, 2001

Today's press conference in Texas was refreshing. Both Bush and Putin were near giddy, cracking very broad jokes and seeming to be in high spirits. And I noticed I no longer have epileptic fits every time I hear Bush's voice.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:37 PM on November 15, 2001

Oh no, that's the first sign...

*throws a cordon around Mo Nickels, dons the biohazard suit*

I find it interesting that people are actually arguing this StarWars thing on it's merits (assuming it actually has any). Not to be a self-important smart-ass or anything ('Hoo-hah,' he said to himself. 'Dodged that bullet!'), but it seems very unlikely that Defending America actually has much at all to do with the whole idea of building a Missile Defense System.

Much more germane would be Matters of Pork, Dynasties and Ruling Cliques, and a healthy dose of Defense Contractor ReachAround.

And yes, I have gone RanDom Capital Crazy this evening.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:58 AM on November 16, 2001

NMD doesn't even work against regular warheads, and never will.

Uh-huh. They also said we'd never put a man on the moon.

You know, irony may not be dead, but apparently the power of some people's imaginations are.
posted by verdezza at 5:40 AM on November 16, 2001

Uh-huh. They also said we'd never put a man on the moon.

The moon doesn't fight back.
posted by Eloquence at 6:01 AM on November 16, 2001

The moon doesn't fight back.

Hmm... MIRV-y.
posted by y2karl at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2001

The moon doesn't fight back.

Right. No obstacles to overcome whatsoever. No hostile, literally unearthly environment to protect against and adapt to 24/7. No unknowns whatsoever. It was a cake walk.
posted by verdezza at 7:49 PM on November 16, 2001

Right. No obstacles to overcome whatsoever. No hostile, literally unearthly environment to protect against and adapt to 24/7. No unknowns whatsoever. It was a cake walk.

Sarcasm noted but note also no MIRVed moons, no decoy moons, no moons on below radar cruise missiles and no faked up--some might demur--simulated moon landing tests to demonstrate feasibility without existing on-the-shelf technology--which is what was used on the moon shot: existing technology. Unlike NMD. And let's not get started on suitcase moons, rental van moons, container ship moons and so forth.
posted by y2karl at 10:24 PM on November 16, 2001

... and let's not forget that the early NASA flights were successful without manipulating the tests or the data.
posted by Dirjy at 12:57 PM on November 17, 2001