Russia-China alliance emerges as a foil to US
June 15, 2001 1:30 PM Subscribe
Russia-China alliance emerges as a foil to US The enemy of my enemy is my friend.... Not! Post cold war alliances do indeed make strange bedfellows. Does this mean Vodka will now be served with Kung Pao chicken?
Leave it to Bush to revive the Cold War.
The silly thing about a missile shield is that it completely ignores the consequences of nuclear war. Suppose Enemy X fires a volley of warheads our way and we shoot most of them down, and fire our own volley that destroy their targets. Umm, did someone not factor in wind currents and the massive radiation sickness and cancers that will find their way to America? (from nuclear explosions both inside and outside U.S. borders) Regular ol' air pollution in the Pacific Rim has no problem traversing from California to New Jersey and affecting air quality. Whatcha think nuclear clouds will do?
posted by fleener at 3:16 PM on June 15, 2001
The silly thing about a missile shield is that it completely ignores the consequences of nuclear war. Suppose Enemy X fires a volley of warheads our way and we shoot most of them down, and fire our own volley that destroy their targets. Umm, did someone not factor in wind currents and the massive radiation sickness and cancers that will find their way to America? (from nuclear explosions both inside and outside U.S. borders) Regular ol' air pollution in the Pacific Rim has no problem traversing from California to New Jersey and affecting air quality. Whatcha think nuclear clouds will do?
posted by fleener at 3:16 PM on June 15, 2001
Leave it to Bush to revive the Cold War.
We can thank Clinton for handing over decades worth of military secrets to the Chinese for reviving the Cold War.
In any event, the Russians and Chinese have never been able to establish a stable alliance and this will be no different.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:57 PM on June 15, 2001
We can thank Clinton for handing over decades worth of military secrets to the Chinese for reviving the Cold War.
In any event, the Russians and Chinese have never been able to establish a stable alliance and this will be no different.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:57 PM on June 15, 2001
another phase in the boggy man realignment makeover. Everyones getting out the Sun-Tzu. The more $ put into BIG SAMS' nuclear pistoltrick, the more you upinsky an arms race. So what, let them run a lake full of fuel on joint exercises, drive out allah from the slums and play Risk on their side of the world. (and we wonder why we spy the daylights out of these people)
posted by clavdivs at 5:30 PM on June 15, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 5:30 PM on June 15, 2001
Well, fleener, I'd rather take my chances with radiation than with a Dong Feng-4 detonating a few thousand feet over my head.
An example of how the missile shield will work:
China decides it's time to retake Taiwan and begins gathering its forces for the assault (or instigates a blockade or begins a missile bombardment). The U.S. moves to intervene and support its democratic ally. China threatens to nuke L.A. Currently, what would we do? Risk L.A. for Taiwan? Or just sit back and watch a democratic country be overrun by the authors of the Tianamen Square massacre while protesting to the U.N.?
With an ABM shield, The U.S. says, "Go ahead, but our missile shield will stop some or all of your missiles. Oh, by the way, before you find out if any make it through, your country will be a glass-covered parking lot."
However, the existance of a missile shield short-circuits this entire chain of events and results in China using civilized means to reunite with Taiwan, not to mention saving thousands of Taiwanese lives.
It doesn't work against terrorists, but then it's not supposed to make the U.S. totally invulnerable to nuclear attack. It is supposed to make the threat of attack by ballistic missile a less attractive option. Comparisons to the Magniot Line are not on point.
As for China and Russia uniting against the U.S., I believe that will be short-lived. Who has a huge population butting up against a massive, unpopulated, resource-rich landmass? If anything, Russia will come to the U.S. for protection from China before much longer. At least they know we don't want to live in Siberia.
posted by CRS at 5:41 PM on June 15, 2001
An example of how the missile shield will work:
China decides it's time to retake Taiwan and begins gathering its forces for the assault (or instigates a blockade or begins a missile bombardment). The U.S. moves to intervene and support its democratic ally. China threatens to nuke L.A. Currently, what would we do? Risk L.A. for Taiwan? Or just sit back and watch a democratic country be overrun by the authors of the Tianamen Square massacre while protesting to the U.N.?
With an ABM shield, The U.S. says, "Go ahead, but our missile shield will stop some or all of your missiles. Oh, by the way, before you find out if any make it through, your country will be a glass-covered parking lot."
However, the existance of a missile shield short-circuits this entire chain of events and results in China using civilized means to reunite with Taiwan, not to mention saving thousands of Taiwanese lives.
It doesn't work against terrorists, but then it's not supposed to make the U.S. totally invulnerable to nuclear attack. It is supposed to make the threat of attack by ballistic missile a less attractive option. Comparisons to the Magniot Line are not on point.
As for China and Russia uniting against the U.S., I believe that will be short-lived. Who has a huge population butting up against a massive, unpopulated, resource-rich landmass? If anything, Russia will come to the U.S. for protection from China before much longer. At least they know we don't want to live in Siberia.
posted by CRS at 5:41 PM on June 15, 2001
Curious though that after 15 years we still don't have a working model. Star Wars version 1.0 failed. Version 2.0 failed. Hey, let's do away with an international missile treaty, get Russia and China really really mad at us, and build a flunky Star Wars version 3.0. What Bush won't do to subsidize the military vendors.
posted by fleener at 6:45 PM on June 15, 2001
posted by fleener at 6:45 PM on June 15, 2001
After 15 years of on-again, off-again support, we still don't have a working model. We announce we will no longer abide by a treaty we signed with an entity that no longer exists (and who violated that treaty even when it did exist) and then have the temerity to take actions that our rivals for regional dominance don't agree with. None of these come as a big surprise to me.
The world is no longer dominated by 2 superpowers. Many countries with many different agendas have ICBMs now. At any time those agendas may come into conflict with U.S. interests and we may find ourselves held hostage by the threat of a nuclear strike. Why should the U.S. not attempt to protect itself from the things it can?
posted by CRS at 7:31 PM on June 15, 2001
The world is no longer dominated by 2 superpowers. Many countries with many different agendas have ICBMs now. At any time those agendas may come into conflict with U.S. interests and we may find ourselves held hostage by the threat of a nuclear strike. Why should the U.S. not attempt to protect itself from the things it can?
posted by CRS at 7:31 PM on June 15, 2001
Canada-China alliance emerges as a foil to US The enemy of my enemy is my friend.... Not!
Canada is not our enemy, last time I checked. Anyway, I thought Canada had a strategic alliance with Cuba, not China!
posted by Rastafari at 7:54 PM on June 15, 2001
Canada is not our enemy, last time I checked. Anyway, I thought Canada had a strategic alliance with Cuba, not China!
posted by Rastafari at 7:54 PM on June 15, 2001
Actually, I heard Canada was encouraging California to secede so it could take Oregon back.
posted by CRS at 8:10 PM on June 15, 2001
posted by CRS at 8:10 PM on June 15, 2001
Actually, Bush Jr. thinks he's bringing the world into a "post-coldwar mentality" which for me, makes all his shennanigans on the other side of the pond that much more hilarious. Shrub should be codenamed "ZeroClue."
posted by ZachsMind at 10:26 PM on June 15, 2001
posted by ZachsMind at 10:26 PM on June 15, 2001
A missile defense is not needed against any major nuclear power, and can't work against them either. The problem is that it has to be damned near perfect to be useful at all. If it has a 5% failure rate (and it wouldn't be anything like that good), and if someone launches 100 warheads, then the result is catastrophe.
In any case it isn't needed, because a major power will be dissuaded by the potential for massive retaliation. The existence of a missile defense doesn't increase the threat of retaliation, and the knowledge that I'm going to get vaporized doesn't terrify me more knowing that my attack against you would fail. Our defense against a nuclear strike by China will be the same now as it was against the USSR thirty years ago: a credible counterstrike.
What Bush wants the missile defense for (is to make defense companies rich) is to protect the country against "rogue powers" such as terrorist groups, or small desperate countries like North Korea.
And against them it is equally useless. A nation like Iraq or North Korea or a terrorist group, who only had a small number of warheads (perhaps only one or two) and a totally ruthless attitude towards life wouldn't use a missile to deliver it. Smugglers work better, and the missile defense can't stop smugglers. And against a terrorist group there's no counterstrike because there's no target to hit. That's the real danger, but a missile defense isn't the right answer.
Every year, tons of contraband are smuggled into the US. A nuclear weapon weighs no more than 200 pounds. Anyone determined to succeed would have no trouble getting one in here. How, exactly, does an anti-missile defense stop a man with a suitcase carring a bomb?
By the way, the proposed system also doesn't defend against cruise missiles. It only stops ballistic missiles (if it does) and anyone who has ballistic missiles can be dissuaded with a credible counter-strike.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:19 AM on June 16, 2001
In any case it isn't needed, because a major power will be dissuaded by the potential for massive retaliation. The existence of a missile defense doesn't increase the threat of retaliation, and the knowledge that I'm going to get vaporized doesn't terrify me more knowing that my attack against you would fail. Our defense against a nuclear strike by China will be the same now as it was against the USSR thirty years ago: a credible counterstrike.
What Bush wants the missile defense for (is to make defense companies rich) is to protect the country against "rogue powers" such as terrorist groups, or small desperate countries like North Korea.
And against them it is equally useless. A nation like Iraq or North Korea or a terrorist group, who only had a small number of warheads (perhaps only one or two) and a totally ruthless attitude towards life wouldn't use a missile to deliver it. Smugglers work better, and the missile defense can't stop smugglers. And against a terrorist group there's no counterstrike because there's no target to hit. That's the real danger, but a missile defense isn't the right answer.
Every year, tons of contraband are smuggled into the US. A nuclear weapon weighs no more than 200 pounds. Anyone determined to succeed would have no trouble getting one in here. How, exactly, does an anti-missile defense stop a man with a suitcase carring a bomb?
By the way, the proposed system also doesn't defend against cruise missiles. It only stops ballistic missiles (if it does) and anyone who has ballistic missiles can be dissuaded with a credible counter-strike.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:19 AM on June 16, 2001
One advantage of authoritarian nations is that, with no elections to worry about, they can take their time. Even if NMDS were proven effective (which it won't be) it'd take a decade or so to develop, by which time there'll be a new occupant of the White House, and many of the hawks (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Helms) may be dead.
If the Chinese are smart, which I suspect they are, they'll see NMDS as an attempt to instigate an old-style arms race, designed to satisfy the defence interests in the US, and to squeeze their own economy. And they can afford to wait it out.
In the meantime, the only effect of NMDS will be to piss off the Europeans. Tucker Carlson, that bow-tied comic manchild, asked on a recent edition of Crossfire: "why would the French -- why would an American missile program affect France?" To which Christopher Hitchens noted that they, like the British, have to live on the same continent as Russia. (And, in the case of the British, provide the sitting-duck surveillance facilities to make NMDS possible.)
And CRS, your Taiwan scenario is straight out of Tom Clancy. As I said, the Chinese can afford to wait them out.
posted by holgate at 9:14 AM on June 16, 2001
If the Chinese are smart, which I suspect they are, they'll see NMDS as an attempt to instigate an old-style arms race, designed to satisfy the defence interests in the US, and to squeeze their own economy. And they can afford to wait it out.
In the meantime, the only effect of NMDS will be to piss off the Europeans. Tucker Carlson, that bow-tied comic manchild, asked on a recent edition of Crossfire: "why would the French -- why would an American missile program affect France?" To which Christopher Hitchens noted that they, like the British, have to live on the same continent as Russia. (And, in the case of the British, provide the sitting-duck surveillance facilities to make NMDS possible.)
And CRS, your Taiwan scenario is straight out of Tom Clancy. As I said, the Chinese can afford to wait them out.
posted by holgate at 9:14 AM on June 16, 2001
Well, I'd certainly hate to piss off the Europeans. And who is worried about having to live on the same continent with a former superpower which has been straining to counter a guerilla war in its own backyard? Russia is not a current threat to Europe and won't be one for the foreseeable future. I doubt they could defeat Poland, much less NATO.
And forgive me, holgate, for doubting your clairvoyant prediction that NMD will never work.
NMD does not have to be perfect to work. It just has to exist. It's not going to deter a massive first strike. It's going to deter threats, like those made recently by a Chinese general, who asked if we'd be willing to lose L.A. over Taiwan. Clancy didn't have to write it, because they already have thought about it.
Imagine for a second that you are not right (difficult for you as that may be) and a country does decide to threaten a single U.S. city with nuclear annihilation. Will the president gamble millions of U.S. lives that they are bluffing? Will he be willing to order a massive counterstrike that will kill hundreds of millions of the enemy's civilians? Wouldn't some protection from that course of action be nice to have?
As for smugglers and cruise missiles, you will not this is not the NSD or the NCMD. Other defenses will have to cope with those particular delivery methods. However, it's not logical to refuse to lock my door because someone may come in the window.
posted by CRS at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2001
And forgive me, holgate, for doubting your clairvoyant prediction that NMD will never work.
NMD does not have to be perfect to work. It just has to exist. It's not going to deter a massive first strike. It's going to deter threats, like those made recently by a Chinese general, who asked if we'd be willing to lose L.A. over Taiwan. Clancy didn't have to write it, because they already have thought about it.
Imagine for a second that you are not right (difficult for you as that may be) and a country does decide to threaten a single U.S. city with nuclear annihilation. Will the president gamble millions of U.S. lives that they are bluffing? Will he be willing to order a massive counterstrike that will kill hundreds of millions of the enemy's civilians? Wouldn't some protection from that course of action be nice to have?
As for smugglers and cruise missiles, you will not this is not the NSD or the NCMD. Other defenses will have to cope with those particular delivery methods. However, it's not logical to refuse to lock my door because someone may come in the window.
posted by CRS at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2001
Did you not read Steven's post, CRS?
I'm reminded of the man who buys tiger repellant to go camping out in the English countryside. When he gets there, and someone tells him, "but there are no tigers out here," he shrugs, and says: "well, that proves it's working, then."
posted by holgate at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2001
I'm reminded of the man who buys tiger repellant to go camping out in the English countryside. When he gets there, and someone tells him, "but there are no tigers out here," he shrugs, and says: "well, that proves it's working, then."
posted by holgate at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2001
I read it, holgate, I just don't agree with it. I believe that a country could threaten the United States with a limited missile launch (say one or two ICMBs) and the U.S. would effectively be unable to act.
If Iraq had an ICBM and Sadam threatened to nuke NY if we didn't let him have Kuwait, would the President risk it? Or would he come up with some reason why we should not "intervene"? Would the president want to be responsible for the destruction of New York? Or of the innocent civilians in Bahgdad? Would public opinion stand for the preemptive destruction of a nation?
I think nuclear blackmail is a viable and real danger that even a rudimentary NMD would prevent. That is why I support it.
posted by CRS at 12:37 PM on June 16, 2001
If Iraq had an ICBM and Sadam threatened to nuke NY if we didn't let him have Kuwait, would the President risk it? Or would he come up with some reason why we should not "intervene"? Would the president want to be responsible for the destruction of New York? Or of the innocent civilians in Bahgdad? Would public opinion stand for the preemptive destruction of a nation?
I think nuclear blackmail is a viable and real danger that even a rudimentary NMD would prevent. That is why I support it.
posted by CRS at 12:37 PM on June 16, 2001
Suppose that someone like the PFLP got their hands on a nuclear weapon and wanted to take out a major US city. Would they launch a missile?
Nope.
I know of a way by which any hostile nation or group who has a single nuke can destroy any of the top five cities by population in the US (and most of the top fifty) with nearly 100% chance of success. (I'm not going to describe it here, but I've mailed it to CRS. Please also don't mention it here, CRS.) It's a form of smuggling.
There are two fundamental strategic considerations involved in implementing any defense system. One is comprehensiveness: if it stops one form of attack but doesn't stop another which is just as effective for your opponent, it's useless. (For example, the Maginot Line.)
The second is responsiveness. The problem is that military technology is a problem of moving targets. If the attacker can change the attack technology more rapidly than the defender can respond, then the defense system will always be one step behind.
That is the other major conceptual flaw with this system. It's simply too easy to fool, even for a ballistic missile attack. It is easy for the attacker to deploy all sorts of counter measures (mostly in the form of decoys) and even to keep decoy technologies in reserve for an attack. The defender must try to determine ahead of time what the decoys might be, and set up the entire system to be sensitive to it. If they miss one, the system is useless.
But a decoy only has to be deployed on a single missile, or two or three, to be effective. A defense against decoys has to be deployed throughout the entire defense system. That means that the defense system will necessarily respond more slowly even if they know what the decoys are. It does no-one any good to defend against yesterday's attack mechanisms.
Anyone capable of building an intercontinental ballistic missile is also capable of building sophisticated decoys.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:12 PM on June 16, 2001
Nope.
I know of a way by which any hostile nation or group who has a single nuke can destroy any of the top five cities by population in the US (and most of the top fifty) with nearly 100% chance of success. (I'm not going to describe it here, but I've mailed it to CRS. Please also don't mention it here, CRS.) It's a form of smuggling.
There are two fundamental strategic considerations involved in implementing any defense system. One is comprehensiveness: if it stops one form of attack but doesn't stop another which is just as effective for your opponent, it's useless. (For example, the Maginot Line.)
The second is responsiveness. The problem is that military technology is a problem of moving targets. If the attacker can change the attack technology more rapidly than the defender can respond, then the defense system will always be one step behind.
That is the other major conceptual flaw with this system. It's simply too easy to fool, even for a ballistic missile attack. It is easy for the attacker to deploy all sorts of counter measures (mostly in the form of decoys) and even to keep decoy technologies in reserve for an attack. The defender must try to determine ahead of time what the decoys might be, and set up the entire system to be sensitive to it. If they miss one, the system is useless.
But a decoy only has to be deployed on a single missile, or two or three, to be effective. A defense against decoys has to be deployed throughout the entire defense system. That means that the defense system will necessarily respond more slowly even if they know what the decoys are. It does no-one any good to defend against yesterday's attack mechanisms.
Anyone capable of building an intercontinental ballistic missile is also capable of building sophisticated decoys.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:12 PM on June 16, 2001
What if a country already has ICBMs and decides to THREATEN the U.S. with it? What do we do? Gamble that they're bluffing, which they may be? Or do we back down? All I'm saying is that the threat has been made in the past (in an unofficial manner) and there is no reason why we shouldn't take steps to address it.
I'll use a totally made up example of what I'm talking about.
A country, Fardonia, wants to invade it's neighbor. It knows that the U.S. will act against any Fardonian agression. However, Fardonia has a limited number of ICBMs. It decides to threaten a launch if the U.S. interferes with any of its plans.
Does Fardonia really intend to launch the missles? No. But the threat is there and it has to be taken seriously. Under this scenario, terrorism is not as effective as the mere threat of a launch.
The President (whom ever that may be) would have to take the threat seriously. You don't gamble with millions of your citizen's lives. Why should we leave ourselves vulnerable to that kind of threat?
Any NMD, even one that we claim is effective against decoys will be enough to dissuade this type of action. After all, if you're capable of deploying an NMD, you can probably distinguish between decoys and warheads.
I'm not claiming NMD is effective against nuclear terrorism. And, I disagree totally with your statement that "if it stops one form of attack but doesn't stop another which is just as effective for your opponent, it's useless. " A defense that removes a tool of your opponent is effective, even if they may have another tool that can deliver the same results. (For example, is it stupid to wear a bullet-proof vest if you know teflon-coated bullets will go right through them?)
posted by CRS at 1:56 PM on June 16, 2001
I'll use a totally made up example of what I'm talking about.
A country, Fardonia, wants to invade it's neighbor. It knows that the U.S. will act against any Fardonian agression. However, Fardonia has a limited number of ICBMs. It decides to threaten a launch if the U.S. interferes with any of its plans.
Does Fardonia really intend to launch the missles? No. But the threat is there and it has to be taken seriously. Under this scenario, terrorism is not as effective as the mere threat of a launch.
The President (whom ever that may be) would have to take the threat seriously. You don't gamble with millions of your citizen's lives. Why should we leave ourselves vulnerable to that kind of threat?
Any NMD, even one that we claim is effective against decoys will be enough to dissuade this type of action. After all, if you're capable of deploying an NMD, you can probably distinguish between decoys and warheads.
I'm not claiming NMD is effective against nuclear terrorism. And, I disagree totally with your statement that "if it stops one form of attack but doesn't stop another which is just as effective for your opponent, it's useless. " A defense that removes a tool of your opponent is effective, even if they may have another tool that can deliver the same results. (For example, is it stupid to wear a bullet-proof vest if you know teflon-coated bullets will go right through them?)
posted by CRS at 1:56 PM on June 16, 2001
Well, Fardonia would probably foment unrest within its neighbour by tacitly funding opposition militants, or attempt to engineer a cross-border situation in which any invasion could be deemed to be self-defence, or "to protect the Fardonian ethnic minority". That's how most wars are fought these days: as internal conflicts, often supported with covert external funding and training. Wholesale invasions, such as the "annexation" of Kuwait by Iraq, are actually quite exceptional.
posted by holgate at 3:04 PM on June 16, 2001
posted by holgate at 3:04 PM on June 16, 2001
Since this thread is about the Russia-China discussions, it's probably worth quoting the most relevant quote from the encouraging meeting between Bush and Putin in Slovenia:
``Threats have to be defined,'' Putin said. ``We have to look at where they come from and then make some decisions as to how we have to counter them. We feel that we can do it best together.''
You can spend years building the best umbrella in the world, but it doesn't help if you step outside with your umbrella and get struck by lightning.
posted by holgate at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2001
``Threats have to be defined,'' Putin said. ``We have to look at where they come from and then make some decisions as to how we have to counter them. We feel that we can do it best together.''
You can spend years building the best umbrella in the world, but it doesn't help if you step outside with your umbrella and get struck by lightning.
posted by holgate at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2001
CRS, for more than forty years we faced exactly the case you describe. And oddly enough, we managed to get through it with neither a full-scale exchange of missile or with a missile defense system.
And if that same power, with those same ICBM's, saw us build our missile defense system and somehow became convinced that it actually worked, why couldn't they use my technique (which I described to you in private mail) to threaten us anyway? Nothing says that the possession of missiles prevents a nation from making any other form of attack, and nothing says that "nuclear terrorism" can't be practiced just as well by a big rich nation as by a small poor liberation movement.
There are plenty of reasons why we should not create this system. Sixty billion of them, to be precise. It makes no sense to spend that kind of money when it adds nothing whatever to our security.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:24 PM on June 16, 2001
And if that same power, with those same ICBM's, saw us build our missile defense system and somehow became convinced that it actually worked, why couldn't they use my technique (which I described to you in private mail) to threaten us anyway? Nothing says that the possession of missiles prevents a nation from making any other form of attack, and nothing says that "nuclear terrorism" can't be practiced just as well by a big rich nation as by a small poor liberation movement.
There are plenty of reasons why we should not create this system. Sixty billion of them, to be precise. It makes no sense to spend that kind of money when it adds nothing whatever to our security.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:24 PM on June 16, 2001
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, the NMD will greatly add to the defense of our nation and will preserve our freedom to act.
posted by CRS at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2001
posted by CRS at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2001
How?
"President CRS, if you don't withdraw your troops from Freedonia, then sometime in the next three weeks we will destroy one of your coastal cities."
What are you going to do about it? The warhead isn't going to be delivered by a missile. (As you already know.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2001
"President CRS, if you don't withdraw your troops from Freedonia, then sometime in the next three weeks we will destroy one of your coastal cities."
What are you going to do about it? The warhead isn't going to be delivered by a missile. (As you already know.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:01 PM on June 17, 2001
By the way, without revealing the details, I'd appreciate a straight public yes-or-no answer to the following question:
Do you agree that the method of attack which I described to you by private email is both feasible and unstoppable?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:04 PM on June 17, 2001
Do you agree that the method of attack which I described to you by private email is both feasible and unstoppable?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:04 PM on June 17, 2001
CRS, you beleive NMD is good because it protects you from rogue nations and other large powers, yeah?
1. It will not protect you from rogue states. Anti-U.S rogue countries (e.g Libya, Afganistan, etc) use sponsored terrorism against the U.S.
2. It will not give protection against nuclear war. China doesn't start nuking the U.S because their afraid a percentage of missiles won't get through. Modern nuclear weapons are on the scale that even if only 5% got through they would effectivly destroy the U.S. China doesn't nuke the U.S because they know the U.S counterstrike would be destroy them too.
3. You overplay the importance & influence of nation-states. Of far more importance to the Beijing regime is all the dollars being poured into China by U.S corporations. Nuking even just L.A would cripple the U.S economically. This would in turn destablise China completly. The Chinese leadership knows this.
posted by Rips at 4:24 AM on June 18, 2001
1. It will not protect you from rogue states. Anti-U.S rogue countries (e.g Libya, Afganistan, etc) use sponsored terrorism against the U.S.
2. It will not give protection against nuclear war. China doesn't start nuking the U.S because their afraid a percentage of missiles won't get through. Modern nuclear weapons are on the scale that even if only 5% got through they would effectivly destroy the U.S. China doesn't nuke the U.S because they know the U.S counterstrike would be destroy them too.
3. You overplay the importance & influence of nation-states. Of far more importance to the Beijing regime is all the dollars being poured into China by U.S corporations. Nuking even just L.A would cripple the U.S economically. This would in turn destablise China completly. The Chinese leadership knows this.
posted by Rips at 4:24 AM on June 18, 2001
« Older Bush campaign source of debate tape smear attempt. | You've Got Hell. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tiaka at 3:14 PM on June 15, 2001