September 2, 2001

11:30 AM

"Dear China,

We want so much to protect ourselves from 'rogue' nations with our impenetrable defense shield (no doubt built by defense contractors who contributed to my campaign) that we are ready to basically encourage you to build new nukes, and cause other countries to build up their arsenals as well. What's a few more nukes in the world, even if we have to change US foreign policy - at least star war... er, the "missile shield" will protect us."

Love,
George
posted by owillis (25 comments total)

"PS: Here's a quick preview of our plans, as promised! You guys are so great. —GWB"
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:52 AM on September 2, 2001

During the Cold War, there were two major schools of thought on what to do about the U.S.S.R. The "hawks" controlled U.S. policy for the most part, and the result was not the fiery devastation predicted by the "doves," but rather the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "doves" were, simply put, wrong.

Now we have a similar situation. Try to build a system that has a good chance of providing at least some protection against a limited missile attack, or not? The same people who were wrong for the last 50 years now want to trot out their old hoary arguments.

But they are still wrong.
posted by marknau at 11:54 AM on September 2, 2001

China is labeled 'rogue' and 'red/commie' for PR purposes only. And it works cause Americans are mostly ignorant idiots. There is greater doubt in general American populace about the authenticity of the Moon landing than the validity of American foreign policy.

Clinton signed an executive order to allow Loral, a major Clinton contributor, to transfer crucial rocket technology to China that significantly modernized the second stage of Long March rockets. This technology was later transferred to the Chinese missile program. China also claims to have 'lost' an American communication satellite in a failed Long March launch. The remnants of the satellite was never found in the wreckage. Go figure.

Maybe it's time to take those outlandish Sino-American Partnership conspiracy websites seriously.
posted by tamim at 11:55 AM on September 2, 2001

The "hawks" controlled U.S. policy for the most part, and the result was not the fiery devastation predicted by the "doves," but rather the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "doves" were, simply put, wrong. Now we have a similar situation.

Do some reading on just how close we came to fiery devastation. I think you'll be surprised.
posted by skyline at 11:57 AM on September 2, 2001

the long march rocket. now thats an important name
posted by clavdivs at 12:13 PM on September 2, 2001

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's a big difference between the old Soviet bloc and China. For one the Soviets were considered a superpower after their victory in WWII. China has not fought in any war on the world stage (with the exception of Korea). It has a lot to prove, which can make it trigger happy. China is going to build their arsenal whether we give the okay or not. That statement was basically a PR thing so we don't look so hypocritical building the missile defense. Egh I just hit two separate points in the same paragraph, oh well.
posted by geoff. at 12:15 PM on September 2, 2001

"China has not fought in any war on the world stage" Her incursion into Vietnam was not well received by the worlds super powers, that was hardly global though, yet global warfare(war of allies on many continents-say two a minimum for a world war) is not fought unless the global political situation is played out. (Chiner pulls out of Vietnam with face under several face saving oldies:objective met, lesson taught, etc. Old soviet "bloc" is ...shit fellas what happened? we absorbed them or some, others gone rouge, some independent, some allied to Russia. same props, slightly different cast. all the worse for wear or where or dam I LOVE ENGLISH CHEESE. I would think that china has to prove nothing unless they start developing its own infra as far as super high tech...stuff. ya know the stuff they want and need. like us but they too...see?(not gonna happen...shhh) keeping your partners and your enemies one to 23,765 steps behind is part of the pistoltrick.
posted by clavdivs at 12:42 PM on September 2, 2001

top 5 pro nmd arguments.


5. The chairmen of lockheed and rathyeon have bills to pay and children to feed too.

4. 100 billion dollars is a small price to pay for a false sense of security.

3. Just because boeing is being sued for rigging the tests and covering it up is no reason to doubt it will work

2. Rumsfeld has more cunning than the average James Bond villain

1. You can trust george bush to do whats right for the country
posted by euphorb at 12:46 PM on September 2, 2001

So now the Bush administration gets to look "consistent" in front of its international critics? Simultaneously preparing for an unnecessary defense shield and encouraging potential enemies to "try us". It's like when teaching your younger brother how to play chess, you offer to play without the queen until he gets the hang of it all to stimulate future competition.

What's it with all-things-nuclear for these old guard repubs? Will humanity fucking ever make progress in a world of recurring priapic war mongrels?
posted by crasspastor at 1:04 PM on September 2, 2001

Actually the American "hawks" were planning a first strike before Russia's missile technology could reach theirs.

When that plan failed, it was time to play a dangerous game political game (cold war) inspired by the Truman Doctrine.
posted by skallas at 1:35 PM on September 2, 2001

For the post about China and war on the world scene: I was just climbing down a cargo net to get into a port in Korea shortly after China had corssed the Yalu River and pushed American troops into the Pusan Permeter.
Worls scene: well in the U.S. this was called a police action; And in America writers referred to the decade of the 50s as "passive" and boring.
World stage? well lthe UN had troops from any number of nations to give the usual legitimacy to an American policy.
And the end result? War began in 1950. It is now 2001 and we are still where the war began: 38th parallel and we have always maintained a force in S. Korea of no fewer than 35 thousand troops at any time.
posted by Postroad at 2:09 PM on September 2, 2001

I always have the nagging suspicion that at some point in the future when push-comes-to-shove any sufficiently narked 'rogue state' will much prefer to blow us Britts off the face of the earth first to show America it means business. Thereby serving to wipe the cheesy grin off our faces whilst not running the greater risk of engaging in direct conflict with the so called 'great Satan' unless it happens to honour any pacts we've made with it when we're gone. I just hope my great-great-great grandkids have the sense to invest in an abode on the moon before it all happens.
posted by Kino at 3:39 PM on September 2, 2001

Try to build a system that has a good chance of providing at least some protection against a limited missile attack, or not? — marknau

Not. What value is a system that has only a chance of providing only some protection against only a limited missile attack? There will never be a limited missile attack. Absolutely nothing prevents delivering nuclear weapons to American cities by boat and truck, so no terrorist or "rogue state" will ever launch a few cobbled-together ICBMs at us. And no major power will launch a limited first strike — especially once we claim to be able to stop one.

Oh, and by the way, NMD won't work. (600K PDF)

Is this argument "hoary"? How about this one: NMD is a pointless fiction, and the only reason an intelligent well-informed person would seriously advocate it is if they stand to profit directly from its construction, or if they so resent government spending on social programs that they will endorse any military expenditure at all, no matter how poorly it is justified otherwise, just so the money goes to industry.

Let's move on. Here's what I'm curious about: let's say North Korea or Iraq launches 20 ICBMs at us one sunny afternoon in, say, 2015, and our NMD intercepts them all. No American is even injured. What do we do then? Launch a massive retaliatory strike, killing all those who planned the attack and many millions of innocents? (Ooh, and raining fallout on our allies in the area?) Do we return a limited strike, killing fewer innocents? Do we declare war while the Rapid Deployment Force is on the way? Economic sanctions? What?
posted by nicwolff at 4:37 PM on September 2, 2001

"and our NMD intercepts them all." youd be laughed at for taking a B-B gun to a steel wall.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on September 2, 2001

then reduced to microwave popcorn
posted by clavdivs at 6:40 PM on September 2, 2001

clav, I never have any idea what you're talking about. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
posted by nicwolff at 8:54 PM on September 2, 2001

The sky is falling!
posted by revbrian at 2:17 AM on September 3, 2001

Does it not occur to anyone else that the mis-styled defence system is economic warfare against a jumpy China that feels it has to try and keep up?
posted by vbfg at 5:20 AM on September 3, 2001

'..economic warfare against a jumpy China..'

I get the impression that it might be economic warfare against a mass of people by a privileged, greedy few abusing their positions to share more of a nations wealth amongst themselves at the detriment of world stability.

I also get the impression that it might be a forward thinking initiative by strategic career professionals who have seen things in their studies over the past god knows how many years that if acted upon now can be averted and which can now be funded when before it was politically impossible.

I get many impressions, unfortunitely - the only one i feel qualified to put any real stock in is that it's a highly complex issue with so many angles and implications and one that's just so hard to form a solid opinion on. Which is a shame, because i'd really like to have one either way, as this seems to be a crossroads that will be looked back upon as one of the major issues in the modern age. A real make or break situation.
posted by Kino at 9:55 AM on September 3, 2001

And now you've added the economic warfare against a China that feels it has to keep up thing i'm even more uncertain on the issue, because that too is a valid variable.
posted by Kino at 9:58 AM on September 3, 2001

What's undeniable, though, is that it's a policy directed by old men who've done well out of wars.
posted by holgate at 10:10 AM on September 3, 2001

not following the thread, but i found it quite interesting to switch between the democratic contributions and the republican. verrry interesting. The difference between parties in the defense category isn't near as large as lawers and lobbyists (1.6million vs 23milsion, zoinks. lawyers and liars :)
posted by tomplus2 at 6:57 PM on September 3, 2001

why would one shoot a missle that one know would not reach its target?...."the steel breeze....shine on you..."
posted by clavdivs at 7:52 PM on September 3, 2001

"Maybe it's time to take those outlandish Sino-American Partnership conspiracy websites seriously."

Heh heh. Wait, that's not funny!

Wasn't the recent plane thing just a cover for a technology transfer? Lott and Dubya want to sell Aegis ships to Taiwan, China doesn't like the radar system aboard (don't have tech to counter), Lockheed Martin have men on the ground at Hainan and three in the spy plane. Down the plane, allow China to have the enabling tech, all's well with China to sell Aegis to Taiwan. And Lockheed makes money, Lott's district make ships, all's well in military industrial complex land.
posted by nofundy at 6:50 AM on September 4, 2001

If we learned anything from OK City, isn't it that the greatest threat comes from within?

"Damnit, they nuked NY. The NMD was useless. The device came in on an '86 Saturn."

"Which they? N. Korea? Iraq? Syria?"

"No. It was the God-damned New Jerseyans."
posted by Ptrin at 7:51 AM on September 4, 2001