By PVG viagra

which may be Payday loans should not get
24
Feb

North Korea’s ‘Satellite’ Launch and US Missile Defense

   Posted by: Pat   in Uncategorized

As North Korea prepares to launch yet another ballistic missile test into the earth’s atmosphere, with the officially professed purpose of sending a satellite into orbit, but what most analysts fear will be a saber rattling test of the Taepodong-2, the NK’s most advanced missile with an estimated range of 4,200 miles and capable of reaching Alaska, I guess it’s a good time to discuss a US missile defense system (MDS) again.  

But to tell you the truth, I’m still just so wrapped up on GPP’s Great Power Rankings to go into too much analysis, so here are some interesting resources debating the issue for you to check out.  While the Obama administration seems to be ready to put the Bush accelerated US MDS plan on hold, as it has been critical of its ability to function and its cost and has let Moscow now that the MDS in Czech and Poland are on the table, there are those pushing back strongly against this policy.  The conservative Heritage Foundation has released a short propaganda film about the dangers of neglecting a MDS in the US and Avi Davis of the American Freedom Alliance held an interesting, informative, yet one-sided debate favoring missile defense on Blogtalk Radio.  Both the video and radio broadcast leave much to be desired in terms of debating the negatives and positives of the issue, but they nevertheless bring forth valid arguments.  Though it is now a bit dated, Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution provides a more centrist, and Democratic party-centered view, also in favor of the system.  

Despite these advocates’ views, MDS is obviously a criticized and controversial issue.  How do these scholars and proponents of MDS answer these six specific criticisms of the MDS?

1. Technology  2. Is there really a threat?  3. Is it worth the costs?  4. Does it aggravate friends and foes alike?  5. Does it undermine international law?  6. Can’t the system be easily countered by a massive attack/suitcase nuke?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

7 comments so far

UNRR
 1 

Here’s my quick response to those six criticisms. 1. Technology is advancing rapidly. No advanced systems ever work right at first. They have to be extensively tested and refined. 2. Unless you don’t consider a nuclear missile to be a threat. Obviously, yes. 3. If you consider the possible damage of a strike by even a single nuclear missile, yes. 4. Irrelevant. Protecting the U.S. is more important. 5. If international law somehow prohiibits defense systems, we should ignore it. 6. No defense protects against everything. That criticism is much like arguing that our soldiers shouldn’t wear body armor because they can still be shot in the face.

February 25th, 2009 at 4:29 am
econstudent01
 2 

Rebuttal to UNRR
1) a. This argument has been advanced since the inception of Star Wars. When will it finally catch up to our demands? b. Countermeasures evolve nearly as fast

2) No country (even a so called “crazy” Iran) would launch an offensive nuc strike. N Korea is pretty “crazy” and they haven’t launched theirs at S Korea. So the real question is who would use a nuc and how. Answer: terrorists and not with a sophisticated ICBM.

3) A mute point. see 2

4) America is in two wars and the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. If we continue to spurn our allies and needlessly aggravate our competitors, we soon will find ourselves deeper in this hole and even more alone. We are not the uni-pole, we do not have unlimited resources, and our competitors ARE getting stronger.

6) a. Body armor has actually stopped bullets in real world sitiaituons. MDS (ICBM) has not. The question is could these resources be better served elsewhere and protect Americans better than 2 decades of missing rockets in tests. b. How come no one tried to shoot Robo cop in the mouth?

February 25th, 2009 at 7:18 am
econstudent01
 3 

Rebuttal to UNRR
1) a. This argument has been advanced since the inception of Star Wars. When will it finally catch up to our demands? b. Countermeasures evolve nearly as fast

2) No country (even a so called “crazy” Iran) would launch an offensive nuc strike. N Korea is pretty “crazy” and they haven’t launched theirs at S Korea. So the real question is who would use a nuc and how. Answer: terrorists and not with a sophisticated ICBM.

3) A mute point. see 2

4) America is in two wars and the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. If we continue to spurn our allies and needlessly aggravate our competitors, we soon will find ourselves deeper in this hole and even more alone. We are not the uni-pole, we do not have unlimited resources, and our competitors ARE getting stronger.

6) a. Body armor has actually stopped bullets in real world situations. MDS (ICBM) has not. The question is could these resources be better served elsewhere and protect Americans better than 2 decades of missing rockets in tests. b. How come no one tried to shoot Robo cop in the mouth?

February 25th, 2009 at 7:19 am
econstudent01
 4 

oops double post. sorry

February 25th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Pat Frost
 5 

That’s now a triple post Econ. I’m of the belief that it would be very useful for the US to have the best missile defense system in the world. Though I agree that Econ’s realist assumptions (Iran being ‘crazy’ and deterrence) are soundly based and most likely scenarios, I think obtaining a known workable MDS would give smaller nuclear states less leverage in their affairs with us than they would have otherwise. In other words states like Iran and NK would not be able to use their nukes to push us and others into corners and gain concessions so easily as they do right now. Now the logistics of cost and efficiency are also very important and I don’t want money being thrown down the proverbial toilet. But in terms of MDS, I can’t help but think that just like many expensive technological breakthroughs in the past, it is seen as too ‘far reaching’. I’m am not a technical expert by no means about MDS and its mechanics, but I am a believer in science, especially American science (my fiancee’s a biologist, but I’m trying to get her to work on missiles. ‘Will you stop trying to make me build missiles in the basement! I told you I can’t do it!’ I think Obama’s administration should continue work on the system, but I understand if they cut back a little, just make sure it is able to make progress if this is possible and let those working on it know that you think it is valuable.

February 25th, 2009 at 10:09 am
UNRR
 6 

econstudent101,

1)true, but there have obviously been significant advances. And any weapon system of any type produces countermeasures. The fact that others will try to counter our countermeasures isn’t a reason not to do anything.

“2) No country (even a so called “crazy” Iran) would launch an offensive nuc strike.”

I’d rather not rely only on the hope that you are correct. And offensive/defensive tend to blur depending on perception.

3) Being helpless to defend against a particular weapon type isn’t a moot point.

4) There are ways to go about things in order to minimize tensions with other countries. But U.S. security should still come first.

6) That’s because we don’t have a system deployed and active, and no one has yet fired an ICBM at us. I’d rather not wait to develop a defense until after we suffer a nuclear strike.

February 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am
micraig
 7 

You want her to build missiles in the basement instead of curing stress related Alzheimers? I’m of an age where that’s becoming important.

February 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Back to top

Array