January 30, 2007


U.S. missile defense maturing, latest test a success (Andrea Shalal-Esa, 1/30/07, Reuters)

[Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency,] said there would be no formal announcement that the system was operational. He predicted the capability to defend against enemy missiles and to continue testing and development work would be achieved within a year.

"It's just a matter of maturation," he told reporters after a speech hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 30, 2007 11:46 AM

"Now We"ve no excuse not to nuke Them"

Great idea! I'm behind this 100%. ahh..btw who is "them"

Posted by: h-man at January 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Giant ants

Posted by: Bryan at January 30, 2007 1:39 PM

Anyone we choose. That's the beauty of it.

Posted by: oj at January 30, 2007 1:45 PM

who is "them"?

Canada. At least until they take back Celine Dion, Jim Carrey and the NHL.

But seriously, every step of the way the Left has said it couldn't be done, yet here we are at the point of deployment. No wonder their latest reason is a lack of perfection and lack of real world use. Too bad they never apply the "lack of perfection" standard to their own programs and social engineering projects.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 30, 2007 2:05 PM

Mutually Assured Destruction was the Cold War mantra. The game-theory argument was that if each side knew a nuclear attack would result in its own destruction, then there would be no nuclear attack. Worked out well enough, I guess. Though of course it can turn diplomacy into a game of chicken.

If Americans really become protected against nuclear attack-- at any rate by ICBMs-- then do we have any reason to try to prevent nuclear proliferation? After all, they won't be able to hurt us. Let Iran get the bomb.

Or, if others want to stop them, let others take the lead. We can jump on the bandwagon after the Chinese and Russians push for sanctions. It'll be nice not to have to take the heat for spearheading anti-proliferation efforts.

Posted by: Nathan Smith at January 30, 2007 3:35 PM

It allows us to use nukes against proliferators so that everyone has to take it seriously, which is what we should have done to the USSR.

Posted by: oj at January 30, 2007 3:40 PM

Not gonna happen. Nuclear first strikes are too inhumane for America to do it.

Posted by: Nathan Smith at January 30, 2007 5:39 PM

Casualty free war is too attractive for us not to.

Posted by: oj at January 30, 2007 6:07 PM

Counter-value deterrence does closely resemble a game of chicken. It was so described in those words by Hermann Kahn in On Thermonuclear War. Just because deterence must be credible, the aggressor to be deterred must not entertain the possiblity that the response might be foregone. The deterrent threat must be certain and irrevocable.

The winnner in the chicken game, then, must remove his steering wheel and wave it out of the car window. The other party cannot be allowed to hope that the deterrent party may go all Bobby Kennedy/Bay of Pigs at the last minute.

The issues presented now are unlike those we faced during the cold war. Passing over the effect of defensive technology sppoken of in the article, deterrence does not mean what it did when we stood against THE FORMER SOVIER UNION. The present enemy theatens us with tragic catastrophe. We deter him with the threat of the fate of Amalek, biocidal destruction, minus the sin of Saul, letting some domestic animals survive.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 30, 2007 6:58 PM

Deterrence doesn't work if you haven't used your weapon in 60 years.

Posted by: oj at January 31, 2007 8:05 AM