Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:08:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> > > [Tim Courtney:]
> > > With that logic, I'd expect you to next say that bulletproof vests on police
> > > officers invite criminals to shoot them.
> >
> > I don't think that's a fair extension. Bulletproof vests are
> > *not* sold as a guarantee of protection, rather as an added
> > margin of safety in given situations.
>
> On the other hand, there is something to be said for Tim's extension (though
> it's clear that he meant it as counterfactual) as worth thinking about. If I
> were preparing an action of some kind that had a plausibility of needing to
> shoot armored cops, I would certainly use armor-piercing ammunition. And that
> might increase collateral casualties. In that way, the missile defense shield
> could also stimulate escalation.
That's a good point, and another way of getting at the problem
with a missile shield. Putin has, in fact, hinted that this would
be the case--can you imagine nuclear missiles with advanced ECM
capability? *shudder*
> I'm not arguing with the lack of winnability issue, I agree. But there's
> promoted escalation too. Or maybe that just fits in with your talk about
> gaining an edge.
It does, but I didn't think about it explicitly. It's a good point.
> > > It is imperative to our national security that we defend ourselves against
> > > attacks. Especially because the weapons of mass destruction are making their
> > > way into the hands of terrorists.
>
> > Nuclear terrorism won't come from above--it'll come from within,
>
> Yup. But a space-based infrastructure of _any_ kind is a good thing. I happen
> to think that it's good enough to be worth the (relatively low) risk of
> thermonuclear war.
You raise an interesting and valid point here, one that
I'm very much in sympathy with.
The question, from my standpoint, is how much orbital
infrastructure this would really *be*. Sure, it would be
an enormous investment, but would it really be that much
more than what's already in orbit? The space-based items
we really need are those that can be turned to productive
use for further exploration/colonization. These defences
turn back towards the Earth--in that sense, they're not
so much space infrastructure but Earth-based military
equipment that's sitting on the ultimate high ground.
I agree 100% that added infrastructure is good--and spy
satellites and the like do have benefits--but I disagree
that a missile shiled would be any added benefit in that
regard, at least not one commensurate with the risk.
The only benefit I can see is that it would end the
agreed demilitarization of space and pave the way for
useful nuclear *propulsion*. But who knows what kind of
box we're opening by doing that? (If we did, it wouldn't
be much of a .debate... ;) )
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) with (...) me (...) On the other hand, there is something to be said for Tim's extension (though it's clear that he meant it as counterfactual) as worth thinking about. If I were preparing an action of some kind that had a plausibility of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
