Political Theory

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

kingmonkey — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:42:08 GMT

pairunoyd:

King, you actually think if you just leave bad people alone everything will be ok? They're not gonna be good little kids and stay on their side of the street, not when they can dominate your ass. You're right that the US should be MUCH less involved in other country's affairs, but I can assure you, the Swiss dont enjoy their freedom because of THEIR defense.

I didn't say they'd play nice and not invade. I said it is much less likely that someone would. The reason the Japanese didn't invade the West coast is because of the sheer number of rifles we have here. Its the same reason we didn't invade mainland Japan. The cost in human life wouldn't have made it worth it. It is interesting that during World War II, arguably the badest of the bad guys, didn't bother to invade Switzerland. Yes, plans were drawn up by Hitler didn't see it necessary to waste so much time trying to take a country that would fight the very last person. The loss of German lives would have been too great. When WWII broke out in 1939 the WHOLE nation of Switzerland was mobilized in three days and the total defense stength of Switzerland swelled to over 500,000 people with a peak of over 700,000 men prepared to defend the nation.

The Swiss enjoy their freedom because of their defense and because of their neutrality. No one guarantees the freedom of Switzerland but the Swiss people.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

kingmonkey — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:23:14 GMT

rlynn:
kingmonkey, are we at the end of science? I hear this statement that a missile defense system will never work and it seems to be based on political partisanship rather than the probability of technological advancements. Much is made of hitting bullets with bullets but you must know that in a real war situation those missiles are nuclear tipped and will fry the MIRVs and that's with present technology. We at the knee of a parabolic increase in scientific knowledge.

Nothing made by man is perfect and works 100% all of the time. If Russian were to suddenly launch 100 ICBM's towards us I doubt we'd have the ability, even with this missile defense shield to get every single one of them because the odds are that at least one part of that defense "shield" will fail.

Second, who has the capabilities to launch such an attack? Russia, China, England, Israel and India. Three of those nations are our allies and the other two don't really pose much of a threat to us. China wouldn't attack us because right now we are the reason they have an economy. Russia is a bit sketchy but so far Moscow hasn't said they want to resume the Cold War. North Korea is developing one but no one seriously believes they'd pick a direct fight with the US, especially in the nuclear realm.

The truth is if we just left them alone and stay out of their business there would be no reason for them to attack us. If we opened up trade with North Korea their life would drastically improve and they'd love us because they want our crap.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

pairunoyd — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:05:08 GMT

kingmonkey:

No, the Swiss are safe because they leave people alone, which is my point. And they do not rely on other nations for their defense. In fact, the Swiss model of defense is one of the most complete a nation can have. Most of their male population has served in the military and those still in take their gear and their rifles home with them. Those that are no longer in the military still own guns. Most people in Switzerland enjoy shooting for recreation. Their national shooting competition alone draws over 200,000 spectators. Every office complex has bomb shelters, the mountains have enough space bored out to accommodate the whole population, every bridge is wired for explosives. They have advanced fighters, tanks, APC's, IFV's, communications, etc.

Switzerland can handle itself but doesn't need a "missile defense shield" because they have no enemies. Since they do not get involved in other nations problems and since they aren't trying to force their system of government and life style on others they don't have to worry about someone invading because of the crimes they have committed against them. No one is mad at Switzerland and if they did try to invade them they'd have one hell of a time subduing that nation.

The Swiss follow the model our Founders wanted for us -- a well armed population that trades with all nations but doesn't get involved in their domestic problems.

King, you actually think if you just leave bad people alone everything will be ok? They're not gonna be good little kids and stay on their side of the street, not when they can dominate your ass. You're right that the US should be MUCH less involved in other country's affairs, but I can assure you, the Swiss dont enjoy their freedom because of THEIR defense.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

rlynn — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:49:43 GMT

kingmonkey, are we at the end of science? I hear this statement that a missile defense system will never work and it seems to be based on political partisanship rather than the probability of technological advancements. Much is made of hitting bullets with bullets but you must know that in a real war situation those missiles are nuclear tipped and will fry the MIRVs and that's with present technology. We at the knee of a parabolic increase in scientific knowledge.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

kingmonkey — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:34:34 GMT

No, the Swiss are safe because they leave people alone, which is my point. And they do not rely on other nations for their defense. In fact, the Swiss model of defense is one of the most complete a nation can have. Most of their male population has served in the military and those still in take their gear and their rifles home with them. Those that are no longer in the military still own guns. Most people in Switzerland enjoy shooting for recreation. Their national shooting competition alone draws over 200,000 spectators. Every office complex has bomb shelters, the mountains have enough space bored out to accommodate the whole population, every bridge is wired for explosives. They have advanced fighters, tanks, APC's, IFV's, communications, etc.

Switzerland can handle itself but doesn't need a "missile defense shield" because they have no enemies. Since they do not get involved in other nations problems and since they aren't trying to force their system of government and life style on others they don't have to worry about someone invading because of the crimes they have committed against them. No one is mad at Switzerland and if they did try to invade them they'd have one hell of a time subduing that nation.

The Swiss follow the model our Founders wanted for us -- a well armed population that trades with all nations but doesn't get involved in their domestic problems.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

pairunoyd — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:40:22 GMT

If you think the Swiss exist as they do because they have next-to-no military? No, they're 'free riders'. They're safe because other nations know the US would defend them. I agree, the US is way to interventionist, however.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

Bostwick — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:42:19 GMT

pairunoyd:
Matthew Graybosch:
I'm more afraid of Washington than I am of Moscow

Are one's past actions taken into consideration when you assess threat level?

Can you compare the history and Russian and America in the last 100 yrs?

Would you have rather lived in Russia or America in the last 100 yrs?

I find few things more contemptible than "anarchist" that believe freedom would merely be market imperialism.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

kingmonkey — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:41:51 GMT

A missile defense system is completely useless. First, you can probably defend against a couple of missiles but if a foreign nation unleshed hundreds of them I doubt you'd get them all. Second, if you just left everyone alone then you wouldn't have missiles flying towards you anyway. Think of Switzerlands missile defense system.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

pairunoyd — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:14:30 GMT

rhys:

pairunoyd:
...I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions.

This is exactly my point. Why should we base our judgement of the US's actions on what other nations do? We shouldn't. We should only base our judgement of our national policies on the principles which our government is charged with the task to uphold.

No, I'm not talking about what America did and then what China did. I'm talking about the scenario that takes place between them being judge based upon what they did. If you want to oppose ANY actions America takes against China, then your criticism should pretend to objectively discuss the facts of each interaction. In other words, if two bad guys came together and you opposed their fighting but they fought anyway and you judged the fight, that judgement should be based on the actual punches or you shouldn't comment about the actual fight. You can say, American shouldnt do this or that because it complicates matters, etc., but if you wish the judge the ACTUAL exchange between America and China, judge it objectively. America did this. China did that. Did America really do this? Did China really do that? You just seem to be saying, Yes, America did this and China didn't do that, regardles of the facts, simply because you dont want America there in the first place. Which is a perfectly legitimate argument.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

rhys — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:30:22 GMT

pairunoyd:
...I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions.

This is exactly my point. Why should we base our judgement of the US's actions on what other nations do? We shouldn't. We should only base our judgement of our national policies on the principles which our government is charged with the task to uphold.

pairunoyd:
The evidence you have, that makes any assessment begin to even be possible, is evidence that comes to light because of America's less-oppressive nature when compared to it's combatants. The countries of Iran and China REPRESS this evidence. So if one combatant hides 95% of it's potentially culpable actions and the other combatant hides 50%, who are you most likely to decide in favor of.

I am not deciding in favor of anything. I am only judging US foreign policy based upon the principles our policy is supposed to uphold. I don't care if China represses all of its culpability. That is no excuse for US foreign policy to fall into lawlessness. We have invaded a foreign nation without any chance that we were in imminent danger. That is wrong, and no amount of Chinese, Iraqi, or Iranian under-handedness can erase this fact.

pairunoyd:
Unfortunately though, sometimes the badness of others forces the better people to involve themselves in things they'd rather not be involved in. My going to a rowdy neighbor and requesting quiet doesn't mean I'm trying to deny my own bad behaviors.

I would not disagree. But would you be justified in shooting him if he spat on your car? No, defense must be proportional. Was our policy of defense against Iraq proportional to the threat they posed to us?

pairunoyd:
Judges are imperfect. Can they judge others? Police are imperfect. Can they arrest suspects?

Yes, but when they do thier job poorly, we don't apologize for it by claiming, "But look at how rotten the defendant was?" Instead, we challenge the authority of the judge to preside. Even one little mistake can allow a criminal to go free. The State must be held to the highest standard of ethical behavior - even higher than individuals, which means that even highly ethical people may be dismissed from public service if they make a small error in ethical judgement. We shouldn't dismiss the mistakes of policy and government action because other governments are bad, any more than we should dismiss the behavior of crooked cops or judges just because criminals are bad.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

rhys — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:57:46 GMT

rlynn:
Rhys whenever I hear stuff like I'm always for the victum I think that somebody has bought into the marxist claptrap. Who is the victum.

As Robert Frost once said a liberal was a man so broad-minded he refused to take his own side in argument.

You obviously don't believe that there is any danger in the current world situation other than the US defending itself. It doesn't really matter who was right or who was wrong in a chicken or the egg situation, what matters is the survival of free markets which are the basis of all personal freedoms.

Victim: a person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime. This has nothing to do with Marx; most people understand that victims are not responsible for their hardship and are owed retribution by the aggressor. It is almost a tautology to claim that the side of the victim must be defended to have a just society.

I believe that there is much danger in the world in addition to the US 'defending' itself at its citizen's expense. I could die driving to work tomorrow.

While I don't agree with you, that it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong, I do agree about the survival of free markets, which can only happen to the degree to which we are able to spend our money in markets as opposed to spending it on American and Iraqi deaths. How much money should we spend goading terrorists into attack us?

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

darcgun — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:00:19 GMT

pairunoyd:

Some BBC news posted by CSPANJUNKIEdotORG on Youtube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMb522lWDmQ

I posted the following to a Yahoo newsgroup a little while ago. The group contains quite a few anarchists, but anyone is encouraged to reply.

My post as it appears on the Yahoo newsgroup:

(Firstly, this question is not about the U.S. nor the particular
course they may or may not be taking in order to secure a missle
defense program, whatever that program may consist of. Secondly, if
you wish to discuss it in terms of the U.S.'s current policy, I'd
prefer you address the idea of such a defensive technology more
abstractly before integrating it into the politics of our day)

Would a technology that can insulate you from foreign nuclear missle
attack be desirable?

Within your preferred form of governance or societal arrangement,
what percentage of your income would you be willing to pay to support
such a technology? This assumes there exists a significant nuclear
armament, similar to the levels found in today's world, not currently
under the auscpices of your preferred societal arrangement or
governance.

Would you want the U.S. to have this technology and by proxy defend
you from nucear missle attack? Even if you oppose the coercive
measures employed to finance such a defense system, would you rest
better at night knowing that it's there or do you think things would
get worse? If worse, then in what way?:

I think a US missile defence is a good idea. But I would favour the late Harry Browne's approach and let private companies design and build it.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

pairunoyd — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:31:15 GMT

rhys:

I think it's weird that we should worry more about other government's misbehavior than our own. When I was a child, I would try to defend my own bad behavior by pointing out the bad behavior of others, but my mom told me to worry about myself first. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When are we going to demand that our Federal government be limited by the Constitution?

I agree with this statement. However, I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions. If you choose to examine nations actions toward one another, be honest about it. You're being biased because you're judging each instance of nation-to-nation exchange in light of your anti-interventionists objective and not upon the particular facts of each case.

The evidence you have, that makes any assessment begin to even be possible, is evidence that comes to light because of America's less-oppressive nature when compared to it's combatants. The countries of Iran and China REPRESS this evidence. So if one combatant hides 95% of it's potentially culpable actions and the other combatant hides 50%, who are you most likely to decide in favor of. It's not like the evidence in a free and open trial. It's a kangaroo court.

Yes, I too believe the US is WAY too involved abroad, but I truly question it when the US is ALWAYS in the wrong when discussing it's relations with other countries. Unfortunately though, sometimes the badness of others forces the better people to involve themselves in things they'd rather not be involved in. My going to a rowdy neighbor and requesting quiet doesn't mean I'm trying to deny my own bad behaviors.

Judges are imperfect. Can they judge others? Police are imperfect. Can they arrest suspects?

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

rlynn — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:49:55 GMT

Rhys whenever I hear stuff like I'm always for the victum I think that somebody has bought into the marxist claptrap. Who is the victum.

As Robert Frost once said a liberal was a man so broad-minded he refused to take his own side in argument.

You obviously don't believe that there is any danger in the current world situation other than the US defending itself. It doesn't really matter who was right or who was wrong in a chicken or the egg situation, what matters is the survival of free markets which are the basis of all personal freedoms.

Re: Missle Defense: Can You Defend It?

JimS — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:00:00 GMT

The reason why the US has been a more desirable place to live in the past couple hundred years than much of the rest of the world is because we have a constitutional limited government. If those running the government gets the power to do whatever they want in the name of national security, we'd be no better than Iraq, Iran, Russia and China, all of which have a history of running bureacratic national security states.

Back to the issue of missile defense. It's not about taking whose side, it's about taking a course of action that's most beneficial to ourselves. If the Russians can not feel secure in their second-strike capability, they will be tempted to launch missiles first ask questions later when they are confronted by a computer glitch or a rogue launch. That's not good for ourselves. Not to mention the enormous amount of wealth spent on such a project of dubious value. The "rogue states" are not going to use ICBM's against us when they have all sorts of ground transportation available to them. The likely victims of their ICBM's are their fellow "rogue state" neighbors. Then we get into the touchy issue of who gets to come under our umbrella, who doesn't; and whether those coming under our umbrella get to tount their neighbors. Do we really want to get into that?