Gone is the concept of MAD Mutally assured destruction, that got us through the Cold war today we have the USA working on a missle shield and now this.

UNITED NATIONS - Russia’s new nuclear missile system is purely defensive and part of the country’s program to upgrade its military, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday said the country is developing a new “state-of-the-art” nuclear missile system unlike any weapon held by other countries. He said it will be deployed “in the near future” but gave no detail

At some point in the future some idiot in some control room somewhere is going to decide that his/her Missile defence is better than the other guys and think a Nuclear war is winnable and the whole world is going to lose. Good job USA in abandoning the Anti-Ballistic missle treaty. Oh by the way tell the guys keeping track of the doomsday clock to turn that sucker a few minutes closer to midnight cause I can almost hear that first chime echoing. :not: :nonono: :nonono:

At some point in the future some idiot in some control room somewhere is going to decide that his/her Missile defence is better than the other guys and think a Nuclear war is winnable and the whole world is going to lose.Come on, this is the sort of nuclear hysteria that we saw in the late 50s, mid 60s and early 80s. I for one don't put much stock in it. Nobody is ever going to think they can win a pre-emptive all out nuclear war, at least nobody with access to the big red button.

At the same time GM, this clearly feels like a step BACKWARDS than where we were leaving the 80s and going into the 90s. THe last 5 years has been a regression in terms of nuclear disarmarment.

i would just like to point out that the "defense department" is not purely defensive. Just because Fedotov says that the system is "defensice" doesnt mean that it could be used purely for defensive purposes.

Additionally, it is called a "nuclear missile system" implying that the system enhances Russia's nuclear capability. A missile defense system reduces someone elses nuclear capability without directly enhancing your own. That said, I dont think this "nuclear missile system" is a missile defense system.

These are all assumptions, and until more information is available there's nothing to be afraid of.

Gone is the concept of MAD Mutally assured destruction, that got us through the Cold war today we have the USA working on a missle shield and now this.



At some point in the future some idiot in some control room somewhere is going to decide that his/her Missile defence is better than the other guys and think a Nuclear war is winnable and the whole world is going to lose. Good job USA in abandoning the Anti-Ballistic missle treaty. Oh by the way tell the guys keeping track of the doomsday clock to turn that sucker a few minutes closer to midnight cause I can almost hear that first chime echoing. :not: :nonono: :nonono:
So you want to go back to MAD? you wish to rebuild our nuclear arsenal?

As to th AB missile treaty...does it make sense to have a treaty with a country (USSR) that no longer exists?

Not only is it a step backwards, but accidents and mistakes do happen, and one accident or mistake in this area and we're all toast.

And people wonder why Bush backing out of treaties and building more nukes is a bad thing.. Maybe they'll see the light when it's burning the flesh off their bones one day.. :nonono:

Yes, the nuclear disarmament process has stalled and needs to be kicked into gear again. Not sure how this can be done though.

testing quick quote . just hope it lands right on your head if it happens thats what I'd hope for. No atoms or matter left,no suffer.

Mad worked for 50 years. The problem is the people with their fingers on the button do not operate in the same enviroment they did when Mad worked. Today the risk is the security around Nukes and the fear of what would happen if one nuke got into the wrong hands. Both the abandonment of the ABM treaty and the breakup of the Soviet union make the world a much more dangerous place. I see what the intital post is pointing to and perhaps not in the immediate future but at some time the conditions could exist where someone thought they had the upper hand and decided it might work.

Good job USA in abandoning the Anti-Ballistic missle treaty
The Soviet Union abandoned it well before the US with the construction of the Krasnoyarsk radar. Bush merely ended the charade by withdrawing from the treaty. After all, what is the point of staying in a treaty that limits your country's defense when the other party to the treaty flouts the restrictions that the treaty imposes? One should never try to defend himself with a piece of paper.

Gone is the concept of MAD Mutally assured destruction, that got us through the Cold war today we have the USA working on a missle shield and now this. The concept of MAD is still there and it still exists between Russia and the US. But the theory doesn't apply or "work" with Iran, NK or any other small country and/or entity that possesses small quantities of nukes and can deliver those to groups that have the desire to use them against the US



At some point in the future some idiot in some control room somewhere is going to decide that his/her Missile defence is better than the other guys and think a Nuclear war is winnable and the whole world is going to lose. Good job USA in abandoning the Anti-Ballistic missle treaty. Oh by the way tell the guys keeping track of the doomsday clock to turn that sucker a few minutes closer to midnight cause I can almost hear that first chime echoing. :not: :nonono: :nonono:This sounds pretty far fetched

The ABM treaty only helps you if everyone who has a nuke signs it and abides by it. If Osama Bin Laden acquired a nuclear weapon, I doubt he would step up and sign the treaty. In that case we could be sitting ducks.

The world has changed, and as such our policy must change. You're right in pointing out the dangers of this change, but don't ignore the dangers posed by the changing politics of the world.

And to play devils advocate you can't close pandora's box now it has been opened. Nuclear weapons exist, and untill we have a real defense against them, deterence is the best way to make sure they will never be used. Nuclear disarmament actually makes a nuclear war more likely because, as diverlady says, it raises the possiblity that someone sometime will decide that they CAN pull off a first strike that will stop the "enemy" retaliating in kind.

Hugs

lilnymph

Firstly I say every western/advanced nation should have a nuclear defense shield to help defend against attacks from other nations; if we distrust each other that much then we all need defense. Secondly if Bin Laden attacks with a nuclear weapon it probably won't be on a missile so defense shields/anti-missile defenses are useless.

There should be more compromise, diplomacy, respect and trust between western nations so that we can concentrate on the real enemy but wishing for that to happen is just a pipedream for the next four years I guess.

MAD rested upon assumptions that would be inappropriate to make in a post-Cold War world....

There is something inherently bizarre in hearing opposition to a system which seeks to reduce nuclear damage and death of innocents....

be sure you find a way to get the subs first...otherwise it's all a joke.

ITs opposition because the system doesn't actually reduce the danger, it just appears to. And While MAD isn't the perfect solution to make sure they are never used (it doesn't address terrorists), it is certainly a better solution than burying your head in the sand and pretending nuclear weapons don't exist ;)

hugs

lilnymph