Hypothetical: Would you want the US to have the SDI?

[Angst]

On one hand, there's the problem of the world police identity that really doesn't need more fuel as is. The results of US invasions are usually so despicable and grim; I mean, I like what the US did to Germany 'n all, so if they'd just for once repeat that success, I wouldn't have an issue with US military action. But well, how often does this actually work? Would you want to further enforce enforce the American military hegemony and its consequences around the world?

On another hand, there's the actual scary stuff like Russia and North Korea. See, I wouldn't really care about being conquered by Russia if just I wouldn't have a lesser standard of living. I really like the life and liberties I enjoy in Denmark and I can't see those continuing under Russia. And I wouldn't be scared of Russia if not for the current Ukraine thing. I know we don't have a sizable Russian minority in Denmark, so I probably shouldn't be afraid but I'd feel safer with Big Daddy McDonald's and his SDI protecting the strategically important Danish Sound etc. I really, really don't see a war between Russia and the West boding well for Scandinavian territory.

Also, I seriously can't imagine a reign as horrifying as the North Korean government, so stripping them of their nuclear capacities and toppling that government is ok to me. It surprises me that I think that as I, as I said, dislike US intervention. But North Korea is worse than the Nazis. It's an actual Orwellian state. I'd rather install ISIS as my sole governing party.

Also, the enemy can just use tactical nukes from missile subs anyways
space race victory ftw

 

[LoneRebel]

I say they should go for it, if they can. I remember reading that one concern with developing the SDI was that it would upset the balance of power by making the US immune to nuclear attack. Well, screw maintaining the balance of power. I'd rather live under Big Daddy McDonald's than the equally self-centered and hypocritical pretenders to the throne that are nipping at America's heels nowadays (I'm thinking in particular of two large countries on the Eurasian landmass). It irritates me when these countries act like they're more virtuous than the US. Please. They're no better than the US, they're just weaker. If they had the same amount of power the US does, they'd do all the same things the US has done and more. As the saying goes, better the devil you know...

 

[Paul in Saudi]

No, not at all. It would be a Very Bad Thing. If one side in the nuclear standoff has a perfect shield, there is no reason why it would not use its sword. It could launch a nuclear first-strike with complete immunity from a counter-attack.

Further, when such a system was (say) 90% complete, the other side would be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Fire at the US while it still can or accept US domination.

No, you do not want to mess with Mutually Assured Destruction in any way.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah sure. It'd be cool. I don't think we'd really abuse it.

 

[azzaman333]

Is an SDI a hybrid STI and STD?

 

[LoneRebel]

No, not at all. It would be a Very Bad Thing. If one side in the nuclear standoff has a perfect shield, there is no reason why it would not use its sword. It could launch a nuclear first-strike with complete immunity from a counter-attack.

That's assuming the US actually wants or needs to nuke anyone.

Further, when such a system was (say) 90% complete, the other side would be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Fire at the US while it still can or accept US domination.

As for this, yeah, I could see the US's rivals doing this.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

You bet your life.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I would prefer every country to have the SDI. If that is not possible, I want no one to have it. This power imbalance will be abused.

 

[LamaGT]

Yeah either everyone has it or no one has it.
It would make sense for a non-nuclear nation, not the first or second nuclear power.

 

[James Stuart]

Yeah either everyone has it or no one has it.
It would make sense for a non-nuclear nation, not the first or second nuclear power.

If a non-nuclear nation had it, it would either be conquered by a nuclear nation with a stronger conventional force, or, if it had stronger conventional forces, use them to push around its neighbours without fear of retaliation.

All power imbalances in geopolitics tend to lead to bad things. The problem is that, despite several hundred years of scholarly attempts to proclaim it, there is no such thing as a "balance of power" in international relations. I would not like the US to have the SDI, because I believe it would only increase the belligerency of both America and its enemies. If everyone had it, I wouldn't be as concerned. Of course, if I lived in the US, I might have a different opinion, since SDI might conceivably save my tight, toned backside from a Russian attack.

@LoneRebel: I think France is closer to catching up with the US than either the USSRRussia or China myself. And that's not a bad thing, given France's history of a more balanced, thoughtful foreign policy. And yes, I am aware that this foreign policy is still chock-full of bloody and violent mistakes, I just think it's not as full of them as US foreign policy.

 

[uppi]

That's assuming the US actually wants or needs to nuke anyone.
.

When it comes to using nukes against civilians, the US has the worst track record of any nation.

So no, I don't want them to have the SDI.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I say they should go for it, if they can. I remember reading that one concern with developing the SDI was that it would upset the balance of power by making the US immune to nuclear attack.

The idea was that it would reignite the nuclear arms race. All defenses can be overcome, including Star Wars. So instead of there being a standoff, with nuclear weapons usage being prevented by MAD and tentative steps towards disarming, you have one side that can maybe shoot down 80% of nuclear missiles launched at it and one side that can't. The one side that can't will just reignite the arms race, under the assumption that by striking first with thousands of more warheads, some of them will get past the defenses and actually hit the country.

So I don't really think SDI is all that great of an idea. By relying on defenses, one would just start another race to overcome them. Disarming all nuclear weapons and ridding the world of them is a far better bet for preventing nuclear war.

 

[CavLancer]

Being unnukable is nothing new for the US. The US had nukes first and did not conquer the world. The US did use them in war but not one it started. It was anticipated that the US could lose up to a half million soldiers invading Japan and the Japanese millions more, mostly civilians picking up a stick and attacking US lines.

Imagine if Germany, Italy, Japan or Russia got nukes first? Now imagine that this morning every US nuke suddenly vanished from the face of the Earth, and you might get a greater appreciation...

Also, if everyone had SDI then old scores would break out new wars all over the place and if you are young enough you would be stuck in a uniform by somebody.

 

[LoneRebel]

Being unnukable is nothing new for the US. The US had nukes first and did not conquer the world. The US did use them in war but not one it started. It was anticipated that the US could lose up to a half million soldiers invading Japan and the Japanese millions more, mostly civilians picking up a stick and attacking US lines.

Imagine if Germany, Italy, Japan or Russia got nukes first? Now imagine that this morning every US nuke suddenly vanished from the face of the Earth, and you might get a greater appreciation...

Also, if everyone had SDI then old scores would break out new wars all over the place and if you are young enough you would be stuck in a uniform by somebody.

Good points.

 

[Agent327]

By all means, if the US want to add to their already massive budget deficit, go for it.

(Of course the main reason that it was shelved, was not the development cost, but the practical impossibility. I.e. there is no such thing as being 'unnukable'.)

 

[Hygro]

By all means, if the US want to add to their already massive budget deficit, go for it.

Why is this relevant to anything?

 

[Agent327]

It's a bit more 'relevant' than the thread title, I should think.

 

[Angst]

Agent327, you should check out Hygro's thread that describes how the so-called deficit is completely irrelevant due to how money actually works. If you enlighten yourself, perhaps you would produce less kneejerk overall.

 

[warpus]

No, because then the Russians and Chinese would start building their own, and I don't want them to have it.

 

[Agent327]

I wonder why they never tried. Possibly because SDI was mostly a financial black hole producing nothing much of value. And then it was quietly abandoned.

Of course, Reagan knew it, and tried to use it as a bargaining chip in Reykyavik. Oddly, Gorbachov wouldn't take the bait.

Agent327, you should check out Hygro's thread that describes how the so-called deficit is completely irrelevant due to how money actually works. If you enlighten yourself, perhaps you would produce less kneejerk overall.

Yeah, I heard about this 'money isn't real' thread. Oh wait, I actually posted a comment. But thanks for the ad hominem innuendo. What would life on CFC be without it... Pleasant, maybe.