The United States Space Arsenal

ntmokey writes "When China tested a missile on its own satellite in January, the nation's aggressive statement immediately raised eyebrows among the world's other space-faring nations. Popular Mechanics looks at the implications of a conflict in space — including debris that could render space unusable for decades — and examines the United States' own space arsenal."

Comments

Star Wars

[nlitement]

Whatever happened to the Strategic Defense Initiative?

Re:Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the Strategic Defense Initiative?

Forget that! What happened to the other 49 states?!

Re:Star Wars

[2.7182]

What happened ? It worked. It broke the economy of the Soviet Union. Of course, the technology largely didn't work. Like the x-ray space weapon proposed by Edward Teller.

Re:Star Wars

[timeOday]

It worked. It broke the economy of the Soviet Union.

What a convenient post-hoc rationalization for a monumental waste of money that is. I guess that may have accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union by a month or two, at a cost of billions, but I'll bet the ROI from giving Stingers to the Afghanis was at least a million times better. (Just imagine how things would be in Iraq now if the insurgents had more than RPGs and light machine guns to bring down our helicopters and airplanes).

Re:Star Wars

[techno-vampire]

I happen to know several people who were on the citizen's committee that came up with the idea. The whole point was for it to look like something we just might be able to pull off so that the Soviet Union would have no choice but to try to copy it and bankrupt themselves in the process. You see, we could afford to build all that stuff, provided we could get it to work, but they couldn't. When they tried, it brought their creaky economy crashing down, and their government soon followed. Believe or not, I don't care, but the people I know who were involved in the planning all tell the same story.

Re:Star Wars

[mi]

If you read the book, you'll see the fact-based analysis showing that the USSR was in serious trouble going into the 80's.

Of course it was — just as Reagan was taking the office (in 1981). USSR's attempts to keep up the arms-race, including SDI — duly decried by the Soviet newspapers daily — helped kill it, instead of allowing it to survive (again) on higher oil prices and slave labor.

Millions of people of the former USSR, myself included, have a lot to thank Ronald Reagan for. The fact, that various Commies (and Commie-sympathizers) still hate him, only adds to the guy's credits.

Re:Star Wars

[jollyreaper]

Of course it was -- just as Reagan was taking the office (in 1981). USSR's attempts to keep up the arms-race, including SDI -- duly decried by the Soviet newspapers daily -- helped kill it, instead of allowing it to survive (again) on higher oil prices and slave labor.

Millions of people of the former USSR, myself included, have a lot to thank Ronald Reagan for. The fact, that various Commies (and Commie-sympathizers) still hate him, only adds to the guy's credits. Thanking Ronald Reagan for his leadership is like thanking Mr. Magoo for his driving.

Re:Star Wars

[Enlightenment]

Of course, it helped that the enemy that we faced was morally bankrupt and couldn't have possibly won the cold war. It frightens me that people actually associate "morally bankrupt" with "couldn't have possibly won." The two don't necessarily go together.

Re:Star Wars

[Rei]

Nice way to not address the poster's points, and instead resort to rhetoric.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of a coup, a radically reformist government, and breakaway republics. The Soviet Union's economic might declined radically from the sixties to the eighties. The Soviets themselves recognized this and wrote about this. It's one of the main issues that brought Gorbachev to power. There was already wide discontent because their industrial production couldn't provide their people the sort of standard of life that the west's did, because of widespread corruption, repression, and so forth. Soviet military spending during Reagan didn't even match their inflation rate. After the 1982 Afghanistan disaster, Andropov made it an economic strategy to disengage from foreign conflict. The big military expenditure boosts in the late Soviet Union's history were the waste that was Afghanistan and their two-way Cold War with China as well as America (largely because the two couldn't agree on what was the "right" form of Communism).

Here's an article from 1991, published in International Affairs, analyzing the (already circulating) claim that the US military spending increase caused an increase in Soviet military spending, bringing about the country's downfall. The full article isn't online but you can read the abstract.

Re:Star Wars

[tftp]

When they tried, it brought their creaky economy crashing down

Your theory is fine, and your friends are entitled to their own views; however USSR never "tried" to make its own Star Wars hardware. USSR's ABM efforts were identical to USA's work and resulted in the ABM-limiting treaty that stood for decades, until Bush tore it up. The reason is that USSR's scientists did some calculations on a napkin and concluded, correctly, that it's impossible to build such a system at this time that would actually work (1000's US's missiles flying in and 100% intercept.) It's still impossible, decades later. Given the number of missiles that both camps had, the system indeed had to have very impressive reliability, or else it would be complete waste of money. So USSR never built one. After Reagan announced his SDI USSR just sent more money to shipyards and built a bunch more of nuclear submarines, that's it. After Bush's démarche Putin also did the same - ordered a bunch of warheads that make zigs and zags at reentry speed.

And if you are interested in why the USSR fell, it's not even because of economy. It was bad, but there was no hunger yet. It might have been, though, if the USSR was allowed to rot some more. But it never happened, and "the people" in the street were as surprised with these developments as anyone in the West. The real reason is that when Gorbachev wanted to liberalize economy he accidentally liberalized the political life, and there were plenty of opportunists waiting and ready to insert themselves into the corridors of power. That's what they did, and that's where all the independent republics got their leaders from. Russia got Yeltsin, and that was not even the worst outcome. Gorbachev saw it happening but wasn't ready to defend the old way. For that he was briefly detained, and the conspirators tried to involve the army to put the toothpaste back; it did not work. So that's how it happened, and I did not even need to talk to anyone to offer you this overview.

Re:Star Wars

[olman]

The Soviet Union collapsed because of a coup, a radically reformist government, and breakaway republics. The Soviet Union's economic might declined radically from the sixties to the eighties. The Soviets themselves recognized this and wrote about this. It's one of the main issues that brought Gorbachev to power. There was already wide discontent because their industrial production couldn't provide their people the sort of standard of life that the west's did, because of widespread corruption, repression, and so forth. Soviet military spending during Reagan didn't even match their inflation rate.

That's doubleplus good doublespeak you have there, comrade.

First off, soviet economy was about to "collapse" late sixties already but they were bailed out by the oil crisis. Yeah. They ran the circus for additional 20 years with the oil income when the crude prices quadrupled due to the middle east oil czars getting their act together. Economic collapse is not quite that straightforward in the planned economy either as the value of goods was strictly controlled by the goverment. In any case sovs economy was in better shape late 70s than late 60s, cf age of stagnation in Brezhnev era. Interestingly enough to soviet citizens this may be the "golden era" since the system "worked" at that time.

As for military spend. GROWTH may not have exceeded their inflation rate, but so what? First off, the real inflation value was astronomical due to the central banks printing money with prices of goods fixed by the goverment. Yeah, you may have got cheap shoes from the shops but the tricky bit was finding the shop that actually had any shoes. Secondly, USSR military spending of their GDP was huge. See for reference the soviet tank production figures and other conventional munitions.. They could have fairly easily overrun NATO in 70s and 80s (Please, no red storm rising fantasies here. Yes, Leo 2A4 is much better tank than T-72, but if you have 10x the numbers in strategic reserve in one side, you can concentrate them on 1:100 numbers locally) if not for the pesky first strike and the whole mutually assured destruction-deal. So mainly soviets were exceeding military production combined NATO countries with economy that was basically crap. Doesn't leave much room for decent consumer goods production there. Plus, well, since prices were goverment sanctioned and there was waiting list of years for the crappy car, what for improve the product?!

I think you mean

[Inoshiro]

The United States' Space Arsenal.

It really makes no sense for one state to be united.

not a threat....yet

[mastershake_phd]

Most spacecraft -- including spy sats -- are in low Earth orbit, which stretches 1240 miles into space. As the Chinese test proved, such targets could be hit with medium-range missiles tipped with crude kill devices. GPS satellites are far higher, orbiting at about 12,600 miles. Many communications sats are in the 22,000-mile range. Destroying them requires a much more powerful and sophisticated long-range ballistic missile

Most of the strategic targets are in a much safer place, sure they could easily knock out our spy satellites, but there are alternatives to those.

Re:not a threat....yet

[Grave]

See, that's the thing about international politics. China wouldn't attack us in the first place because they know we would wipe them out. Just as we wouldn't attack China because they could do substantial damage to us. The entire point of the nuclear arsenal is that it never has to be used, but it must be understood by all parties that it WILL be used if given no other real option. It's called mutually assured destruction (MAD). As it stands, our military is stretched too thin to take on China conventionally right now, and even if we weren't mired in Iraq, the only thing we could ever do to them would be air and naval strikes. China knows they are safe from ground attack. We would need months to build up enough conventional forces in the region for a land invasion that would pit a few hundred thousand US soldiers against a couple million Chinese soldiers and a few hundred million citizens armed with whatever China is willing to give them.

As for needing China because of manufacturing, we could always just return millions of jobs to our fellow citizens, pay them decent wages, and be able to purchase higher-quality, untainted products again. Gee, what a novel concept. I don't give a hoot about people having to pay a tiny bit more for their goods, because the overall economic strength of any country is founded on jobs, not imports. Bring back the manufacturing base and watch the middle class recover.

sad but inevitable

[wizardforce]

Judging by how humanity acts on Earth it was a logical step to bring war to space as sad as that is. what happened was China took out one of their clunky near-dead weather satellite with a missile [kinetic warhead I believe] which basically tore the hell out of it with sheer speed and mass. They failed a few times before but by the rate their military spending is going it wont be long before they actually out pace us [if not already] this combined with their long standing rivalry with us on economic, political and cyberspace issues we very much need to watch this a lot closer than Iraq/war on terror because of the real implications of possible future conflict.

Re:sad but inevitable

[QuantumG]

Could also be the best thing that ever happens to mankind.

In order to fight a war in space, you need a launch capability that is beyond what we have today.

You need it to launch space stations that are bigger and stronger than the flimsy tin cans that we have in orbit now.

All the arguments that have been presented for not putting nuclear reactors into space suddenly become irrelevant.. Nuclear propulsion will become a standard feature of spacecraft. Big fat military dollars would then be poured into research to develop better than nuclear propulsion systems, not to mention weapons.

To fight a war in space you really need a working space-based economy. Which also happens to give you something to fight about: control of that economy. A working space-based economy is a necessity to colonization of the solar system - also something to fight over. Colonization of the solar system is essential to the survival of the species.

Re:sad but inevitable

[imkonen]

It's an interesting theory, but I think you're way too optimistic. It's an incredibly unstable situation, because combat in orbit involves almost no defensive options. There are no land formations to hide behind, and no air resistance to slow down projectiles, which is why satellites can be taken down without bothering to mount explosive warheads on the missiles (it's my understanding that is why they are called "kinetic kill vehicles"). Then all the debris created by space conflict becomes a danger to everyone's satellites. The result is that if the player with a satellite disadvantage has satkill technology, they can level the playing field and make it so nobody has any space capabilities. It doesn't help at all to be better at space combat than your opponent as long as your opponent is above a minimum technological threshold (which China is essentially at right now).

Re:sad but inevitable

[sumdumass]

WTF world are you on and what drugs have you been taking. My god, I haven't heard that much easily refutable bullshit in a generic Bush bash in a long time. Are you forgetting that the people your talking to have the internet and can look some thing up? Or that the economy isn't tanking, We have the capacity to deal with North Korea and Iran even with Iraq.

We are in not more of a vulnerable position the we were before Iraq. We have more then half our military force free to do whatever if absolutely needed. Sure, we would need help from other countries, but even if they refused, we have weapons not even in the arena currently that would put an end to anything that threatening. Our goal in the cold war was to fight a world war on two fronts. We have scaled the military down a bit but not that much. We also had a goal that is being realized even more today were we could fight the war without risk to solders.

Now, don't take what is happening in Iraq to mean it would happen anywhere else. The only Reason we aren't waisting Iraq is because we are trying to save it. If another country starts something, we aren't going to be worried about saving it. We won't be worried about rebuilding it. We won't be worried about much of anything outside not losing at that point in time. This means the big guns come out and we kick some ass. You act like we are defenseless. We aren't, we aren't even close. So go pull your little skirt up over your head and cry somewhere else.

Something to note, even if we disarmed the nuclear warheads and loaded conventional explosives, we have enough ICBMs to wipe Iran or N. Korea clean. Sure, we would have some get away, but it would be small enough and dispersed enough the police forces could deal with it.

Life isn't all rosie with peaches and cream. But it isn't bad either. give it a break and just fucking look around man.

Re:sad but inevitable

[jollyreaper]

There are no land formations to hide behind, and no air resistance to slow down projectiles, which is why satellites can be taken down without bothering to mount explosive warheads on the missiles (it's my understanding that is why they are called "kinetic kill vehicles"). Nope. The reason why missiles have explosives on them is because a direct hit is very difficult to achieve. What's more likely to hit a bird flying by, a solid slug or a pellet spray from a shotgun? With proximity-fused weapons (cannon shells, missiles) the idea is that the weapon is not likely to hit the target but will pass very close. The proximity system uses radio waves to detect the object and will explode the weapon the moment the range increases. To show the likelihood of a direct hit, the Air Force would conduct live fire exercises with real missiles against real drone targets like remotely controlled F-4's. The training missiles had the warheads removed. Most missiles would pass within proper kill proximity of the drone and very few would actually strike it, causing damage.

Newer missile designs are becoming accurate enough that the warhead can be dispensed with, the impact of the weapon alone will be sufficient. The Brits have found their smart bombs so accurate, they are replacing the actual bomb with a concrete casting, leaving the guidance system and fins the same. This kind of weapon can be used to plink tanks in civilian areas. 2 tons of concrete dropped on a tank from 10,000 feet means no more tank, an explosion would be overkill at that point. It also means that you can hit a tank sitting outside a school and not even break the windows. That's a win for any civilians unlucky enough to be nearby.

As for space weapons, the insane velocities involved with orbital speeds is what also makes an explosive redundant. A fleck of urine almost took out the cockpit window on a previous shuttle flight. Nothing is likely to survive the impact of a kinetic kill vehicle, assuming the defense contractors can get the thing to hit without having to rig the demo.

Re:sad but inevitable

[jollyreaper]

Which is really yet another way Bush royally fucked us over. Yes this is off topic, but I don't give a shit. There are countries we actually needed to keep an eye on. Iran, North Korea, the PRC, etc. Iraq was not one of them. Now we've pretty much blown our hegemonic wad over this bullshit, leaving us in an extremely vulnerable military position. Let alone our economic situation which is poised to collapse any day now (even more than it already has, starting with the hedge fund market). Of course none of the responsible parties are ever going to be brought to justice (i.e. spend the rest of their lives in the Military Prison for International War Criminals at Hague in the Netherlands). Bush is going to piss off to his Ranch in South America. I'd guess the rest of them have similar arrangements made. Oh, dear. You must really hate America. Only someone who hates America could have such nasty things to say about the patriots leading our fine country. I will pray for Jesus to open your eyes and make you love your nation again.

*this post doesn't need a sarcasm tag, it needs a sarcasm suppository*

Re:sad but inevitable

[Jarjarthejedi]

"It's an incredibly unstable situation, because combat in orbit involves almost no defensive options"

I'm sure someone said that about Sea Warfare once, and it was true until Aegis anti-missile and torpedo decoys were developed. Every battlefield has it's differences and there are many for which defending is difficult without technology. The only real area where you can hide behind things is land battles, and I don't think anyone would suggest that Sea and Air warfare 'Involve almost no defensive options' as there are possible options, they're just not natural to the terrain.

Combat in orbit is no more unstable than combat in air, or combat at sea. The only difference is that the wreckage can remain in orbit. That seems at first to be a big deal however there are ways to deal with that, just as there are ways to deal with sat-kill vehicles. Combat in orbit will be no different than any other battlefield once countermeasures are deployed, I seem to recall an attitude of 'We shouldn't try to combatify air because of (list of reasons) which will inevitably make it a more dangerous and horrible place to fight and end humanity' which seems to be how many people treat space right now. As Fallout once said, "War. War never changes."

Re:sad but inevitable

[Weedlekin]

"Look at tank armor some time. You get a long ways with thickness and deflection"

This used to the case with thickness, but deflection has never been used. The reason sloped tank armour replaced flat planes was because it prevents a thicker cross section to an incoming projectile, and not (as many seem to believe) because it has any deflection value against high speed projectiles. Modern tank armour on the other hand is a series of almost flat planes, much like that of WWII tank armour, although for very different reasons.

Modern tanks basically face three types of threats (from other tanks and infantry -- the likes of hellfire missiles are beyond the scope of this topic): high-energy anti-tank (HEAT), high-explosive squash head (HESH), and APDS (armour-piercing discarding sabot, i.e. long-rod kinetic energy penetrators). Each works differently, so armour incorporates several different mechanisms, each of which is specifically designed to counter one of these.

1) HEAT rounds use plasma jets to burn their way through armour (the classic RPG uses this system). There are four possible counters:
a) Spacing. Armour has multiple air spaces in the hope that the jet will consume some layers, leaving the rest intact. It isn't very effective against modern HEAT rounds, but is still much better than a solid layer of equal thickness.

b) Stand-off plates / cages. These have been used for years to protect tank wheels from older, less powerful infantry HEAT weapons, and appeared on the bodies of the less heavily armoured German tanks during WWII. Some infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) in the current Iraq conflict carry "cage" versions, proving that it's still effective against weapons that don't carry tandem-charge warheads.

c) Explosive-reactive armour (ERA). Tanks are covered with small explosive-filled boxes with a metal face-plate. The plasma jet detonates the explosive, and the face plat is thrown laterally in its path to consume it. Not effective against tandem-charge warheads.

d) Ceramic pyramids that remain solid at extremely high temperatures are set inside the armour to dissipate the jet. This is the mechanism used by "Chobham" armour (originally a British design, hence the name); it is effective even against tandem charges, but is extremely costly to manufacture, and also very heavy.

2) HESH. This round flattens against the surface of the tank, and then detonates into the armour, sending a shock wave through it that causes the inner surface of the vehicle to "spall" (i.e. become shrapnel that ricochets around inside it, turning the crew into human sushi). It's fairly easily defeated by a combination of spaced armour and spall liners, which are layers of adhesive plastics on the inside surface of the armour. For this reason, it's primarily used against infantry fighting vehicles nowadays, whose thinner armour has little room for effective air spacing, and therefore spalls very well indeed.

3) APDS / APFSDS. A sabot is used to carry a long, thin, extremely heavy penetrator rod with a point that converts its considerable kinetic energy into very high pressures and temperatures where both the rod and armour become fluids (a process that's analogous to squirting a jet of water into a bucket of oil). The length of the rod must be more or less that same as the armour it's intended to penetrate because the solid rear moves "through" the liquid front (which loses kinetic energy rapidly), becoming liquid itself in the process. A rod that's too short will therefore simply "bore" a hole in the armour, leaving a "hot spot" on the inside that would be likely to burn anyone who touches it rather badly, but has no other effect. Note that DU penetrators are also pyrophoric, i.e. they burn inside the armour in addition to becoming liquid (sintered tungsten doesn't do this, and is also more prone to shatter than DU, although it's far less toxic to both tank crews and the post-battle environment). It can be countered in two ways, both of which are present in the best modern composite ar

Why is it shocking?

[Anonymous Coward]

China shocked the world with its recent antisatellite missile test. What is so shocking about an obvious method of warfare? Did people really think that space could be a conflict free zone? Even if a country has signed treaties to ban use of such weapons, they still do it (or have the capability to do it within short notice after canceling their agreement).

What -could- be considered shocking is that they'd litter their own skies with junk debris, thus making it harder for them (and everyone else) to use space in the future.

Re:How can we clean it up?

[wizardforce]

space tethers take care of larger space junk see here: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News .asp?NewsNum=264

but could they send up a satellite to look for some debris and zap it with a laser to vaporize it?

nice idea but think about how precise you would need to be to take out chunks the size of a pebble spaced out [they are not clumps anymore they drift] from anywhere with any efficiency without blinding higher satellites.

What happens if we set of a nuke in the upper atmosphere?

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear _explosion

USA tests

[timmarhy]

so if china does it it's shocking, i wonder what it'd be called if you yanks did it

Re:USA tests

[ErikZ]

"Today the United States blew up one of it's satellite creating an expanding cloud of debris. It's purpose was to show to the world it's military might and not to fuck around with them."

Yeah, I think shocking would cover it.

my favorite cold war short story

[jollyreaper]

I forget the name but it was written years and years ago. It's from the perspective of a young canadian watching the first return trip to space since WWIII. He thinks back to how things were before the war, the assumptions made around the globe. The US and USSR were so intent on mutually annihilating each other that no concern was given to any other nation, including the one most of the warheads would be flying over. The Canadians developed a secret WWIII plan. Special tunnels were carved into mountains, angled at the trajectories the missiles would be sure to follow over the pole. Gigantic atom bombs were created in a secret program. These bombs were placed at the bottom of the tunnels and the intervening space was filled with aerodynamic shrapnel. When the button was finally pushed and the missiles flew on their way, the Canadians pressed a button of their own. Their bombs went off and powered what were essentially giant shotguns, blasting debris into unstable orbits. The blast destroyed most of the warheads in the first exchange and continued to remove large fractions of each subsequent exchange. There was a bit of luck with bombers being more vulnerable to interception than prewar doctrine had anticipated with the net result being both sides running out of weapons before civilization was destroyed.

So our narrator is watching the first rocket trying to get back into space in the twenty years since the war. The night sky is still full of shooting stars as the debris comes back down into the atmosphere. All but the highest of the pre-war satellites were destroyed and nothing new has been able to survive making it through the shrapnel cloud. The thought is that most of it will deorbit in the next hundred or so years. The hope is that armored rockets might be able to survive impacts. The narrator sees this new rocket struck by debris and destroyed, the astronauts lost along with it. Mankind survived the war but lost space in the process.

The story probably isn't as scientifically accurate as one could hope but it still has emotional impact, an visceral truthiness.

Re:Future jobs?

[MasamuneXGP]

Funny you should bring this up. If you're interested in a quite realistic story about the eventual necessity of space debris collecting, you may want to check this out.

Han Solo said it best....

[martin_henry]

...when he said "Great, kid. Don't get cocky"

could render space unusable for decades

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

What? All of it?

Rhetorical Hairsplitting

[DynaSoar]

> so if china does it it's shocking, i wonder what it'd be called if you yanks did it

Successful. If by "you yanks" you mean the US Air Force. They launched the Vought ASM-135A ASAT against a "retired communications satellite" from an F-15 in 1985 and killed it. Note this was an air launched weapon (the "could this be next?" question on the article), not rocket launched as was the Chinese weapon.

If by "you yanks" you mean the US scientists who were at the time using the Solwind research satellite that the USAF actually shot down, I suppose it'd be called "what the fuck happened to our satellite?", until they figured out what happened. At that point it probably became "what the fuck did you do that to our satellite for?"

Since the official story is still that they shot down a retired communications satellite, rather than acknowledging the actual kill (the answer to the above questions being essentially "What satellite? Shut the fuck up."), we've no way to know if they missed their target and the ASAT locked onto Solwind by mistake, or if they just took out a target of opportunity that wouldn't cost them anything. Both are disturbing in their own way.

There's also no word on how much debris was created by Solwind's destruction. The US Space Surveillance Network knows they answer, but they're not saying. They are, after all, operated primarily by the USAF.

Although the ASM-135A ASAT project was cancelled soon after the Solwind kill, there's no reason to expect the USAF stopped ASAT development. The ASM-135A was built from an AGM-69 SRAM and Vought Scout B fourth stage (a Thiokol Altair III motor). These had both been operational for more than a decade when they put the ASAT together. They could have used much newer and more powerful, already operational hardware the very next day, taking it off the active armament shelf, bypassing the messy PR problem of using a defense contractor directly and so having to admit they launched something. The Vought project proved the feasibility based on older hardware. The US military doesn't readily let go of a proven idea they deem necessary unless it has something better to replace it.

Re:Your pedantry is weak

[Dr Tall]

I'm of the opinion that the Biblical personas already have it pretty good, being immortalized in the Bible and all. To give them and only them a special exception in a language they never even spoke is a bit much for me. I'll stick to "Jesus's" :P

The need for -1, Wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I already modded a different section of the topic, I'm forced to reply anonymously. I was thinking of just modding you as troll, but that would be incorrect - you're just flat out wrong.

The economy isn't tanking, but the overall population isn't benefiting. Median salary has increased by less than inflation in the last 5-6 years, while average salary has gone up. Employees are taking on more risks by having to pay larger health insurance premiums with larger deductibles. What does this mean? The wealthy are getting wealthier, the middle class is getting squeezed. Not the epitome of a tanking economy, but it ain't pretty either.

We don't have the capability of dealing with another war. According to the generals of the Army Reserve, we are at a breaking point with the troops - essentially, we can't stretch the troops any thinner than we are doing now without significantly lowering the quality of the overall force. Another war can only be fought by withdrawing troops from Iraq, which would mean we're essentially giving up on Iraq. Furthermore, just nuking a place is not a proper response either. You've apparently forgotten the saying "War is just diplomacy with other means." Nuking another country would mean we'd essentially be pariahs for the foreseeable future. Is that the price you want to pay? I suspect you'll be like every other warhawk who is now clamoring for a troop return because the war isn't working: too stupid to see the consequences of your actions, but not afraid of blaming others for when the chickens come home to roost.

We're not defenseless. But we're also incapable of dealing with a significant challenge in another country - not unless we just pull up shop and move the troops elsewhere. And don't forget that those troops have been redeployed at least once, and are probably on an 18 months tour right now. Life is indeed not bad. But if you think that we can do anything to Iran outside of diplomatic pressure, you're just as ignorant as Bush was when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. And the consequences would be similarly disastrous.

Re:The true genius of Reagan

[mollymoo]

The Soviet regime may have been evil, but that doesn't mean socialism is evil any more than Pinochet's being evil means capitalism is evil.