KCNA: US Missile defence system

Les Schaffer godzilla at SPAMnetmeg.net
Mon May 15 11:07:49 MDT 2000

Mac quoted thus:

> Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary denounces the United
> States for refusing to drop its stand on its nuclear development and
> moves to establish a "missile defence" system

In general terms i understand the need to oppose any US plans for
missile defense.

But there is something i have not figured out yet. There are numerous
reports (one from Union of Concerned Scientists published a few weeks
ago in Nature) which clearly state that the missile defense plan is
technically flawed and can be defeated by any power with even very few
delivery vehicles, a la Korea or Iraq in possible near future.

In the era of US-Soviet battles and massive proposed kill
capabilities, i know the US could work to drain the Soviet economy by
making the Reds keep pace.

But if this less-than-SDI missile defense can be easily defeated, and
everyone knows this, then what do US strategists think this will buy
them in their geopolitical view of a Korea, or Iraq, etc? Is this
strictly a case of money for bomb economy? Or are defense systems like
this intended merely to make an opponent think there __might__ be
something to it even if everyone says it cant work? I read somewhere
not too long ago that military strategists have to plan also for what
an adversary __says__ they can do, regardless of whether it appears
plausible or not. In that case, __is__ this a strategy to control
economies by brute force capital expenditures?

les schaffer

More information about the Marxism mailing list