As Jerry himself noted on the other thread, the Soviet Union was considering first-strike scenarios in the 1970s that *didn’t* involve any kind of robust missile defense, so it hardly seems nuts to think that (for example) the USSR would have given even more thought to such a scenario had they been the ones to possess a missile defense.

But whatever. You’ve got the KGB on the brain, man. My advice to you is to adjust the chip they’ve planted in your skull and switch to a different channel. Preferably somewhere off this blog.

You wrote this:

‘@ Joe: Side A has a partial missile shield. Side B does not. Side A now has a first-strike advantage . . or, if you like, a “diminished reluctance” to use its first strike, because a partial missile shield is going to be that much more effective against a weak retaliatory strike in which a portion of Side B’s missiles were already caught on the ground by Side A’s first strike.’

*Precisely because no ABM system would be perfect*, precisely because of things like depressed-trajectory SLBMs, and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and nuclear gravity bombs delivered via aircraft*, not even the most amateurish, imbecilic war planner in the USA or USSR would ever make this assumption. Yet another example of a straw-man set up to be knocked down by those with ideological and/or other reasons for seeing the USA and USSR locked into MAD.

Yet again, your responses and assertions demonstrate that you’ve no background in nor knowledge of nuclear deterrence theory. I don’t mean this as an insult; there are subjects on which you’re far more knowledgeable than I. But by making such ill-informed and inaccurate statements as the above, you continue to demonstrate that you lack domain expertise in this area.

Whether you realize it or not, you’re repeating what is literally, not figuratively, extremely successful KGB-initiated propaganda and disinformation which has been absorbed into the popular culture due to its endless repetition by those with agendas (you most definitely are *not* someone with an agenda, and I want to ensure that I make this very clear). I do not mean this as an insult or as a form of rhetorical hyperbole; I mean it literally. You can check primary sources such as Kalugin and Gordievsky on this topic.

AB:

Your insulting, patronizing, condescending ad hominem insults invalidate any possible point you may be trying to make. From this point forward, I shall simply ignore any comments you make, as you clearly aren’t capable of civil discussion.

And if anyone’s debating that, since the dawn of the American presidency, aids and internal research groups feed one form of truth to the president and that he turns around and tells his constituency exactly what he’s been told–without nuance–then there’s such a lack of objectivity in that person’s statement you’re only left to declare the conversation as an exercise in futility. Especially if it’s with someone that was/is “on the inside” because in my opinion they know better and are acting against the principle of democracy. Namely transparency. It’s the fight of The People in a democracy to achieve transparency and it’s generally the fight of those in charge to limit it (but not eliminate it).

That all said, I find it fascinating, and perhaps not unrelated, that (and no offense meant to the author here) if you walk into any bookstore (with few exceptions) you find SF crammed into some forgotten corner of the store–as though the bookstore’s purposely trying to keep this type of scene away from other customers, lest they be scared away forever. If SF is ever going to achieve its true commercial value it has to become more welcoming to those that are curious–but lacking a PhD in physics. As a casual bystander I feel like I’ve been transported back to high school and am watching the D&D club masturbate one another while the rest of the world is wondering what all the fuss is about. Is it not enough that something’s called fiction to get a pass for a few details here or there? I certainly haven’t picked up either AR book with the expectation that it’s peer reviewed and a blueprint for the space empire I plan on starting next week,

@Dave, I understand that, and have no problem with it. Just don’t call it a “first strike capability” in the future, and people like me who know what that actually means won’t have any problem with it.

The problem here, I think, was terminology, and a lack of understanding that some of the terms used have very specific meanings in this context. It’s just like discussing legal matters with a lawyer; some terms have very special, restricted, narrow meanings in that context that have little to do with what they mean in everyday life. Unless you know how a lawyer defines those terms, you’re not going to understand things correctly.

If SDI gives one nation more of a willingness to attack, to use its offensive capability, because it feels it can survive the consequences because of a missile shield, that makes SDI a part of the offensive capability of the nation and will be taken as such by policy makers in that nation (and others). Just because a weapon has an officially defensive purpose doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a defacto offensive one as well.

I don’t see how being ex-Navy and having read military history makes you that much more qualified than not-ex-Navy and having read military history as well. It isn’t like you were an ICBM crewmember or a member of the Joint Chiefs.

Me? I’m ex-Navy. I was part of the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club back in ’72, when our gunfire support helped turn back and defeat the Eastertide Offensive by the NVA, and since then I’ve done a fair amount of reading into military history, so I may well have a deeper understanding of the issues than most people.