Comments on: “ABMs won’t work, and they won’t work because MIRVs do work.” - Harold Brown, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/ Make the World free from WMD Fri, 18 May 2012 03:33:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: mparthur http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-5 mparthur Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:22:18 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-5 I agree, but the ABM system in its current design isn't intended to counter advanced MIRV technology and the large arsenals of states like Russia. It's made to counter unsophisticated single warhead weapons from rogue states, like those in the DPRK or any that Iran would produce. I agree, but the ABM system in its current design isn’t intended to counter advanced MIRV technology and the large arsenals of states like Russia. It’s made to counter unsophisticated single warhead weapons from rogue states, like those in the DPRK or any that Iran would produce.

]]> By: garryjacobs http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-7 garryjacobs Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:26:48 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-7 I fully concur with Bruce's viewpoint, but would like to go further. Not only will an ABM system not solve the problem, but it will also distract us from the only real solution. As Bruce said, it will not and cannot provide security against the only serious threat which is from non-state actors. Nor can we ever be sure it would even protect us against aggression by states and who would like to test it to find out? The only possible protection against nuclear weapons attack is to introduce a total and universal ban on production, possession and use which has the backing of the international community and international law and would instantaneously categorize the perpetrators as having committed crimes against humanity. The ban must be total, unambiguous, absolute. Any other solution is only a huge waste of money to buy a false sense of security and -- of greater concern -- serve as an active incentive for states and non-states to find a technological work around. Ironically the USA is the one country in the world that does not have any need for nuclear weapons to ensure our security and yet we are doing the most to legitimize and prolong their existence. I fully concur with Bruce’s viewpoint, but would like to go further. Not only will an ABM system not solve the problem, but it will also distract us from the only real solution. As Bruce said, it will not and cannot provide security against the only serious threat which is from non-state actors. Nor can we ever be sure it would even protect us against aggression by states and who would like to test it to find out? The only possible protection against nuclear weapons attack is to introduce a total and universal ban on production, possession and use which has the backing of the international community and international law and would instantaneously categorize the perpetrators as having committed crimes against humanity. The ban must be total, unambiguous, absolute. Any other solution is only a huge waste of money to buy a false sense of security and — of greater concern — serve as an active incentive for states and non-states to find a technological work around. Ironically the USA is the one country in the world that does not have any need for nuclear weapons to ensure our security and yet we are doing the most to legitimize and prolong their existence.

]]> By: Bernard Kearse, JD http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-14 Bernard Kearse, JD Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:38:42 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-14 Given that our most dangerous foe today—in the likely use of a nuclear weapon—is a non-nation representative faction, why does Congress hesitate to fully fund the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program? It is likely that these individuals, who have a cause célèbre, are committed to advancing their goal at all costs, without regard to effect of its means on innocent men, women and children—or its impact on the world as a whole. There is no “clean up and return” for a city after a nuclear bomb explosion. The bombsite and a large surrounding area would be off limits, not for days or years, but for scores of years. Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, as devastating and horrendous as they were, would look minuscule in comparison to a nuclear bomb. Thus, shouldn’t our Congress earmark another $348 million (approximately one day’s expenses incurred by the war in Iraq) to properly address this potentially horrific disaster? Of course they should. Not doing so defies all logic. Every humanitarian, scientist, and businessman—indeed, every citizen in the United States—should write their congressman today to ask why the CTR Program isn’t slated for full funding in 2008. I have done so. Let’s do all that is possible to secure the nuclear bombs and materials that are yet to be fully accounted for. To do less may be the biggest mistake this country has ever made. The consequences of delay are unthinkable. Fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program NOW! Given that our most dangerous foe today—in the likely use of a nuclear weapon—is a non-nation representative faction, why does Congress hesitate to fully fund the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program? It is likely that these individuals, who have a cause célèbre, are committed to advancing their goal at all costs, without regard to effect of its means on innocent men, women and children—or its impact on the world as a whole.

There is no “clean up and return” for a city after a nuclear bomb explosion. The bombsite and a large surrounding area would be off limits, not for days or years, but for scores of years. Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, as devastating and horrendous as they were, would look minuscule in comparison to a nuclear bomb. Thus, shouldn’t our Congress earmark another $348 million (approximately one day’s expenses incurred by the war in Iraq) to properly address this potentially horrific disaster? Of course they should. Not doing so defies all logic.

Every humanitarian, scientist, and businessman—indeed, every citizen in the United States—should write their congressman today to ask why the CTR Program isn’t slated for full funding in 2008. I have done so. Let’s do all that is possible to secure the nuclear bombs and materials that are yet to be fully accounted for. To do less may be the biggest mistake this country has ever made.

The consequences of delay are unthinkable. Fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program NOW!

]]> By: JohnA http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-162 JohnA Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:08:02 +0000 http://blog.daisyalliance.org/2007/06/07/%e2%80%9cabms-won%e2%80%99t-work-and-they-won%e2%80%99t-work-because-mirvs-do-work%e2%80%9d-harold-brown-former-us-secretary-of-defense/#comment-162 All good points! I agree 100% All good points! I agree 100%

]]>