So, some people have said how these attacks have shown how futile Bush’s missile defense program would be, and therefore why that’s a bad idea.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not settled on that issue, although right now leaning against it, mostly because we’d have to break long standing treaties and I think that’s a bad idea. But that argument in my mind is idiotic.
What makes stuff like this so hard to prevent is that the people doing it don’t care whether they die or not – in fact they intend to die. So a lot of our normal methods of deterrence don’t apply. It’s pretty scary.
My thinking is, is it that crazy to think that the same might be possible for a rogue state? That they might collectively be so obsessed about some supposed cause that they would be willing to give up their very existence as a nation? It’s unlikely, but I don’t think it’s an impossible stretch. Not after seeing the unthinkable this week.
The thing is, our entire policy in regards to nuclear weapons is that of mutually assured destruction. But if we’re ever in a situation where a state doesn’t care about it’s survival, then this policy won’t work at all and we’re faced with the unthinkable. I don’t know, the lesson to me seems to be there’s more evil than we can imagine, and something like that might be unthinkable, but it’s in no way impossible. So if anything, it shows why something like a missile defense shield is needed, not irrelevant.
But what do I know. Nothing. It’s a scary world we live in though, that’s for sure. I was reading something about parts of Asia (Pakistan, India, etc.) and it was saying how it’s frightening because relations there are kind of like relations in the Middle East, except everyone has nuclear weapons.