the soviet/russian objection was and remains that it's a violation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty. what you say is basically the rationale that led the US and USSR to sign the ABM treaty.
> Why on Earth would Korea , et al. ,attack the U.S. and get slaughtered ? The
> Korean weapons are truly defensive, and the Star War system would effectively
> undermine that defense. The premise of the Stratfor statement ( the danger of
> nuclear attack is from Korea or Iran and not the U.S.) is a big lie. The U.S.
> is trying to get into a position to be able to blackmail Korea with no
> threat of defensive retaliation.
'evil empire' and 'big lie' rhetoric doesn't do much good. the argument--which i don't support at all--is that the US needs a viable system for shooting down missiles emanating from countries to which ballistic capabilities have spread (in no small part courtesy of the US, of course, but any- way...). such a system *could* be used in a purely defen- sive way, but whether it's used, not used, or abused it'll still have the effect you mentioned above--to encourage nuclear powers to adopt a first-strike 'posture' and, po- tentially, to be more aggressive in applying it.
> In the history of the nuclear arms race, the U.S. initiated every escalation.
and, inasmuch as possible, the soviets (but not the rus- sians) have sought to match those esclataions, and there- by have contributed to the overall problem. pointing a finger at one side is a bit silly; but if you feel the need to point it, point it at the US *first*.
> (See _The Unbroken Record : Soviet Treaty Compliance by Rosenberg) The U.S.
> is the only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb on people. The portrayal of
it's also the last--not a subtle point.
> other nations as the source of threat of nuclear attack is Big Brother , war
> is peace , talk. The U.S. is the main threat of nuclear war and attack in
> the world.
the nuclear threat is as much a *system* as the respon- sibility of a single country; and the threat of a war stems more from an accidental exchange than from one side 'going ballistic' on the other.
> It is not a Strategic DEFENSE System, but an Star WARS system being set up by
> the Evil Empire. Just like the U.S. doesn't have a "Defense Department" but a
> War Department.
whatever. whatever it has, it has too much of it.
cheers, t