New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

gisterme - 08:39pm Oct 31, 2001 EST (#10257 of 10657)

armel7 wrote ( armel7 10/31/01 1:35pm ):

[article reference] "...China still sells arms to Iran and Iraq.

"Is this strategic motivation to proceed with MD?"

Once again, I must agree with Lou. The world climate is not one of "balance" as was the case during the MAD era. The world is now in an assymetric condition...that is, a nuclear missle could be launched now from say Afganistan without our being sure just who was responsible. After all, undetected movement of such a missile from neary any of the countries listed in the article, Iraq, Iran, Lybia etc, to Afghanistan would not be that difficult. Consider how much trouble the US had finding any scuds during the Gulf war, even though those missiles were out there in the desert. So a few whackos could be holding the innocent people of their countries or even the people of the Islamic faith hostage to prevent retaliation. They know it's against any civilized nation's sensibilites to slaughter the innocent in the hope of getting the guilty.

I wonder if it's time to put the pressure on China and say (ala JFK) that if a missile comes from anywhere in that area and hits us or any of our friends it will be considered an attack by China, soon followed by response in kind.

The Chinese are putting these middle eastern dictatorships and radical theocracies in a position where they may feel they can throw stones at the giants with impunity. That's especially dangerous when certain powerful leaders in that region care more about spilling blood (any blood) and advancing their own power and fame than anything else.

If the Chinese are thinking that they are selling limited technology that isn't really harmful, then I'd say they're guilty of the same sort of arrogance that some western nations have shown toward underdeveloped nations in the past. Given the basic concepts and examples of the technology as a starting point it's hard to imagine that radical scientists trained in the west could not move that technology forward just as their western counteparts did.

So, I'd say that the Chinese sale of ballistic missile and nuclear technology to these unstable govenments and (indirectly) to radical organizations is absolutely a strong reason why BMD should be developed and deployed even if it's not 100% effective.

Stopping 7,8 or 9 out of 10 missiles aimed at the US or our friends would be far better than stopping none.

Best of all would be if we find the courage to do whatever it takes now to make sure that no such launches take place. That might be a bloody and sacreficial proposition; but not nearly as bad as doing nothing. I just hope it's not already too late.

gisterme - 12:04am Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10258 of 10657)

armel7 wrote ( armel7 10/31/01 1:35pm ): "...Those issues should be discussed here. rebecca_nyt "A Nation Challenged-- Read Only" 10/31/01 7:11pm "

Kind of tough to discuss things on a READ ONLY forum, Mike. Got any other suggestions?

gisterme - 01:38am Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10259 of 10657)

ledzepplin wrote ( ledzeppelin 10/28/01 12:44am ):

"...Indeed ask yourself why both Japan and Germany are strongholds for terror groups run by the likes of Osama bin Laden to equip and raise funds in their fight against imperialism..."

That's a trivial question, zep. Obviously, Japan and Germany now have liberty, meaning free and open societies. Evil loves to abuse freedom. In that kind of society, evil can survive, perhaps even thrive temporarily; but it can never rule. That's because people who have experienced true liberty would rather die than give it up. These "wannabe martyrs" have nothing on us.

Since none of us who have it are about to give up our libery, then the prophylactic approach to protecting that liberty is an improtant part of the prescription for defending against external attacks against our homelands. Internal problems can be taken care of over time. It's the external ones we need to worry about and plan ahead to defeat, attacks from places that have no liberty, places were evil does rule. That's why we need to protect ourselves from ballistic missile attack.

Sure, we'll suffer some tragedies from resources that the enemy has already got in place here in the US and Europe, including Russia. But those resources are finite. We may get poisoned, gassed or even nuked but once those corks are popped, they can't be restored. That option has already been removed. Once they've done their worst with what they've pre-positioned, they'll need to resort to other means. Once the enemy can't do more from within, ballistic missiles are the obvious weapon of choice. Better safe than sorry.

ledzeppelin - 02:55am Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10260 of 10657)

gisterme - (#10259)

You say "That's a trivial question," most probably taken out of context as you have?

I will ignore your your comment as to being nuked et al.

However whilst I can agree its "better safe than sorry" Star wars will not make anyone safe! Indeed the opposite, moreover create more bin Ladens and destroy any real coalitions, making both the UK and US targets.

(397 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense