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 - 09:03pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10269 of 10657)

ledzepplin wrote ( ledzeppelin 11/1/01 3:06am ):

"You further stated “ OBL says he hates the US is because the US didn't tell them what to do when the Russians left” I can not find any reference whatsoever to any such statement by OBL.

Neither can I, and I appologize for attributing that to OBL. However that is the whine that some folks, including you in a previous post have presented. I believe you called it something like "lack of duty for caring".

"...Again you state “ Saddam, OBL and the Taliban all belong to the same club” you again could not be more incorrect if you tried!..."

I didn't say they loved each other. If by some way they were to destory the west, then Saddam and bin Laden would undoubtedly feel a need to duke it out between them. Hitler and Stalin didn't find a way to co-exist for long either. When I say they belong to the "same club" I mean that they share the common goal of destroying and/or subjugating western civilization. So long as they're helping move each other toward that goal, they'll remain bedfellows.

"...He (the king) appears to want to [reestablish his kingdom in Afghanistan]..."

Does not! All that's been said about the king is that he would be useful in negotiating or perhaps arbitrating inter-tribal issues during the establishment of a real Afghan government. He says he doesn't want to rule Afghanistan but that he'd like to go back.

"...You state “ Also, since we're recalling facts here, don't forget that the Taliban leadership are foreigners in Afghanistan. They are Arabs not Afghans” Where on this planet did you come up with that spurious tenet..."

Oops...meant to say Al Qaida leaderhip are foreighners (Arabs) in Afghanistan. However Al Qaida are effectively determining the actions of the Taliban...and so, indirectly are the leaders of the Taliban. There's little doubt that OBL is the real boss in Afghanistan. I do understand that the Taliban leadership themselves are largely the creation of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) and are Pashtuns as you say. Again, sorry for the mis-speak and thanks for the correction. However, the end result is still the same. Afghans I've heard interviewed consider the Taliban to be foreigners.

"...I have always stated my grave concerns that the likes of OBL would use nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, not a missile that is both expensive ($250 millions plus) and inaccurate… but the cheaper (less than $25 millions) and that is deadly accurate by way of a suitcase bomb."

They'll use both if they can get them. Remember that OBL is trying to polarize this battle into one that's between Islam and the rest of us. Now it's my turn to reiterate...these folks are into symbols...and ICBMs are recognized symbols of superpowerdom. OBL would find it much easier to rally the masses around a stand of ICBMs than suitcase bombs.

"...To terrorise and ensure fear follows is the pinnacle for OBL."

Right...and he wants to convert Islam to the the engine that powers his ability to do that.

"...He is also able to play and toy with the West because we work on sound bites and knee jerk reactions and gestures..."

Now there's a point we agree on. However I think it amounts to less manipulation by OBL than general ineptness on the part of the electronic media. This is going to be a long war...they'll catch on eventually.

"...Islam is a peaceful religion as is Christianity..."

OBL is trying to change that. He wants to return to the crusades, to cause both faiths to unlearn the enlightening lessons that have been so painfully gleaned over the last few centuries.

"...in the interests of fair play I do not believe Saddam has ever stated he did care about Islam..."

Only in obviou

gisterme - 09:07pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10270 of 10657)

ledzepplin wrote ( ledzeppelin 11/1/01 3:06am ):

(continued)

"...in the interests of fair play I do not believe Saddam has ever stated he did care about Islam..."

Only in obviously half-hearted attempts when it was politically expedient. He tried to envoke the "brotherhood" of Islam during the Gulf War. Hence the comment.

"...Respectfully Saddam is not going to bomb anyone furthermore he could not catapult a missile out of Iraq let alone fire one out..."

He didn't have much trouble firing missiles into Israel during the Gulf War. He still has many of those same missiles plus what ever new stuff he's been able to develope or acquire.

"...The war against terrorism must be won. I for one can never forget the absolute horror of the 11th and all I seek is that we don’t create a thousand OBL in our attempt to cull one..."

As I said earler, zep we can't let the one destroy us because we're paralyzed by fear of creating more like him. Culling Hitler didn't create a thousand more like him.

Out of respect for Mike's wishes, I think we should try to stick to technical issues about BMD where we can, zep.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about some things. For all the reasons that we've been arguing about I think the ballistic missile threat is very real and at least for now that it is a much greater threat to Europe and Russia.

Again, you said:

"...The war against terrorism must be won. I for one can never forget the absolute horror of the 11th..."

That's a statement that I wholeheartedly agree with.

(387 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense