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 - 03:27am Nov 2, 2001 EST (#10275 of 10657)

gisterme 6/21/01 6:52pm

Summary, contiued:

Arguements AGAINST BMD:

1. Mutually Assured Destruction policy has worked so far, why rock that boat? After all, we're all still here.

2. If the US builds a BMD it will disturb the "strategic nuclear balance" and that will lead to a new strategic arms race. Russia will MIRV all its missiles to maximum capacity, China will build many more ICBMs and MIRV them and India and Pakistan will jump on the arms-race bandwagon as well. The world will wind up with many more strategic nuclear weapons if the US builds a BMD.

3. A BMD is technically unfeasable. Two out of three test shots of an experimental rocket interceptor have failed. The one success is claimed to be under unrealistic or questionble conditions or falsly reported. A BMD can be easily defeated by decoys or other means of deception. BMD can't be done.

4. US fears of ballistic missile attacks from "rogue nations" or terrorist organizations are groundless. There is no danger.

5. The BMD is too expensive at around $100 billion. That would just be money down the rathole.

6. The BMD is just a way to keep the US Military Industrial Complex going.

7. The US might have to withdraw from the 1972 arms control treaty with Russia. That would be an immoral thing for the US to do.

8. A BMD, even at $100 billion spent does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons or other WMD that have delivery methods other than ballistic missiles.

9. The elimination of strategic nuclear weapons world-wide would leave the US with an overwhelming advantage in conventional armament.

10. If the US has an effective BMD then it will feel emboldened to make a "first strike" against some enemy. The threshold of acceptance for use of nuclear weapons would be reduced by removal of MAD through strategic disarmament.

mazza9 - 01:54pm Nov 2, 2001 EST (#10276 of 10657)
Louis Mazza

11111zbl

That's what the Cold War was all about. the Soviet Union was challenging us throughtout the world either directly (their military challenging ours whether bombers or boomers) or throught client states such as North Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam or the Warsaw Pact.

Nixon was no more "deranged" than the other Cold War Presidents who pursued the containment policy first articulated by George Kennan(sic).

The Cuban Missile crisis was just as critical a period in our war with the Soviet Union.

LouMazza

gisterme - 04:41pm Nov 3, 2001 EST (#10277 of 10657)

Looking at some of the "against" arguements listed above, I'd say that in light of current events, many have simply evaporated.

gisterme - 05:17pm Nov 3, 2001 EST (#10278 of 10657)

Questions from the forum header:

"Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful?

Technology has evolved considerably since the beginning of the SDI effort, some of the fancier things that we enjoy today as consumers because of that effort. While it has been greatly scaled back I don't think that SDI effort has ever been completely abandoned. What I mean by that is that sysems we're testing today are fruits of that ongoing effort.

"Can such an application of science be successful?"

It is being successful. At the time that the SDI was initiated nobody in the world could hope to destroy an incoming ICBM warhead witout using a nuclear weapon. The current test program is putting the finishing touches on technology that can do that.

"Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

ICBMs carrying nuclear bombs which travel trough space to reach their targets already seem like "militarization of space" to me. I find the arguement that ground-based interceptors that carry no nuclear weapons (like we're testing now) are somehow "militraiztion of space" a bit far fetched.

So far as space-based defeniseve measures go, such as some that have been proposed, well, what is the object of those efforts? Are they intended to somehow pollute space or are they intended to deny the use of space for the delivery of nuclear weapons here on earth?

Why would anybody have a problem with using space-based devices to protect the surface of the earth from space-transiting nuclear weapons, particularly if the defensive devices use no nuclear weapons? Nobody has offered a good reason so far.

ledzeppelin - 08:08pm Nov 5, 2001 EST (#10279 of 10657)

mazza9 - (#10264)

"I am curious. What prescient ability do you possess to enabe you to state categorically what Saddam will and will not do."

It’s more a case of what Saddam can do; he is bombed silly most days... by both the US and U.K. One most certainly needs no portentous powers to evaluate that Saddam could not fly a Kite inside Iraq let alone outside moreover he most certainly could not launch a missile?

I was not aware nor was anyone else other than you apparently that he had purchased missile technology; he purchased aged scud missiles and that’s why he then went on to buying the super gun technology, as it was cheaper than missile technology. Correspondingly in his [Saddam’s] case desire, and capability are poles apart.

mazza9 - (#10271) " gisterme: Notice how Ledzepplin uses "Star Wars" "

As did your president on UK television when in Singapore when he and Blair were trying to whip up our support to pump in millions of our taxes [£150 millions this half year] to the project, etc.

What are we supposed to call it, its not a missile defence shield; so one can not call it that?

Accordingly until such time as your president and or your secretary of state calls it something else I will go along with them and also the press and the thread herein. If you don't like the term 'star wars' take it up with your presidents and your secretary of states European speech writers, the likes of the NY times not I.

(378 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense