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?

11111pbh - 12:10am Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10421 of 10657)

hellfire34th 12/16/01 2:57pm

Weak argument

Bin Laden didn't need a multi-million dollar rocket to attack us, he did it with a few airline tickets and some brainwashing. Much cheaper, easier and effective than building some missile. NMD would have done nothing to stop the attack. The CIA warned the Congress prior to 9/11 that our biggest security threat was from terrorism from all over the world, not a 'rouge missile'. I'm much more concerned that he could get a black market nuke from some old USSR left over warhead.

You use Korea as a scare tactic for NMD. Based on their last test, their ICBM program is in infancy stages. Any missile they could develop would be a 'wobbly' missile, one that a NMD system would really have a hard time targeting. Your ideas reflect a reluctance to leave behind cold war thinking, and an inablity to look beyond your own limited sources.

dschnobr - 03:50am Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10422 of 10657)

Hey, does anyone else realize how dang hard it is to build an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missle? If Saddam Hussein or OBL could get ahold of a nuke, they wouldn't shoot it over alaska , they would put it in the back of a Rider Truck and drive it into New York City. Just plain ridiculous that W justifies this gift to defense contractors as a protection against "Rogue States"

And Ronald Reagan's "Lasers In The Sky" brought the "Evil Empire to it's knees?." I suppose that you think we invaded Iraq to save the Kuwaitii's too.

lchic - 06:14am Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10423 of 10657)

... Yawn ... written too fast for an average reader to digest ... so much 'sameness' .. so little 'difference' ...

ahoekzema - 09:06am Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10424 of 10657)

The best way to pursue missile defense is jointly with Russia and Europe. Extending this offer would build trust and security for our friends and reduce costs. It would also enable a much stronger missile defense that would ultimately protect everyone much more. ABM was ultimately doomed, but the United States should make sure that pulling out will provide more, not less security.

wbtake1 - 10:44am Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10425 of 10657)

The USSR spent 75% of its GNP to support the arms race with America! The Addition or the deployment of a possible SDI system shot the USSR spending to 95% of their GNP. When a country spends that kinks of money on the Military that country is doomed. So I agree HellFire!

Bin Laden is a Billionaire and can spend that kind of cash. You pimped face liberals fail to see that the possible Nuke attacks are not going to happen in the next few days, weeks, months, years. But these rogue nations will build them and if we are not ready we will die! So now is the time develop MDA so when the times come America will be able to defend her self!

What else should we spend the money on? I see the homeless on the streets of San Francisco? On the schools that suck us dry and produce nothing but skulls full of mush? (Note that America spends more money on public schools then the other top nations but we finish last in Science, History, Math, Reading.) On the poor, which I was one of, to stay poor? If we don't spend the money now on MDA then in the future you will be spending it to rebuild America after the Nuke attacks wipe us out. I'd rather do it now then later!

dpsheehy - 05:30pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10426 of 10657)

Since it does not work, the US should have tried to leverage the threat of implementation of a missile defense system to force the Soviet Union and China to help prevent the development of nuclear missiles in third world countries such as North Korea. We could have used the threat of setting up the system to force them to go along with very thorough searches for weapons in these countries and extremely careful monitoring of the distribution fissionable materials and nuclear waste.

wbtake1 - 07:03pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10427 of 10657)

How do you mean it does not work... 3 out of 5 hits is not bad odds! Lets say 5 ICBMS were launched at LA, Huston, NYC, Portland, Washington DC. As it stands right now only two cities would be nuked and the other three would be untouched. Millions upon millions of people would still be alive! I will take those odds over nothing at all anyday! This is very complex technology and to ask for 100% ops right away is dumb... R&D takes time!

wordspayy - 07:11pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10428 of 10657)

wbtake1 - 07:03pm Dec 17, 2001 EST (#10427 of 10427)

I don't think you quite grasp the point being made by some. A working system makes the United States LESS secure, not more.

(229 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense