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 - 03:05pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10634 of 10657)

"...So the economic policy of throwing people to the wall/wind has to be questioned..."

Which economic policy is that, lchic? Let's see, I can only speak for here in the USA, but there's a huge amount of money spent here on supporting those who are involuntarily unable to support themselves. In recent years, much of the public infrastructre of this country has been re-designed and re-built at great public and private expense to accomodate the hanicapped (due to the ADA).

People who become medically disabled can collect their social security pension and receive subsidized medical benefits even though they have not reached the usual age to collect social security. In addion, people who have worked and built up a personal retirement plan such as a 401k, can access that, regardless of age, without the usual early-withdrawal tax penalty. I'll grant that that's not living in the lap of luxury, but it's also not being thrown to the wall. In my view those are morally responsible expenditures and exceptions.

If among people being "thrown to the wall" you include those who are able but simiply won't work, or who have chosen to become drug addicts or have made other choices that make them unemployable, then that's where our sympathies diverge, lchic. Cooperation is a two-way street. Why should society offer continuing life support to those who are able to contribute but won't? It already does offer myraid free drug/alcohol rehab programs, other self-help programs even temporary housing and food for those who are temporarily down on their luck. Just not for those who won't make a timely effort to improve their luck. Everything is there for those who are willing to take the effort to change.

Isn't there a point where natural selection should be allowed to apply, or is "survival of the fittest" only good enough for all the rest of nature?...

This is all a wander from the forum topic don't you think, lchic?

gisterme - 03:31pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10635 of 10657)

rshow55 1/3/02 1:37pm

"...Nation states pose risks, too. Both intentional ones, and ones due to "accident liabilities" that are huge, because the stockpiles are huge, and could end the world..."

I think you're preaching to the choir, Bob. Let's be glad that those stockpiles are shrinking...the potential for accident should shrink along with them.

It's the intentional part that worries me. North Korea is a nation state that's developing long range ballistic missiles. I doubt that they'd use them themselves but I don't doubt that they'd covertly sell them to someone who might.

Given a long range vehicle and a viable nuclear bomb (tactical nuclear artillery shell, suitcase nuke, etc.), a nation state like Iraq would eventually be able to integrate them into real weapon even though they hadn't independently developed either primary component.

Chances are that any such weapon would not have the range to reach the US from the middle east, but Europe, including Russia had better watch out. They probably would be in range.

gisterme - 03:32pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10636 of 10657)

Later...

rshow55 - 06:23pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10637 of 10657)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?224@63.1RPoaUBmB7l^2091828@356514@.f0ce57b

I'm a lot more concerned about accidental firings than you are -- especially if terrorists made the "accident." I'm not sure the nuclear forces always do their arithmetic right. They may trust their wonderful computers, but programs can involve mistakes. It has happened before. People also make mistakes. Plenty of them.

Gorbachev's line

"Even an unloaded gun goes off every once in a while."

is worth remembering. I find it an eloquent and haunting line.

Why, just exactly, do we have such HUGE stockpiles, and such a huge number of missiles, just a touch away from hair-trigger alert?

Judging from the damage done by the WTC crime-disaster, does anyone really believe that Russia, or anybody else, has to be exterminated to be deterred?

Wouldn't a few hundred warhead "do"? Then, the worst mistakes would let the world go on. Putin's suggested just this. Perhaps I misremember, but I think it was gisterme who asked something like:

"What are you asking us to do . . disarm?"

Well, as far as nukes, I'd be for that, if a number of other things could be done. I'd surely be for getting number of warheads down to a level where the world would survive, and the remaining warheads would be easier to keep track of.

On MD, a KEY question is can it work. If the systems are going to be inoperable in the senses that count for military equipment -- we should find other military equipment, that can work.

gisterme said:

"Europe, including Russia had better watch out. They probably would be in range."

That's a good argument for having Europe, including Russia, participate in the decision to build missile defenses, if it is to be done. And participate in the cost of development, too.

Would there be any takers?

These are countries that have dealt with terrorism for a long time.

(20 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense