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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 02:50pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11509 of 11552)

Not everybody trusts you and the contractors -- and there are plenty of things to check.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/interviews/postol.htm has some interesting passages from Professor Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security at MIT.

Q: So based on what was said and and what you know, what is the logic of proceeding with a Missile Defence programme?

Postol "Well, I think if you look at the Missile Defence programme from the point of view of a scientist or engineer I think you would be baffled by this programme. The the only way to explain this programme is in terms of the domestic politics of the United States, which is really an opportunistic struggle between the radical right and other opportunists associated with the radical right and other members of the American political establishment. So basically what it appears to be driven by is that you have a small group of people in the radical right who are basically Republicans and who are to the far right of most Republicans actually, and who are ascendant in the political establishment at this time, and so their power is disproportionate to their numbers. So this group of radicals who don't understand science, have a faith that things can be done whether or not they're in violation of the principles of science and believe that the United States should go its own and that the United States, in order to go its own way, is going to have to defend itself from pretty much anything. "

rshow55 - 02:56pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11510 of 11552)

gisterme 2/12/02 2:42pm makes an argument that "the powers that be" should be trusted on these matters -- there are, by now, some very good reasons for doubting that.

Most political leaders and most populations outside the United States, it seems to me, are having serious doubts -- concerns that MD may be nothing much more than a government-based ENRON are pretty widespread - in Europe and elsewhere.

I'd think, if the questions are so easy, you'd say "by all means -- of course check them . . "

That hasn't been your position -- and you've been fighting against the proposal of formal checking -- consistently, for many months now.

rshow55 - 03:00pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11511 of 11552)

Now most of the people at Enron were good people, and most of the transactions done at Enron were straight. But on some key things, on which key logic depended, there were mistakes and deceptions.

I've got similar concerns with MD, and I'm not alone.

lchic - 03:18pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11512 of 11552)

Lugar center

rshow55 - 03:26pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11513 of 11552)

And Sam Nunn to the right.

gisterme - 03:52pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11514 of 11552)

rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am

"...For missile defense, here are the key questions, for the particular weapons systems the administration is proposing.

For each weapons system:

Can it see the target?..."

Can it hit the target?..."

At least two out of four, so far, Robert. That also confirms that fact that the target can be seen.

"...Can it hit the target hard enough to kill it?..."

At least two out of four so far.

gisterme - 03:52pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11515 of 11552)

rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am

"...For missile defense, here are the key questions, for the particular weapons systems the administration is proposing.

For each weapons system:

Can it see the target?..."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/images/ik_darunta_foot-march_an.jpg

Photo taken from the civilian Ikonos satellite of the Darunta terrorist training camp near Jalalabad, Afghanistan on Dec 21, 2001. Notice that this satellite orbiting at an altitude of about 100 miles and travelling at about 17,500 miles per hour has no trouble "seeing" individuals walking on the groung through the entire atmosphere. How much easier would it be to "see" a flaming 20m ICBM?

This is the intersting parent link for that photo:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/darunta.htm

"...Can it hit the target?..."

At least two out of four, so far, Robert. That also confirms that fact that the target can be seen.

"...Can it hit the target hard enough to kill it?..."

Two out of four so far.

(37 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense