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 - 06:25pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11928 of 11936)

There are basic human needs, and knowing them gives a sense of both how we are strong, and how we are fragile. And how our enemies are strong, and how they are fragile. We are MUCH stronger, and less fragile, than our enemies if we just play it straight, on issues of fact and straight dealing, and do things that make military sense. Including things needed for effective deterrance, and effective interdiction.

The tragedy of September 11 probably wouldn't have happened if people in the world had believed that we had usable, flexible, calibrated, powerful deterrants. And given the risks, interdiction as part of the mix of humanly reasonable options can't be ruled out either.

Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need to take into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt
Image: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.gif
Essay: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
also listed, with comments, in rshowalter 9/24/01 11:05am

Berle's Laws of Power from Power by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y. set out in MD1066 rshowalter 3/16/01 5:36am

These things are very important constraints - - considering them simplifies things, by ruling out a good deal. Consideration also gives a sense of what can reasonably be done. (What can be done at reasonable cost is a subset of what can be explained to the world community.)

We may have to use the force we have - - but ideas also matter. Berle's laws of power include this

Three: Power is invariably based on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder is eventually displaced.

Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them , are vigorous. To the extent that we're not living up to them, we have some work to do --- not very difficult work, if faced. The system of "ideas" that the terrorists, Iraq, and N. Korea have, are contradictory and fragile. Iran has its logical fragilities, too.

Those pressure points at the level of ideas can be powerful -- they'd be overwhelmingly powerful if we had most of the world behind us. As a nation we need to understand, more clearly than we do, why so many in the world are not behind us.

We are looking for stable solutions, with acceptable (minimal) risks to ourselves and others. We can't minimize our risks without considering the needs of other people, long term -- because other people are dangerous animals, as we are ourselves.

rshow55 - 06:39pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11929 of 11936)

So far, there's been no contesting what I said in MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm . . where I indicated (not to put too fine a point on it) that at the tactical levels that ought to matter, the US missile defense programs are, in Menken's phrase

" As devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur."

manjumicha2001 - 08:00pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11930 of 11936)

rshow

I do not disagree with you that MD program is more of a dream than a technological certainty.

At the same time, however, I would say your suggested alternative seems much too idealistic.

After all, the human reality (as shown repeatedly by history) seems to follow the dictates of "reasoned impluse" based on percevied self-interest of a nation whereas such interest is typically defined by the most dominant interest group (i.e military industrial complex and its progenies). So, wouldn't you agree that the more likely course (vis-a-vie NK) for the next 5 years would be:

1. Full scale investment in NMD program by US to the tune of $100 billion at minimum;

2. NK tepondong-2 test in late 2002 or early 2003 which would overtly advertise NK's ICBM capability;

3. More agressive demonstration of current WM capability by NK;

4 Overt US-Japan discussion of NK naval blockade which will be viewed bvy NK as a declaration of war;

5. ? either full scale war or negotiated settlement of some kind.....

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense