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 - 08:20pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11931 of 11937)

What's so idealistic about getting interests defined?

The neighbors of North Korea (China, Russia, S. Korea, Japan) all have things to say, as well..

If the US knew what it wanted to ask for -- it might be able to negotiate what it reasonably needed. This is a problem that could be solved for much less than the "100 billion dollars minimum" that you refer to.

There have been lost chances:

March 7, 2001 South Korean President and Bush at Odds on North Korea By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/07/world/07CND-KOREA.html

March 6, 2001 How Politics Sank Accord on Missiles With North Korea By MICHAEL R. GORDON http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/06/world/06MISS.html

"As the Clinton administration's senior policy coordinator on North Korea, Ms. Sherman was prepared to fly to Pyongyang on a moment's notice. Her task there would be to clear away the final barriers to an accord that would neutralize the North Korean missile threat, which has been a central justification for the hotly debated American national missile defense project.

In my view, the N. Korean threat has been very much exaggerated, to provide an excuse for a bloated, unworkable MD program.

But even taking the case at your much higher evaluation --- there's plenty of room for diplomacy - - and the world has a right to ask us for definitions -- and for positions that can actually stand the light of day.

That's not idealistic -- it is practical.

The N. Koreans may be "crazy" from some perspectives - but they've also shown a desire to deal - - and we ought to be able to get the situation moving in a better direction soon.

With the technical situation as it is -- as you have not contested - - MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm there are much better uses for a hundred billion dollars.

For perhaps a million dollars worth of careful thought and negotiation - - things could be much safer and more reasonable than they are.

lchic - 09:20pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11932 of 11937)

SUS100 is a lot of cash!

lchic - 09:24pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11933 of 11937)

How much truth, how much propagander, do Nation States offer their people?

In China recently a 'national' watching tv burst out laughing ... the idology was saying .. people in Tibet have 3 cameras and a car ... the national hadn't aquired even one camera - and could see the suggestion was 'over the top' rediculous. Unbelievable.

Nuclear weapons - totally redundant, unusable antiques are a laugh factor .... the cry factor is the allocation of cash that should be re-allocted for good - to satisfy REAL HUMAN NEEDS!

lchic - 09:24pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11934 of 11937)

$US100 is a lot of cash!

manjumicha2001 - 09:28pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11935 of 11937)

I guess what I am trying to say is....US will get to where you say it should go (or back to where it was before Bush got in) ONLY after pushing things to the limit with NK.

It seems that is the pattern for each US administration. They just can't stand dealing with NK as its equal negotiating partner.

In other words, pathos of a nation dictates its course of action as much as the logics of the matter....it seems.

rshow55 - 09:43pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11936 of 11937)

100 billion dollars could make the world MUCH better -- if it wasn't wasted.

But nukes are far worse than just "antiques" -- they are dangerous - - and the more dangerous because they ARE antiques.

I didn't get REALLY committed and concerned about nukes until Oct 2000, when I found out that some codes I'd learned about in the 60's and very early 70's were still in use. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1556

If you look at Rehearsing Doomssay -- the whole video -- you'll see stuff that looks like a time-warp -- 20 and 30 years old. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html

The controls on this stuff are defective -- and the controls could go off like a string of firecrackers -- that's OUR controls, with the Russians having problems, too. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html

A while ago, I calculated that the risks were roughly at the level of 3.5 WTC disasters per hour. Maybe not quite that bad? Maybe, but also maybe worse. This mess should be fixed.

The "quality" of the "missile defense" programs may be an index of the competence of the people involved in controlling our nuclear missiles. md11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm Not encouraging.

lchic - 09:55pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11937 of 11937)

Lawyers use statistics in courts .... because they sound good ... and the opp.side usually have no comprehension regarding STATS. Stats can sway a case.

Showalter obviously understands both stats and the implications ... perhaps if more understood them the urgency to get nukes down would be overwhelming ....

To think that it's our Statistical-Ignorance that lets this linger ....

When one MAD-nutter could push a finger ...

and pollute and kill the world we know.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense