|
![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
    (4189 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 08:35am May 24, 2001 EST (#4190
of 4202) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD 3383-3385 seem worth reading again here, especially
MD3385: rshowalter
5/6/01 8:41pm
MD3385 includes this:
" The American military, and
military-industrial complex, seen through foreign eyes, looks much
too much like the German military looks in Casablanca.
I believe that this is an essential aesthetic and practical point.
I believe that it needs to be understood in America, as it is
already understood in much of the rest of the world.
gisterme , I said then, and say again now, that there is
something missing from arguments that would have made perfect sense
to Adolph Hitler.
Including many of yours. And many of your tactics of
argumentation.
Even though I respect much of what you say, that remains a
problem.
applez101
- 03:00pm May 24, 2001 EST (#4191
of 4202)
To everyone: I've noticed the conversation has grown a tad
esoteric...to bring this back into the main, I suggest people check
out the NMD Action paper the Union of Concerned Scientists put out.
rshowalter
- 03:20pm May 24, 2001 EST (#4192
of 4202)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/security/0missile.html
contains much great stuff -- Here is UCS's Position on
National Missile Defense http://www.ucsusa.org/security/rec.ucsonNMD.html
" UCS strongly opposes deployment of the
proposed US national missile defense (NMD) system because the
security costs incurred by deploying such a defense would far
outweigh the potential security benefits.
" A key weakness of the planned defense is that
it could be easily defeated by simple countermeasures enabling an
incoming warhead to penetrate the defense. Any country with the
capability and motivation to deploy long-range ballistic missiles
against the United States would also have the capability and
motivation to build countermeasures to defeat the US NMD system.
In addition, the planned NMD system cannot address two of the most
likely means of missile attack -- chemical or biological weapons
distributed among many small warheads (or "submunitions") and
short-range missiles launched from ships near the coast. As a
result, the planned NMD system would offer little real protection
from ballistic missile threats to the United States.
" At the same time, US deployment of an NMD
system would pose significant problems for future progress in arms
control and nonproliferation measures. As long as the United
States and Russia continue to rely on nuclear deterrence based
largely on ballistic missiles, deployment of a system that
threatens the retaliatory capability of either country will make
deep reductions in nuclear weapons much more difficult to attain.
The deployment of the planned US NMD system, which can be readily
expanded, would be particularly disturbing to Russia because the
United States continues to deploy large numbers of ballistic
missiles with high accuracy and large warhead yields that have a
first-strike capability against Russian nuclear weapons.
" In addition, since US deployment of the
planned NMD system would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty, the United States has sought to modify the treaty. Russia,
however, is opposed to modifying the treaty and has made it clear
that its compliance with existing START arms-reduction treaties is
contingent on continued US compliance with the ABM Treaty. To
maintain its deterrent in the face of growing US offensive and
defensive capabilities, Russia could elect to increase the state
of readiness of its nuclear forces, but at a cost of increasing
the chances of an accidental or unauthorized missile launch.
" Furthermore, the planned NMD system would be
very likely to stimulate a Chinese response. Because China has
only two dozen missiles capable of reaching the United States, US
deployment of even a very limited NMD system would probably lead
China to strengthen its deterrent capability by expanding its
long-range missile force.
" In sum, deploying the proposed NMD system over
the strong objections of Russia and China would significantly
undermine the cooperation needed to implement effective
nonproliferation measures for nuclear and missile technologies.
*******
All of which seems right to me so far as it goes.
The objective of many, if not all, the people on this thread has
been, primarily or in part, finding a way to step away from MAD.
With an emphasis on finding ways to get cooperation and
communication to the point where nuclear reductions, or, much
better, nuclear disarmament, might be practically possible.
wrcooper
- 10:48pm May 24, 2001 EST (#4193
of 4202)
The military-industrial complex wants a limited BMD because it's
just the sort of speculative, long-term, big-budget program they
like. It's entirely open-ended. What milestones do the developers
have to reach in order to avoid termination? I've heard of none.
NASA doesn't operate this way. The X-33 was axed recently because of
problems developing its carbon fiber fuel tank, even though its
revolutionary new rocket engine had performed well in tests. If a
program involves a weapon, it seems, it's hard to kill it. The
Pentagon can wave the national defense flag and get almost whatever
they want. Once BMD R&D gets geared up to full speed, it could
drag on for years, and at the end of it the country will have a
system that doesn't work or could be defeated easily and cheaply
with countermeasures. The engineering difficulties in targeting are
enormous. A small device traveling at hypersonic velocities has to
detect and intercept another small device also traveling at
hypersonic velocities. That's bad enough, but add in the factor that
it has to discriminate between multiple targets, many of which will
be dummies, and the problem becomes orders of magnitude more
difficult. Meanwhile, a determined terrorist with a pocketful of
anthrax only has to steal across the border somewhere and dump his
deadly cargo into a big city's water supply to kill hundreds if not
thousands of people. If a "rogue nation" wanted to kill Americans,
there are lots of easier ways to do it than by building a ballistic
missile. The whole program is NUTS!
  (9
following messages)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
|
