New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

rshowalt - 11:54am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4427 of 4466)

For the purposes of Missile Defense, Senator Levin comes from an uncommonly sensible state -- with a culture committed to technical truth, and disciplined investigation of it, for compellind reasons. Detroit Michigan is the automotive engineering capital of the world. All through Michigan, people, both white and blue collar, deal again and again with the stark, fantastically disciplined necessitities of making and designing automobiles, where things have to fit together and mistakes are matters of life, and death, both for people and for companies.

Michigan is, probably more than any other state, the center of the culture of "industrial discipline." It is also a place where the Society of Automotive Engineers is held in great respect.

That makes it a long way from the "culture of lying" that now seems to dominate so much of military procurement -- and missile defense so notably.

A nuts and bolts consideration of what the US can and cannot do in missile defense, along lines I've discussed in this thread before, with professional engineers, with their licenses and reputations on the line, dealing with issues in detail -- would go a long, long way toward exposing the current missile defense initiative for what it is.

The connection between lying and human costs - something Americans too often forget - something the Republicans as a party seem to forget, is very clear, on the basis of vast experience, in Michigan.

There are certain kinds of technical foolishness that I don't think Michiganers tolerate well. Not when they actually look at them. They know what mistakes cost -- just one failure can ruin a car, or kill a family. An error in manufacturing technique can injure or kill a whole company, and all who depend on it.

I'm glad, for the purposes of peace, that Senator Levin comes from a state with such technical depth.

Automotive engineers, like the rest of us, are wrong, and mislead on occasion. But NOTHING like the extent of the deception of the current missile defense initiative could reasonably be tolerated by informed members of the auto industry - either white collar or blue -- because everybody knows so well how often uncontrolled things go wrong, and how essential it is to check facts on which function depends.

richsuth - 12:03pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4428 of 4466)

I can't help but think of Nero, playing his fiddle, while Rome burns. How did we get to this point, with someone in the White House who is so utterly clueless? Our chances of being the recipient of an adverse missle launch from a major power is somewhere between nil and zero. It is corporate welfare being promoted by one of the most nefarious liars ever to occupy the White House. Is this the beginning of our irreversible decline as a nation? Are we so stupid that we can be so easily manipulated?

gisterme - 12:33pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4429 of 4466)

cclaude wrote: "...How does M.A.D. come into play with an accidental launch or terrorists who would gladly be "destroyed"?..."

Great point, cclaude. MAD presumes rational caring leadership. History shows that irrational careless leaders appear as heads of state from time to time. Nobody should claim "it can't happen in the USA or in Russia (again)". To me, any such claim seems a dangerous sort of arrogance.

gisterme - 12:42pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4430 of 4466)

buzz2000a wrote: "...L.A. or New York City will be in ashes one day and the politico slimeballs that don't give one whit about America will be held accountable..."

Let's hope that need to hold "politico slimeballs" accountable doesn't arise. Accountability, it seems, is not their strong suit.

rshowalt - 12:45pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4431 of 4466)

gisterme , if you have any example of a head of state so irrational as to commit suicide by launching a nuclear missile attack on the US, could you set that example out. Somehow, you're reasoning by analogy, but whatever examples you have in mind, that work for you, don't occur to me.

The administration hasn't been very successful in getting other nations to agree that the risk you seem so concerned with even exists. Is it that you have great arguments that you're holding in reserve?

I'd like examples, based on real people under real circumstances, that support your position.

Do I think there are terrorist dangers -- and dangers from hatred? Sure. But the Bush administration is magnifying them, it seems to me.

As for the risk of a rogue nation nuclear missile attack on the US -- I don't see any REASON to think it exists. Except in the sense that anything anyone cares to "talk about" exists in the realm of ideas.

Examples please -- you're making an argument by analogy with respect to something.

With respect to what?

gisterme - 01:00pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4432 of 4466)

Robert Fiske wrote: "...the majority of terrorist attacks will come by chemical warfare ( Japanese subways ) and by destroying buildings with bombs. A missile defend system will be useless against such attacks..."

That may be true, Robert, but if the "minority" of terrorist attacks includes even one ballistic missile, will we survey the damage and say, "Well that's okay, it was only one. It's only going to cost $300 billion to rebuild this city...and, let's not worry about all these contaminated corpses...they're just nuclear waste. We can send 'em to Russia."...? I don't think so. Let's hope such a horror never occurs anywhere.

If building a missile shield can prevent one instance like that, it's worth any cost.

Defense against WMD delivered by other means is a separate problem from defense against those delivered by ballistic missiles. Defenses against those other WMD would be equally ineffective against ballistic missiles.

(34 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense