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 - 01:19pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4433 of 4466)

gisterme , I notice you didn't answer the quite specific question I asked in rshowalt 6/1/01 12:45pm

There are a million ways to die, and one has finite resources. A defense against missiles is not worth "any cost" if the risk is very low - as it appears to be -- and if the probability of a successful defense is also extremely low, as it appears to be.

gisterme , you asked a number of good questions, and subject to other committments, I'm working on them.

On the risk of nuclear attack - and other weapons of mass destruction attacks -- in ALL forms -- we have work to do -- and can handle things much better than they are handled now. But for that to work, we have to do some things well -- which means that lies can't be very many, or very basic. Because what we have to do has to work.

gisterme - 01:20pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4434 of 4466)

markojhu wrote: "...The point is, as soon as we release a 100 percent effective missle defense system, we're not taking offense, we're taking defense for the entire world..."

I applaud your enthusiasm, markojhu, and agree in principal with what you say. On balance, though, there is no possibility of 100% effectiveness of any system. Presumably, against a 99% effective system, you'd need to launch 100 missiles to get one through. But that's just a statistical probability (and very simplified). The very first one of the hundred might get through or none of the hundred might get through. But knowing that there's a 99% probability that a missile launched would fail would be a pretty good deterrant against launching it. Especially if one knows that the motivation for retribution against one's personal well-being will be increased by the same amount whether or not the missile attack is successful.

rshowalt - 01:22pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4435 of 4466)

From New Scientist magazine , 02 June 2001 http://www.newscientist.com/newsletter/features.jsp?id=ns22931

The heavens at war by James Oberg

" The final frontier is set to become a battleground. How will the superpowers fight it out for space supremacy?

Weapon-making can go on without end. We need to make peace, and to clean up the messes that have been made by wars in the past.

gisterme - 01:52pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4436 of 4466)

jimmcd53 wrote: "...Colin Powell's challenge on this front is to keep them intact for the sake of stability in international affairs while securing adjustments that will make it possible for us to go ahead with research and development without violating anything..."

That's a fact. I doubt any treaties will be violated in the end. Hopefully all the negotiation instigated by the BMD initiative will lead to revisions or even a new treaty that better suits the current world reality rather than the cold war reality that the 1972 treaty was designed to address. The cold war is over. Hopefully the long term result will be strategic nuclear disarmament. A resonably effective BMD would be a pretty good insurance policy against cheating by anybody. It might fill that final gap of doubt among the parties, doubt that may never be satisfied by any verification scheme.

I think it was Frederick the Great who said that he who defends everything defends nothing. Why do we have to keep learning the same old lessons all over again?

I think it's gisterme that says "He who defends nothing defends nothing." Don't you think Frederick's point was about using limited resources to defend those things that are important, jimmcd?

To me the prospect of protecting the lives of all who live in the cities of world is important. To me its worth some investment to mitigate the probability of a limited ballistic missile attack even if that probability is small. I feel that a limited BMD can do that even though it may not be 100% effective. It would also provide some protection against an accidental launch (however remote the likelyhood) or a launch resulting from a small conspiricy.

gisterme - 02:10pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4437 of 4466)

timcole wrote: "...Only then will we have the American ideology of the days of old..."

I hope all Americans value the pricipals of libery as established in the Constitution of the United States. I hope they also value the tradition of hard work, applied vision and high productivity that have made the US a great econimic power. It's true that during times of crisis the American people have been able to focus to a unanimity of purpose rarely found othewise. However, "ideology of the days of old" has little to do with that. Within the framework of the things we hold dear, we (meaning everybody in the world) need to be adjusting our "ideology" to fit the "days of present".

gisterme - 02:16pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4438 of 4466)

vyseguys wrote: "...But lets at least have a limited defense for Florida and Maryland. Why just there you ask? Please tell Sen. Daschle thats where my grandchildren live..."

A sincere emotional arguement for the "pro" side. Thanks, vyseguys0.

gisterme - 02:31pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4439 of 4466)

ktaucer01 wrote: "...Finally! Someone who is willing to say what the majority of Americans already know about Star Wars Jr.- The damn thing won't work and is simply just another Republican boondoggle for their rich but unscrpulous supporters..."

I presume by "somebody" you're referring to Senator Levin's comments.

How is it that the majority of American already know that a BMD can't work? The same way that the majority of American knew that men would never fly?

Senator Levin said that he thought the US had both the treasure and the technology to build a BMD. He must not be one of the majority you speak of. However, I think that his desire for continued research and avoidance of a premature BMD deployment is prudent. The point has made before that there's plenty of time for discussion. Nobody's planning to deploy a missile defense tomorrow or the next day.

(27 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense