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 - 07:03pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#24 of 47)

For a stable world, workable deterrants between nations are essential -- and I think that will always be so.

But they don't have to be nuclear. They should be calibrated, proportionate, usable, and credible enough that they need to be used very seldom.

We shouldn't pick a fight with N. Korea. If we actually had to, that would be a different situation. Threaten N. Korea, and it fights -- more and more desperately -- fights to the death -- and the pattern may not be rational, but it is entirely predictable. You guys are going at things wrong.

Whatever we do, we need much better communication. Workable outcomes, both the political ones and the miltary ones, require that.

rshow55 - 07:05pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#25 of 47)

Here's a fact. Anybody who has studied military matterns ought to know it.

Consider two groups, weapons drawn, confronting each other. In order for a surrender or a peace or a victory or a defeat to occur with stability, there has to be clear communication, and for things to work, people who fear and distrust each other have to deal with each other with good enough stability so that things don't fall apart.

Taking down hostilities is touchy, and things can very easily fall apart.

Clear communication is vital.

There is no substitute for it -- because stable solutions are hard to get -- impossible if (very many) wrong moves are made.

rshow55 - 07:08pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#26 of 47)

The "simple" asymptotic solution where one side exterminates the other is distasteful, and also generally impractical. Morality counts, but even if it didn't, you want an end of hostilities where the survivors can and do go on with their lives, and interact, when they have to, peacefully.

Nukes are extermination weapons. Useless for anything else. We have to do better than that.

manjumicha2001 - 07:09pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#27 of 47)

Notwithstanding your lenthy pontification (with which I mostly agree, especially re: technical "challenges" of NMD program), the international dance continues. Obviosuly Paul Wolforwitz has not gotten your message yet?

See below:

Anti-missile missile due in '04, U.S. says

March 01, 2002

WASHINGTON - U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz announced Wednesday that prototype intercept missiles will be ready for launch by 2004 fall as part of the U.S. missile-defense program.

In a meeting with U.S. senators, Mr. Wolfowitz reported that four prototype missiles would be deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, by September 2004.

Air Force Lieutenant General Ronald Kadishof reported to the senators that by 2004, the probability of being able to intercept missiles launched from North Korea toward the mainland United States would be high. He also said he had reason to believe that engine testing of the Taepodong II missile and its launcher was still taking place in North Korea, despite its claim to have stopped all launch tests.

End of quote

manjumicha2001 - 07:13pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#28 of 47)

Unless NKs are entirely stupid, they should have contemplated this before they "supposedly" (i) [stopped] their WMD program in 1994 and (ii) [suspended] their ICBM program in 1998 as we are repeatedly told by the likes of NYT?

I serously doubt the bracketed words are what NK and USA did really agree on in 1994 and afterwards.....

rshow55 - 07:13pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#29 of 47)

If the N. Koreans are competent enough to launch an attack at all, they can easily counter that system.

The system is a very expensive false security for the United States. Moreover, we ought to get our problems with N. Korea sorted out peacefully, and in a fully satisfactory manner, much before 2004.

manjumicha2001 - 07:19pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#30 of 47)

Is it just me or are the military/political leaders of USA putting words in NK's mouth as they see fit in cooperation with US media (whether knowingly or not).......?

I don't think I ever heard NK saying they will stop the testing of ICBMs. In fact they kept saying their missile program is in self-defense not to be negotiated. I think what they said was if US will launch their satellites for free, they won't go ahead with their own space launch program. Also, they said they are putting moratorium on the repeat of 1998 style space launch test to facilitae the comprehensive nomalization discussion that was ongoing.....which has been effectively scuttled by Bush and his advisors.

Am I wrong on this?

manjumicha2001 - 07:20pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#31 of 47)

rshow,

Are you saying Paul Wolfowitz is NOT telling the truth to US public???

rshow55 - 07:24pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#32 of 47)

I think that is distinctly possible.

manjumicha2001 - 07:43pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#33 of 47)

rshow,

"distinctly possible"? Isn't it either yes or no question?

I mean NMD program is either effective and workable or ineffective and unworkable?

I do not see the middle ground on that issue, do you?

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense