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.

fredmoore - 10:35am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15091 of 15096)

Gisterme,

Of course the French have an interesting slant on dotvolution and Missledot Defence:

Liverdot, Pratternidot, Egaulledot!

(Dot Chirac)

lchic - 10:39am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15092 of 15096)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

What is the Hutton Enquiry about in the UK?

A man died.

A man who was told in a 46 second phone call, that after a lifetime's service with his government he no longer had work.

This man had publically been declared as low ranking - inconsequential - by his government.

His failing .... he sort 'truth'.

Kelly had merged the identity of himself - with his job.

The sympathy of the British people isn't with Blair --- far from it. The sympath concerns the loss of a consciencous working man ... after rough treatment from a mean government .... that's the way the regular Brit sees it .... especially when their government (Blair) have been seen to be telling 'whoppers' wrt WMD.

The findings of the Hutton report - Jan2004, will make interesting reading .... they may emphasise that PEOPLE DO MATTER and should be treated respectfully.

_________________

lchic - 11:03am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15093 of 15096)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Way into Thursday ...

OUT!

wrcooper - 11:25am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15094 of 15096)

In re: <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.auh8bZQLOoY.2635051@.f28e622/16770">gisterme 10/15/03 5:54am</a>

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.auh8bZQLOoY.2635051@.f28e622/16771">gisterme 10/15/03 5:56am</a>

gisterme:

You wrote, et. Seq.:

It is a developmental system. Technical failures are the way that you learn to achieve technical success.

This is hardly a convincing reason to field a system whose components have not been proven in tests. Would you have supported fielding the Space Shuttle before all its working elements had been vetted thoroughly in lab trials or field studies? The situation with Bush’s NMD program is actually worse than this, because what tests have been performed have largely discredited it. This is not the way to run a railroad, not to mention national security. Furthermore, the threat from ICBMs is currently nonexistent and could be met, in the future, more effectively and economically by using other means.

Budget overruns may or may not happen but if they do, I'd have to seriously weigh those costs against the savings in both human and fiscal terms of preventing the nuking of a city.

This argument is a red herring, in my opinion. Naturally, no rational person would quarrel with spending whatever it took to prevent the nuking of one of our cities. But the choice before the nation is not between spending whatever it took to make Bush’s NMD program work and the annihilation of New York City or Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles. If that were true, there would be no controversy. The real choice, however, is among a number of alternatives that offer to achieve the goal of minimizing the real risks of such a cataclysmic event. Given the current and foreseeable risks, Bush’s NMD program is the least likely to protect our cities. Better intelligence gathering, radiation monitoring of vessels and aircraft entering our territory, more astute diplomatic and economic maneuvering, and the fielding of a rapid-response interdiction force—these address the real threats. An untried, over-costly and technological dubious missile defense system is definitely not the way the national should proceed.

Then we'd better get to work!

As I said in earlier posts, I support a limited R&D program to explore our options. Technological breakthroughs may make a missile defense system more credible. But a rush to deploy an unworkable system is folly.

Where did you find this article?

This is a NYT editorial published on October 3.

I think their odds are very good. This isn't a new program.

Why do you think their odds are good of building a successful system? The evidence so far contradicts you. Furthermore, none of the military’s public announcements has adequately addressed the issue of countermeasures. How will the interceptors distinguish between decoys and actual warheads? This is the real show stopper, and the military hasn’t found an answer. In an arms race between offensive and defensive missiles, the attacker will win, because countermeasures are far easier and cheaper to deploy than sophisticated interceptors.

MORE

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense