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.

wrcooper - 11:26am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15094 of 15116)

CONCLUDED

Once the "scarecrow" defense is shown to work then I guess it becomes something else.

It is unwise to base national security on hopes and wishes and unfounded promises. If an empirical assessment of a technological system shows that it does not work and is not likely to work given certain fundamental facts, and doesn’t even address real threats, we shouldn’t spend billions of dollars on it

Once again, we learn from our mistakes. This is nothing new.

You’re ignoring the fact that Bush is rushing to deploy this unproven system. Are you supporting the decision to implement this system when tests show it not to be field ready? Why?

wrcooper - 11:26am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15095 of 15116)

In re: <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.Kzuwb9S5Ovm.2707866@.f28e622/16775">gisterme 10/15/03 7:21am</a>

gisterme:

I think the crows and the rabbits and deer are separate threats.

The threat is that a nuclear weapon will be delivered to our homeland, causing death and destruction. It’s the same threat whether or not it’s delivered by an ICBM, a container ship, a backpack or a burro.

Once again I'll ask: if you're worried about burgelars, why bar the doors and leave the windows open?

That’s another fallacy, I’m afraid. Arguing against the NMD program is not advocacy of leaving our nation undefended. The NMD program is not the way to defend against the threat, as it currently stands and will continue to stand for the foreseeable future.

Agreed about the first part of the statement...but how will we know when the "actual" threat comes into existance?

Better intelligence gathering. Are we so sure that NMD will work? An interdiction force, armed and ready to step in to knock out North Korean missiles on the ground during a time of mounting tension, is more likely to stop an attack than a hypersonic bullet easily fooled by countermeasures. Radiation monitoring of incoming ships and airplanes, better controls over fissile materials available on the world market, cooperation with Russia to help them keep their aging arsenal under tight control, etc., are the ways to handle the threat.

Are we so sure we could do anything about it if it did?...and if we tried and didn't succeed??? Then what?

These same questions apply to the NMD program. Based on what we know now, the answer is that we’d be more secure by not relying on NMD. It’s flawed and technologically suspect.

gisterme - 11:40am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15096 of 15116)

lchic -

"...Gisterme - landmines from C20 will still be around in C22 ... don't you think?..."

Well, I'm not going to dig 'em up. Are you? I don't recall planting any.

"...A long-term danger without a die-by date ... and it's people who die ........ at the time the mines are laid and on and on ... but these people are others/elsewhere not Americans.

Thank God for that. I'm also glad that the vast majority of the live landmines abroad in the world are not of Amreican origin.

"...Folks no longer pour 'hot tar' over each other in warfare .... times move on!..."

Once again, I'll thank God for that. I'd rather have my brains blown out. :-)

"... History - and the EU - shows us that fusing countries into an economic block stops wars..."

How long's it been? Twenty years? I think it may be a bit early to make that declaration. We'll see.

The US is a "fusion" of states, many bigger in size physically and economically than many European nations. So where do you get off with saying that the EU is some kind of a leader in political "fusion" technology?

At any rate the "fusion" in the US hasn't prevented wars in the rest of the world. I have to doubt that similar "fusion" within the EU will do any different.

"...The world is a big trading block too - so why can't it fuse together, in peace, to trade and maximise returns to individuals who are seeking the highest quality of life - with peace.

Okay. Let's do that.

"...What's the real difference between a neighbouring county of yore and two neighbouring countries..."

Umm. Let me guess. One used to be your neighbor but the other two are your neighbors now?

"...What are the similarities between two neighbouring countries - of today and at war - and the counties of yesterday?..."

They were of yesterday and at war? Not much difference that I can see. Despite all the technological advancements, human nature doesn't seem to have changed much.

So what's your point, lchic?

bluestar23 - 12:03pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15097 of 15116)

Cooper:

" (MD) is not likely to work given certain fundamental facts,"

What are these "fundamental" facts..?

wrcooper - 12:06pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15098 of 15116)

bluestar23

I provided links to reports detailing the basic problems with Bush's NMD program. Have you read them yet? If not, I will be happy to provide the links again.

Cheers

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense