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.

lchic - 11:48am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15159 of 15170)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

UN passes resolution re a 'date' for local democratic-contols in Iraq

gisterme - 11:55am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15160 of 15170)

rshow -

"...Nothing the US has is even close to working in terms of reasonable tactical assumptions..."

Now that's a pretty sweeping generalization, Robert. What are "reasonable" tactical assumptions to you?

Do you think that what might be "reasonable" to laymen like ourselves who only know what we can find in the public domain might not be the same as what would be "reasonable" to experts who work on the system and know its intimate details?

"...Can the system work to do what it is supposed to do?..."

Sure. Why not? Nobody has made any points here yet that make me think that's not so.

lchic - 12:02pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15161 of 15170)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Isn't most knowledge out in the public domaine ...

It's the understanding, processing and using of aspects of it that gets 'hidden'.

rshow55 - 12:08pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15162 of 15170)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Gisterme asks a key question:

Do you think that what might be "reasonable" to laymen like ourselves who only know what we can find in the public domain might not be the same as what would be "reasonable" to experts who work on the system and know its intimate details?

Translation: Trust us .

But still a good question. Knowledge of "intimate details" counts for a lot in assessing the chance of countering a clearly and completely specified threat.

I think that it is a reasonable tactical assumption is that by the time an ABM system is deployed - any country that can make an IBM has had time to think about - and deploy - a system that can problably beat it - at much less cost.

I remember an old ad I found in a collection - dating back from the early 1900's - that advertised whiskey made by

"Honest North Carolina people - who wouldn't dilute their whiskey even if they knew how. "

People aren't stupid. We shouldn't underestimate the capacities of the North Koreans - especially if they can actually make missiles work in the first place.

lchic - 12:12pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15163 of 15170)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Asis have 'taken the market' for many products ... next the products of the military complex?

jorian319 - 12:12pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15164 of 15170)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Is the proposed (already decided upon?) Missile Defense system supposed to serve as a deterrent, or simply as a shield?

For my money, "no workie" means that an assailant who can afford to launch 7 missiles can expect three of them to wreak havoc. An assailant who cannot afford to launch 7 missiles is more likely, IMO, to try a container bomb or whatever.

Sure, losing three cities to nukes is preferable to losing seven cities to nukes, but if such a scenario were to play out, the world would be so drastically changed that only the residents of those four "unhit" cities are likely to feel like the zillions spent on the MD system were worthwhile - assuming they even knew they were "saved", which would be unlikely. I just cannot see anyone in the US sitting around smugly gloating that we only lost three cities.

And I am given to understand that the "four-out-of-seven" score was attained largely through rigging the tests in favor of the defencse system. I doubt it would be as effective in real use, even without the (probably) presence of countermeasures.

So what is it worth? Instead of a completely unimaginable horror, we can expect to be pleased with... what? Half of a completely unimaginable horror? No thanks.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense