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 - 06:00pm Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15222 of 15228)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.NXXfbCg2PTa.3429000@.f28e622/16914

bluestar23:

Thank you for the information about Japan’s missile defense efforts. As I stated previously, other countries are working on theater ABM programs. Japan’s missile defenses fit into that category.

wrcooper - 06:31pm Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15223 of 15228)

In re: <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.NXXfbCg2PTa.3429000@.f28e622/16918">gisterme 10/17/03 5:37pm</a>

gisterme

Four out of seven. :-)

:-(

However, we have had some pretty extensive disscussions about this in the past on this thread.

Could you link them, à la Bob? Or do you know the approximate dates you posted them, or can you recapitulate their content? You should dredge up anything you can, from tidbit to tortoise, to bolster your precarious position. :-)

I spent a lot of time there for a while showing by public domain sources that there's no need for any great technological breakthroughs to make either the midcourse intercept layer of the missile shield or the ABL feasible. I did that by showing existing technologies in other areas that have to perform at levels of precision and reliability that are no less than required for NMD interceptors or to guide the ABL laser.

Really? Then you must have explained how the X-band radar and SBIRS will discriminate between uniform-sized mylar balloons with identical heat signatures.

Although there's no doubt that the MD system will have some unique adaptations and may incorporate some real and new technological advances, those are still only incrementally beyond what came before.

Really? If the technology to defeat sophisticated decoys is all hush-hush, as you’ve been assuring me, asking that I and other critics of the system accept on faith that the fair-haired boys know what they’re doing, how do you know that it involves just incremental changes? That presumes that you have some inkling of what those changes are. Otherwise, old sportm you’re just guessing.

If there has been a quantum leap, then GREAT! :-) That would mean that in about five to ten years we taxpayers will be seeing some cool new products appearing in the marketplace.

Bring ‘em on!

In my view, proliferation of purely defensive systems is far preferable to proliferation of offensive ones.

Sure. I agree. But I’d rather have nuclear, biological and chemical disarmament. Full and complete.

Okay, there's the decoy thing that you and I don't agree about, and we've already gone around about that; but other than that, just what would you say the technology's inherent limitations are?

As I have stated, the basic problem, aside from technological issues, is that the more effective the BMD, the more incentive terrorists or rogue powers will have to circumvent it with low-tech alternatives, such as container ships, yada yada yada.

"...the new order is built on a false premise, which makes it vulnerable to rapid crumbling. It reminds me of the Maginot line.

What false premise is that?

That the ABM system works.

You know, the Maginot line was actually quite effective at the task it was designed to do….The results were not pretty. I know we can do better than that.

Do you, now? I’m glad you’re such a trusting soul. It must be a comfort to you to believe with all your heart that the Pentagon is on top of things and you can sleep easy at night. Sweet dreams.

rshow55 - 07:36pm Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15224 of 15228)
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.

The links from gisterme that I remember were often dubious - and often "answers" were delivered - with what seemed crushing confidence - that were dead wrong.

The president's batting average so far has been flawed.

We had overwhelming force in Afghanistan - Bin Laden seemed to be in our hands - and slipped away. And Afghanistan is messy still.

There were no significant WMD in Iraq.

We went into Iraq with overwhelming force -and haven't caught Saddam, or stopped the fighting.

Now - it seems to be "let's play it for the breaks" on missile defense. Where the intrinsic odds don't look nearly as good as they looked on things the administration has bobbled.

"Trust us" is a great line. But trust in the future depends on what happened in the past. When gisterme has been confident on a technical issue in the past - and has been specific about it - he's been wrong - not just occasionally - but when I counted back - most of the time.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense