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 - 09:43am Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15232 of 15234)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.b51cbDcnPRF.0@.f28e622/16933

fredmoore:

If a potential attacker performs such tests then the US could easily characterise that materiel for future deletion. So, I don't think attackers would be keen to test decoy systems outside of a supercomputer simulation.

I disagree. How would the US know what was a decoy and what wasn’t? Also, such tests could be designed to provide misinformation, possibly, were the US spy sats able to monitor them closely.

Also, there are significant problems in developing countermeasures.

Not nearly as much difficulty as in developing an interceptor.

The US detection capability may not be up to scratch as we post but from my limited knowledge of coherent source techniques, I can see the possibility of ultimately ruling out realistically fielded decoy countermeasures

Why? If a warhead were encapsulated in an aluminized mylar balloon, it would be indistinguishable during midcourse flight from an empty balloon. Infrared signature differences between the warhead package and decoys could be simulated with simple heaters in the decoys. Such decoys would be relatively easy to make and a large number of them could be contained in the rocket nose cone with the warhead.

rshow55 - 11:44am Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15233 of 15234)
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.

Cooper's 15230 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.b51cbDcnPRF.0@.f28e622/16942 is a fine summary-statement - and Gisterme makes a basic point, too when he asks 15219 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.b51cbDcnPRF.0@.f28e622/16931

"Why??? Why release anything about what the defense system's capabilities are, especially about details of the actual engagement strategy?"

Could missile defense installations, even if they are no more than bluff - be worthwhile? The answer's yes. And the arguments for putting some resources into missile defense R and D are significant. These arguments, like other arguments - depend on facts and judgements.

Psychological warfare - bluffing - can be essential in war and useful in diplomacy - and we have a great deal of experience, now, about what they are good for, and what psychological warfare and bluffing cost. Since the Eisenhower administration, at the earliest, Americans have been deeply committed to patterns of psychological warfare - and thought a lot about them. President Eisenhower did - and he had clear thoughts about how much he trusted. them. He trusted them some - but feared them, too. He, and people around him, longed for stable solutions. (Bluffs are inherently unstable.) They were concerned with questions about foresight - and a very high stakes issue of foresight leads the news today:

State Department Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq By ERIC SCHMITT and JOEL BRINKLEY http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/international/worldspecial/19POST.html

Several officials said the study's warnings on security, utilities and civilian rule were ignored by the Pentagon until recently.

We need to be concerned about the reasonably forseeable consequences of our actions.

The Bush administration's batting average on "hitting the target" on its facts and judgements has been low - low enough so that it makes sense to ask hard questions. Foresight is a big concern. What are the reasonably forseeable consequences of our actions? More foresight than we're showing ought to be expected now.

When the "ideal short term solution" has forseeable and very bad long term consequences - then it ceases to be a "reasonable solution" - unless the long term consequences are taken into account, too, and reasonably adressed.

Bluffing has its limits. And the tolerance of the rest of the world for US "wisdom" is deteriorating very, very rapidly because this administration so often combines stupidity and bullying.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense