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 - 11:16pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8437 of 8449)

gisterme:

Yes, I am meeting with Robert tomorrow, assuming he shows up at our agreed-upon meeting place at the arranged time.

I am very pleased that he has consented to take this step. He and his wife will be coming to Chicago from Madison.

I hope that once he has satisfied himself that I am not George Johnson, he will begin to reevaluate his other bizarre claims, including his repeated statements that you are a high-ranking member of the Bush administration, even the President himself.

As to your comments about BMD:

I never said that we shouldn't defend ourselves against the possible threat of a missile attack on the U.S. But I don't think that an antimissile-missile shield is the way to do it. Countermeasures will always be easier to develop and deploy than reliable interceptors. We should apply diplomatic pressure and deterrent tactics against states such as North Korea. We've got to hold Kim's feet to the fire and get his nuclear program halted again. IMO, we don't have to worry about a terrorist organization getting hold of ICBMs. That's a ludicrous fantasy. Any real threat of that nature would better be dealt with on the ground by the use of conventional forces to remove it--preferably in the early stages of its deployment, along the lines of what we accomplished during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's why I stressed the need for better intelligence and interdiction capabilities. The idea that a madman would, first, get hold of a nuclear-tipped missile and, two, launch it at the U.S., is not credible, as I see it.

The real, immediate threat to the nation is that of a concealable weapon getting smuggled in in some low-tech way. If I was a rogue state or terrorist group intent on striking at the U.S. homeland, that's what I'd do. Your idea that these pennyante warlords and peacock potentates want ICBMs, because they're the gold standard of superpowerdom, is romantic and quaint but unrealistic and unlikely. I don't buy it. If they're serious, they'll buy an economy system that's easy, dirty and effective. Why light off a candle that can be tracked right back to its launch site by our reconn sats? It doesn't make sense. A mininuke set off in a container ship in Boston harbor couldn't be easily traced. Lots of death, lots lower risk. It's the terrorist modus operandi.

I think we're wasting our money trying to buy a system that will never likely be able to accomplish its goal. It will start another arms race, this time between systems capable of defeating the interceptors and newer and improved generations of interceptors. Is that what we really want?

We need better international agreements to shut down the development of these weapons, thereby eliminating the necessity of a shield. It'll be a white elephant, a costly one, and will result in a false sense of security and, I dare say, less security overall.

lchic - 11:26pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8438 of 8449)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

gisterme - 08:22pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8432 of 8437)

had the gisterme-moniker read the board it wouldn't be on the 'take'

lchic - 11:32pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8439 of 8449)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

As you read the Adams note the words

... the mightiest state provokes the hatred and fury of globalised, stateless terror ...

""A third world war may now be beginning. No, not the long-awaited apocalypse that's all over in a few days or hours, but a series of catastrophes as the juggernaut of the mightiest state provokes the hatred and fury of globalised, stateless terror. It's a moot point which side is more dangerous. And I, for one, am in despair.""

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5916383%5E12272,00.html

lchic - 11:40pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8440 of 8449)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

the hatred and fury of globalised, stateless terror ...

presumably means that whackos under the mis-label of jihad may set out to create 'havoc'

the point about security is that there is 'no such thing' .... it has to come from international concensus and from 'individuals'

that is why i put the point -- what has the first world done to educate and explain to prevent folks travelling the road to economic nilhism

A guy here makes a good point on freedom of discussion http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=1911

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense