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.

gisterme - 11:57pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8445 of 8454)

"...The idea that a madman would, first, get hold of a nuclear-tipped missile..."

Nevertheless, that's exactly what they seem to be trying to do.

"...and, two, launch it at the U.S., is not credible, as I see it..."

Kim Jong Il's recent and ongoing nuclear extortion effort is an example of how a madman might use the nuclear ballistic missile without ever having to launch it. If a BMD system is a sufficient deterrent against folks like Kim Jong Il to prevent nuclear extortion...if it does that without a missile ever being launched then it is worth the investment.

If such a system allows us to do the interdiction you favor against a nuclear missile armed person, like Kim Jong Il may soon be...in other words if it can defend against a small number of missiles then it's worth the money. The people in any places saved will be most grateful of all.

"...Countermeasures will always be easier to develop and deploy than reliable interceptors..."

I don't agree that countermeasures will always be easier to build or deploy than effective interceptors. Making even simple things work reliably is space is difficult. To know that it works in both vacuum and microgravity requires expensive test programs that places like Iraq and NK can't afford.

Sensor technology has come a long way in the last two decades. That's the key to discerning the difference between a real warhead and decoys. I understand that autonomous sensors on the the BMD kill vehicle are assisted in discerning decoys by ground based systems. Beyond that I don't know much about that part of it. Maybe that's what lchic means by triangulation. :-)

Also, chances are things would be pushed to a head long before someplace like NK would be able to spend much effort on developing sophisticated decoy systems. Those guys are just trying to get a basic working missile. Given that working missile somebody like Kim Jong Il probably won't wait around too long before he starts making demands. It doesn't look like he's got a missile yet but he's making demands already. Go figure.

The old MAD paradigm just won't work very well on somebody who doesn't care whether he lives or dies and knows that we know that he's the bad guy and that his people are mostly innocents...human shields, if you will. They can be pretty sure we won't incenerate millions of innocents just to maybe get one guy.

An effective BMD is about the only way I can see to back away from the MAD paradigm...a first step toward real nuclear disarmament.

As for a "new arms race", I don't buy it. Those guys are already going full-speed ahead trying to get the missiles the BMD will defend against.

gisterme - 12:06am Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8446 of 8454)

lchic - 11:54pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8444...)

"...- thanks for the endorsement Cooper :)..."

Lchic, only you could feel endorsed by being called a putz.

Have a good time tomorrow, Will.

wrcooper - 12:06am Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8447 of 8454)

Endorse you, Ichic ?

Thanks for the laugh. Have they got a televised talent show down under? You should try out as a stand-up comic.

Or maybe you could help Steve Irwin tie down a croc or something.

Better use of your time.

wrcooper - 12:07am Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8448 of 8454)

gisterme:

Hope so. Thanks.

lchic - 03:52am Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8449 of 8454)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Cooper 'i likes to PUTZ you in your place!'

lchic - 05:11am Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8450 of 8454)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

""Traditional deterrence rests on our ability to launch a devastating counter-strike against any country that uses weapons of mass destruction against America, its allies or deployed forces. Such measures worked against the Soviet Union, whose leaders were rational and risk-averse, but they may not deter rogue states whose leaders are indifferent to their people's welfare. Iraq, Iran and North Korea do not need long-range missiles to intimidate their neighbors http://terroristwatch.tripod.com/nuclear_shield.htm

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense