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.

speedbird77 - 07:42am Jun 9, 2000 EST (#47 of 11858)
†† Osama bin runnin ††

Why not have spent this money on our schools? Why not have spent this money on effecient transit systems for our cities? Think about it the next time you are stuck in traffic.

We are told that the economy has never been better, stronger or more robust. Yet, defense spending is miniscule compared to the social welfare portion of the budget. How much is enough for the items you mentioned?

eurvater - 08:02am Jun 9, 2000 EST (#48 of 11858)

Both Clinton's "limited" missile defense program, and George W.'s mega missile defense proposal are not essentially different from Reagan's original SDI. They are multi-billion dollar boondoggles whose only function is to provide risk-free subsidies to high-tech defense industries and huge payoffs to stock holders of these industries. It is a sad sight to witness our political leaders squandering huge sums on science fiction while lying to the public about these system's abilities to "defend" us against nuclear war. To be sure, spend enough money and we might be able to "pull something off." But what we would "pull off" would be a dismally flawed system, easily circumvented by decoys, suitcase bombs, bombs on ships, and the like. The world will be a more dangerous, not a safer place. And we will continue to waste our discretionary funds to keep our ever-expanding high-tech military industries afloat, as our own civilian infrastructure continues to rot for lack of funds.

nytisbullshit - 08:12am Jun 9, 2000 EST (#49 of 11858)

How many new weapons worked perfectly on their first try??? The NYT has opposed virtually any and all new weapons, conventional and nuclear. This is just more of the same.

richr11b - 08:22am Jun 9, 2000 EST (#50 of 11858)

I have never seen poorer military strategy - to assume protection from a system which does not work. That fact, coupled with the probability of a new arms race and the high cost, should make the decision to deploy obvious.

The military has had a long history of misrepresenting the facts when reporting to the American people - body counts in Vietnam, damage to enemy forces in Kosovo, effectiveness of Patriot missiles in Arabia are some well remembered examples. They are again doing this here. Furthermore, it is likely that progress in offensive weapons will continue to out-perform this limited defensive system.

Our political leaders are not being forthright with us either. No one seems to have the courage to make the senseable stand - wait until it works to build it. Truly, the emporer is starkers here. In the meantime, if we must spend some big money, speed up the construction of the new space telescope, or improve the incentives so that better people will go into teaching.

haerie - 08:38am Jun 9, 2000 EST (#51 of 11858)

The SDI program is quite simply a conduit of corporate welfare to the defense industry and a career/empire-building program for Pentagon minions. It clearly demonstrates the fact that personal, political, and corporate corruption has completely saturated Washington. If we know that the military-industrial-political cares not if SDI systems actually work, then a reasonable person could conclude that the programs are nothing more than AFDC: Aid For Dependent Corporations, advanced by their puppet politicans and the cowards in the Pentagon.

(11807 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense