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.

grodh2 - 08:54am Jul 2, 2000 EST (#105 of 11858)

This makes no sense, how can a few operatives go into Sweden and launch a nuclear missile from Sweden, do they carry them in, or do they hide them in the trunk of the car? It is a bit difficult to hide an intercontinental ballistic missile while you cross the border. Good offense can always defeat defense, it is a lesson from history that if we do not learn, we will suffer to repeat. The scenario of a country committing suicide which you are trying to defend against is a scenario that has never happened. Countries are not irrational, and have always operated from their presumed best interests. Who will have won if a small country spends a small amount of money to test and build a few missiles and that causes us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that won't work, can't be counted on and will only escalate an arms race? Better to spend our resources and know how figuring out how to bring all the countries into one humanitarian family. Let us conquer disease, hunger and poverty in the world and we will have gone a long way toward reducing the chance that any country would be so desperate that it would launch a suicidal attack against the U.S.

palousereader - 10:00am Jul 2, 2000 EST (#106 of 11858)

grodh2, well, the trunk of the car would be my choice...ok, just kidding. But I also doubt it takes an item quite that large to launch nuclear-tipped missles, rockets, whatever. And your reliance on scenarios 'that have never happened' not happening in the future- well, fine; until it's your city that's the target. You seem willing to bet a few million residents on the rationality of all leaders.

I agree that other types of reaching out would have longer lasting effects; but when a so-called rational nation like China ignores its own history and justifies the rapine/mayhem of Kosovo as 'not our business'...well I guess we have a way to go re common sense.

johnberndt - 10:23am Jul 2, 2000 EST (#107 of 11858)

palousereader - 10:00am Jul 2, 2000 EDT (#106 of 106)

grodh2, well, the trunk of the car would be my choice...ok, just kidding. But I also doubt it takes an item quite that large to launch nuclear-tipped missles, rockets, whatever. And your reliance on scenarios 'that have never happened' not happening in the future- well, fine; until it's your city that's the target. You seem willing to bet a few million residents on the rationality of all leaders.

Short range missles need a good size truck. ICBMs can't be moved in secret at all, they are huge.

grodh2 - 09:36am Jul 3, 2000 EST (#108 of 11858)

The point is, that if you make nuclear exchange more thinkable, all cities are at risk, a global thermonuclear war will risk a "nuclear winter" which would destroy civilization as we know it. We can not think in terms of one city, but if the Earth is safer, then we all are.

johnberndt - 03:30pm Jul 3, 2000 EST (#109 of 11858)

What about accidental launches? If there is no way to intercept them,both sides would probably fire everything they had. If there is, the side that launched may just phone the other side and have them take it out.

grodh2 - 04:07pm Jul 3, 2000 EST (#110 of 11858)

What if the line is busy? Accidental launches don't happen, there are many safeguards against that. In any case this system is not designed for accidental launches, this $100 billion dollar plus system is planned to intercept a few missiles launched from an enemy with a limited arsenal.

An ABM system that was perfect, that worked 100% of the time, that never failed, with 100% confidence and could protect every nation on Earth, would in theory be a good thing. However any real system built by man would not be infallible, it would make other countries nervous, it would invite production of new systems to overwhelm it. Overall any imperfect system would create more danger than it would dispel.

johnberndt - 04:21pm Jul 3, 2000 EST (#111 of 11858)

I don't think an accidental launch is very likely either.But there is a remote chance.Even a small system could shoot down just 1 or 2 missles without even near 100% perfection. If you miss take another shot. The hotline between Moscow and Washington is never busy. I wouldn't be suprised if there was also one between Washington and Biejing.

grodh2 - 06:15pm Jul 3, 2000 EST (#112 of 11858)

How much money should we spend on something that is not very likely. We have finite resources, people die everyday from lack of food, medicine and shelter. This horror around the globe is likely to lead to unstable governments and more wars. The ABM system is Not designed for accidental launches, no one has ever said that is why we are thinking about building this system. One has to prioritize based on likelihoods. It is much more likely that this system would lead to a build up of weapons in countries that could never truly know our real intentions (we don't even know the real intentions). Other countries must look at what we do and plan for a worst case scenario. It is how they think and how we would think if the roles were reversed. Here is a country trying to make itself invulnerable to a limited nuclear attack, therefore we must be prepared for a first strike capability from this country. We must make our missiles more numerous and harder to destroy in a first strike event. Once again, making the world more likely to have a nuclear exchange than not. When one builds up arms, it invites a like response. This is destabilizing.

(11746 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense