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.

palousereader - 06:28am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#132 of 11858)

evenbetta, yes, we can agree that any wall is temporary. As I said in an earlier post, once we all have shields, then we move on to the next level of offense/defense. But the Great Wall worked for how many centuries? I'd be happy if a system of shared defense shields worked for even a century.

As for a unilateral defense shield system being perceived as giving us a first strike capability- don't we have it already; and don't all nuclear countries have it- just a question of who hits the button first. Maybe it would give us a successful first strike capabilty. But I'm not advocating unilateral development/deployment of shields. Only shared research, shared timetables for deployment (assuming it will work).

Once again, MAD may have been good enough in the days of few nuclear nations- all large, all (luckily) rational. That is not the future. I want more options, more response time. It's so easy to write (as I have) that we'll nuke North Korea if they take out Seattle. Would we destroy millions of people who never elected their leader, probably never shared his ideology- just to maintain the credibility of an outdated MAD theory? And China's response would be..what? Russia's ? the EU's? All decisions to be made in a matter of minutes. You call this sanity? Whatever the defects in the current shield technology and our attempts to sell it as protection against x or y...and there the criticism may be more than valid- the idea of defense, of time to respond rationally- for all countries..is a good one. Even temporarily.

palousereader - 06:38am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#133 of 11858)

Am I the only one of the NYTimes readers in favor of nuclear shields? Come on Madeleine, Bill, -- help me out here; I'm being overwhelmed.

exotyone - 09:02am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#134 of 11858)

When your past, present, and potential enemies Don't want you to deploy a new system( a totally DEFENSIVE system i may add, only destroys missles fired at you)...you KNOW you are doing something RIGHT, a real no brainer here everyone :-)

evenbetta - 09:05am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#135 of 11858)

Your defensive is actually offensive-because you embrace the concept of Nuclear Utilization Theory and that dear exo is a fact.

interested party, BA Public Affairs MA National Security Policy

evenbetta - 09:13am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#136 of 11858)

"I'd be happy if a system of shared defense shields worked for even a century."

we do, its called deterrence its lasted half a centuary-:) leave it alone by not attempting to survive nuclear war further the links with economics and you have a 'shield' that will last just as long.

grodh2 - 09:14am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#137 of 11858)

OK so the test today is rigged, the testers know all the characteristics of the attack missile and the one decoy. There's a 50% chance of picking the right target anyway so who will know if the computer picked right or got lucky. Should we use a system like this at all? What about against a missile launched by accident? Of course no one knows what the likelihood of that happening is, probably extremely small, but if the building of the ABM system is perceived as a threat and the response is to build more missiles, then the chances of a missile accident will definitely increase and we will be worse off than before.

This deadline of deciding whether to go ahead and build the system is artificial. There is no reason that this decision can not be put off until cooler heads prevail. Let's do a real analysis of the chances of a missile strike, including social, economic and political realites. Let's also do a real analysis of what the consequences of an ABM system would mean. What are the real chances that this would lead to more nuclear weapons. How easy would it be to get around the system or overwhelm it. Can all this money be more effectively spent elsewhere to reduce a nuclear threat? Let's get all the facts before this gains so much momentum that it gets built regardless of its wisdom. There is no need to rush into this.

evenbetta - 09:27am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#138 of 11858)

As for a unilateral defense shield system being perceived as giving us a first strike capability- don't we have it already; and don't all nuclear countries have it-