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.

evenbetta - 01:16pm Jul 17, 2000 EST (#180 of 11858)

By perusing a concept that attempts to survive nuclear warfare you give nuclear warfare a ‘chance’. That ‘chance’ of survival destroys the very essence of the worldwide deterrence model. That is why the international community has overwhelmingly tipped the scales in opposition to this system. That is why SALT I and the ABM protocols exist between the two largest nuclear powers. Deployment of such a system embraces the theoretical perspective of Nuclear Utilization Theory. It may not be the intent of those who deploy-but every rational state views the system as a total embrace of a theory designed to win a nuclear war. That perspective (NUTS)(grin) implies that not only will nuclear war be fought-but it mussed be fought to survive and win. In such a pursuit, you lower conventional warfare thresholds and lower the crossover points at which conventional conflict goes into nuclear conflict. This is due to the very fact that one has added a chance to something in which no chance existed prior. You cannot posture yourself against the irrational actor- the minority of this world. Doing so only requires the majority if this world (rational actors) to balance against your own actions. You cannot thwart the irrational actor because the irrational actor has no limits or boundaries. The very name implies that the irrational actor is impossible to deter. As noted by the CIA of May 19th 00, the terminology of ‘rogue’ state has no significant in the course of debate regarding missile deference because ‘rouge’ implies that such states are irrational and every state America has labeled rouge is rational. The rational/irrational actor model is core issue regarding deterrence. As the CIA pointed out, rouge state has ‘more political significance then true value to the structure of deterrence’. In short the largest nuclear power embarking on the deployment of a system designed to survive nuclear strikes creates the impetus for every rational actor, depost to allie to do the same. All at varying levels of technological development all at varying levels of effiencey. In doing so-you destroy nuclear deterrence-the very concept that has maintained no use of nuclear weapons against states since 1945. If one recalls our operational experience in Desert Storm is that while missile defense did not work very well, deterrence did work very well. Saddam Hussein had poison gas-tipped Scuds that were available for launch at the time of the war, and he did not use them. Subsequently, after the U.S. military interrogated some defectors and some captured Iraqi leaders, it became clear why not: Saddam Hussein did not want to get blown up. Before the war, the United States, Britain, France and Israel had all stated, both publicly and privately, that if he was the first to use weapons of mass destruction, he would not be the last to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his kindred despots in other countries that we are worried about have not survived for extended periods of time by being stupid or careless. They are ruthless and cruel and sometimes reckless, but they don't remain in power, despite our repeated attempts in the case of Saddam Hussein to dislodge him, by being careless about the survival of their regime. Saddam Hussein understood very well that if he initiated the use of weapons of mass destruction, our retaliation would annihilate his regime. So the notion that missile defense is the only bulwark we have against weapons of mass destruction attacks from these regimes simply flies in the face of our actual experience, in which deterrence has worked very well and missile defense has not worked very well at all

evenbetta - 01:31pm Jul 17, 2000 EST (#181 of 11858)

"I believe that the U.S. should have a missle defense system, but that going beyond the ABM treaty "

first: The ABM treaty is based on maintaining the principles of deterrence-the US system attempts to slash it into oblivion. Both types of systems proposed by both administrations destroy deterrence.

second: treaty at one point allowed for TWO-sites designed to protect C31 (Command Control Intelligence) of both nations. This was done to maintain the chance that a rational control over a conflict would survive. America began to build 2. One in ND the other outside of Washington. It was the decided between the powers to reduce it to one. Americas is in ND not of love for the state of ND but because it protects the C31 of the entire command.

cris_arc - 01:07am Jul 20, 2000 EST (#182 of 11858)

ALTERNATIVE MUSEUM LAUNCHES VOLUME II OF TAM MONITOR http://alternativemuseum.org/tam_monitor

"CYBERSPACE OFFERS A NEW FRONTIER FOR ACTIVISTS TRYING TO MAKE THEIR POINT, AND MANY HAVE FLOCKED TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB"

featuring:

(netcast radio) "Studio B11", Bauhaus University(Weimar)Experimental Radio "Dialtone" Teleinteractive Net Audio Experiment by Tamas Szakal

(interviews) "Noisegate Talks" Granular Synthesis in conversation w/ Mark Dery: Video Documentary by Lee Songe. "ArtDirt" GH Hovagimyan talks to Ricardo Dominguez about new forms of positive social resistance

(reviews) "Maximal Minimal at Feigan Contemporary" by Lee Klein "Susan L. Yung at Tribes Gallery" by Jim Feast "Three Degrees of Separation" Cohen-Frank-Ippolito at Sandra Gering

(audio) Mark Amerika: "phon:e:me" Meiko + Ryu: "Artland" Raster-Noton: "20 to 2000"

(performative work) Electronic Disturbance Theater Irational.org: "How to be a Radio Pirate" Cary Peppermint: "Info for the Other Sides of Here"

(video) RTMark "Bringing it to You!"

(web-based) Daniel Garcia Andujar: "Technologies to the People" Joy Garnett: "The Bomb Project" Tina LaPorta: "Shifting" Diane Ludin/Ricardo Dominguez: "Viroids"

(Web Interface) Jodi: "Map" Mark Napier: "Shredder" Mark Tribe/Alex Galloway: "Starry Night"

(news / essays / announcements) "Newsgrist" by Joy Garnett "Monsanto" by Decepticons "Internet and Xenophobia" Marc Chemillier/Sans Papiers by Geert Lovink

TAM MONITOR IS AN AFFILIATE SITE OF WWW.MEDIACHANNEL.ORG

CRISTINE WANG DIRECTOR NEW MEDIA INITIATIVES THE ALTERNATIVE MUSEUM 594 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10012 http://alternativemuseum.org/

(11676 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense