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.

neilgiuntoli1 - 12:41pm Sep 3, 2000 EST (#238 of 11863)

To beckq and Ketair7...to forestall any namecalling and glassbreaking, you both would probably be surprised to know, that I agree with you both on a lot more issues then I disagree. I regard an omnipotent National Security Apparatus as something to be feared, I look to the broad coalition that protested in the streets of Seattle, Washington, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles as a natural outgrowth of concern that we are trashing the Great Mother Earth we all live on, I see how the "War on Drugs" is RUINING our nation, and the very very severe effects on our Liberty, I see how the gulf between 'have's' and 'have-nots' is widening, how every summer it keeps getting hotter and hotter, how our society is addicted to hydrocarbon consumption, I could go on and on, BUT..on this one issue, I take exception. Both of your posts are well written and well thought out....and I ,like you have VERY little trust in National Authorities...and in the same breath, the Sparta of my soul is overriding the Athens...to Ketair 7...good post, BUT, BMD is not "Buck Rogers" science, if history has shown us anything, a COHERENT BMD can be done, not in the present 'kinetic kill' vehicle configuration. If it COULDN'T be done,why would former(?) adversaries be raising such a hue and cry?..and remember that Leo Szilzard(sp)who was in many aspects the father of nuclear weaponry, turned around and signed a 'no-use' document to present to Truman. Because...Hitler was vanquished, and Leo's concern at that point was mollified. But the genie had been let out of the bottle, and along came Edward Teller, who's villian was international communism...that 'villian' has been vanquished...so what do we have today?...who is the villian?..the villian is US, and our rampant consumption of petroleum, all the behemoth SUV's you see on the road, and no coherent Energy Policy to speak of, we produce 5.7 mln barrels of crude a day and IMPORT 8 to 9 mln barrels a day. Americans assume that cheap energy is a birthright, and one day, the awakening will be rude and abrupt. By 2010, on estimates, 95% of all world trade in Crude will be controlled by Islamic nations(I am not anti-Islam, nor pro Judea-Christian)As these Islamic nations are either theocracies, monarchies, or just plain degenerate dictatorships, suffice to say, they might not be willing to keep the 'Junkie' supplied with a cheap fix, and THAT is the seed of the coming conflict. The oil-exporting Islamic nations against the oil consuming Judeo-Christian nations, not a rosy scenario at all...so what do we do?...Proactive Energy policy is too darn smart, we're not going to do that, or even discuss it...do we lay down?...do we send 500,000 troops AGAIN to the Persian Gulf? The dire future that awaits is sometimes depressing to even contemplate...the only thing I can think of to defend our INNOCENT fellow citizens, is a coherent BMD. If you analyze the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, there was NO hestitation to use Ballistic Missles on the other's population center, I shudder to think if they had nuclear weapons at that time. So it is my belief, they would not hestitate to use BM's against our cities. We might not like what our 'tribe' is doing in the world arena, but we must defend against a growing external threat. I open this debate with you in a dignified manner, and hope you both respond the same.

vic.hernandez - 03:40pm Sep 3, 2000 EST (#239 of 11863)

Re: beckq #223

Mea culpa. I re-read my #222. Sorry, I did let my big brain (#213) get ahead of my typing. If you add the words not and but to the first two sentences of that posting you get "SALT 1 was NOT about preserving a mutual suicide pact. BUT, what do you think MAD Doctrine was about?" That is very much in line with the remainder of the posting.

Thanks for agreeing with me in your #228 that your "view is indeed what I wrote and fits within your narrow dictionary view." Madam, the definition is not mine. It is that of the lexicographers that compiled The Amercan Heritage Dictionary. By the way, isn't it a contradiction to say that a view isn't a doctrine, but it fits the definition?

Now then, perhaps now you can follow up on your promise to address some of my "other trash":

- Show me how MAD is not a mutual suicide pact. At best it is an agreement to ensure that the protagonists are each other's murderers. Now there's a moral position to try to defend!

- In #196 you state that building a NMD system "promotes the use of nuclear power." As the world moves to more nations with nuclear capability, please explain how. War bad, peace good argument will not work.

- In #224 and again in #229 you imply that you make a living studying this issue. How about steping out from behind the anonimity of "beckq" and providing a copy of your CV. If you want to claim special expertise, prove you have it.

I notice in your latest postings that you continue your acerbic ways. You have shown how much easier it is to attack a stand than to provide viable alternatives.

The ball is now in your court. Please feel free to wane eloquent on any of the above questions.

speedbird77 - 02:47am Sep 4, 2000 EST (#240 of 11863)
†† Osama bin runnin ††

Isn't it ironic, the same people who lobbied to kill NMD are now suggesting that it might be possible to enlarge or expand the TMD technologies which have tested so positively.

SHAME ON THEM

This is their way of killing NMD and we can not allow this to happen. I still say opponents who claim we have more to fear from the infamous "nuclear suitcase" should be made to put up or shut up. Show the American people a warhead which is able to detonate itself in a suitcase and then someone might believe you. Does anyone really believe that if the United States put its full potential behind NMD that it would never perform? If so, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale.

vnguyen843 - 03:02am Sep 4, 2000 EST (#241 of 11863)

I don't know if the missile defense will help Americans be as secured as expected. There will probably many potentially dangerous weapons, ranging from biologial and chemical warfare to computer virus. Yet, they are not considered dangerous now because public don't know much about it. I think we emphasize too much on nuclear weapon right now. By the way, I was disgusted by the way the American government handled the Wen Ho Lee Case. I see that it is very different between being Taiwanese and Chinese. It is hard to believe that A Taiwanese provide nuclear secret to China. It will work against both Taiwan's interests and its partner or the U.S.

beckq - 10:44am Sep 5, 2000 EST (#242 of 11863)

vic.hernandez - 03:40pm Sep 3, 2000 EDT (#239 of 241)

When you make 'assumpions' you make an "ass out of you and me". You assumption that I am female is incorrect nor should it matter.

(11621 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense