New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

dirac_10 - 08:21am Feb 9, 2001 EST (#658 of 667)

rshowalter - 06:38am Feb 9, 2001 EST (#657 of 657)

You mean enough overwhelming force to defeat Iraq?

Why do nuclear weapons have to be involved?

Because Saddam has them. Or at least will. He certainly has other WMD right now. If we don't, he wins any war.

Duh.

mhunter20 - 09:43am Feb 9, 2001 EST (#659 of 667)

dirac_10 2/9/01 2:00am

I agree to everything except the economic sanctions part. Dictators like Saddam laugh at economic sanctions, and continue their weapon development as their people starve. And since it is the Saddams that are the most worry, only overwhelming military force will work.

I agree. For certain countries failure to allow surprise inspections anywhere, anytime should be considered an act of war.

rshowalter - 12:11pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#660 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Absolutely.

rshowalter - 12:39pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#661 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Dirac just invoke a crucial logical point, assuming it was self evident, that I think is absolutely untrue.

The idea was that, if Saddam, or some other leader of a smaller country had weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't, he'd win - automatically, in any struggle with us.

So weapons of mass destructions are guaranteed war winners?

Big assumption.

I'd say that, unless a country actually has the capability, and the will, in the real world, to exterminate an enemy, and all that enemy's allies, then weapons of mass destruction are guaranteed war losers.

The threat may seem chilling. No doubt.

But what happens if these weapons are used, but do not suffice to totally knock out the agressor's victim?

Under very many (most) circumstances, the aggressor is doomed.

Agressors should understand this more clearly, and so should we.

rshowalter - 01:24pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#662 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

February 9, 2001 Bush Takes First Step to Shrink Arsenal of Nuclear Warheads by STEVEN LEE MYERS . . . . . The New York Times

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — President Bush will order a comprehensive review of the nation's nuclear arsenal, a first step toward the unilateral cuts in warheads and missiles that he promised during last year's campaign, senior military and administration officials said today.

Mr. Bush's order — outlined in one of three military-policy directives to be issued by the White House as soon as Friday — will also underscore the administration's commitment to building a defensive missile shield, the officials said.

Less than a week after Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld tried to ease allies' concerns about such a missile system at a conference in Munich, Mr. Bush will order the Pentagon to devise how best to proceed with a shield, given diplomatic, technological and financial difficulties, they said.

The review is intended to move the United States toward what officials said would be a new strategic doctrine, as well as a new approach to arms control that reflects today's world rather than the cold war's superpower standoff.

"You now have to manage the transition from the old world to the new world," a senior administration official said. "And the new world, once we get there, would be one in which defense forces play an important role in keeping the peace, in which you have offensive forces that are properly sized and configured to deal with the new deterrent tasks, rather than the deterrent tasks of 1972."

. . . . . . .

"The effort now," the senior official said, "is going to be to get a coherent policy that ties these pieces together so you can talk to allies and to the Russians and to others, conceptually, about the new nuclear environment."

"The nation's arsenal as of last year included 7,519 nuclear warheads on missiles, submarines or bombers, compared with Russia's 6,464. But the review is expected to lead to cuts below the 2,000 to 2,500 warheads proposed by the United States and Russia in 1997 as a goal for a third round of strategic arms reduction talks, or Start III.

. . . . . .

"The other directives expected this week will outline the administration's intent to conduct a broader review of the armed services, the officials said. One will focus on the military's strategy and structure, something Mr. Bush has said he wanted to see before deciding how much, if any, to add to the Pentagon budget. The other will focus on pay, benefits and other issues affecting the nearly 1.4 million service personnel and their families.

. . . . . .

"Mr. Bush first outlined his vision for a strategy that coupled cuts in nuclear warheads with a missile shield during a speech last May, declaring that the nation's security no longer required "a nuclear balance of terror." He also said it was possible to move ahead with defensive missiles and still "defuse confrontation" with Russia, even though President Vladimir V. Putin and others have ardently opposed such a shield. While Mr. Bush did not specify limits on the warheads in the shield, he pledged to seek "the lowest possible number consistent with our national security."

The directive for reviewing the strategy is highly classified, but officials said the president was asking for a review of the nation's strategy, its method of selecting targets, its stockpile, and new and potential threats to the United States and its allies. It is also expected to focus on another of Mr. Bush's campaign promises, to consider whether nuclear weapons can be removed from the highest alert status, at which they are prepared to launch within minutes.

. . . . . .

The results of the review are expected to provide the broad policy guidelines for a Congressionally mandated "nuclear posture review" that is to be completed this year under the direction of the military, the first s

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense