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?

ledzeppelin - 06:39am Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10263 of 10657)

Armel7-(#10254)

You say “keep focused on the strategic and technological issues of Missile Defense”

This we have, whilst we explore some nations bizarre tendencies and others individual criminality. Via our dialogue on such matters in relation to and concerning MD; I for one have a greater comprehension and understanding of others perceptions of these nations actions as indeed this gives us all a greater understanding of the strategic issues surrounding MD. However Missile Defence is first and foremost US foreign policy, to purport by omission that MD is a domestic policy is at best respectfully irrefutable misguided? Correspondingly therefore perhaps we may be seen to stray, however I believe those whom question my logic and I theirs are doing so, only too try and grasp the actual implications of the strategic and technological issues and merits or otherwise of the Missile Defence Programme.

mazza9 - 11:51am Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10264 of 10657)
Louis Mazza

Ledzepplin:

I am curious. What prescient ability do you possess to enabe you to state categorically what Saddam will and will not do. To quote, "Who knows what secrets lurk in the hearts and minds of man? The Shadow Does!" Are you the Shadow.

Are these middle east potentates so stupid that they buy missile technology and yet have no desire to use the capability once it is operational?

LouMazza

armel7 - 06:14pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10265 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

gisterme -- The forum to which I directed you is live-moderated and goes to read-only when the moderator goes home. Keep trying.

Great discussion, guys, but please try to keep it under the header. Talking just about political problems with Saddam and Osama will lead every which way.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

gisterme - 06:29pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10266 of 10657)

ledzepplin wrote ( ledzeppelin 11/1/01 2:55am ):

"You say "That's a trivial question," most probably taken out of context as you have?..."

And the question was (from ledzeppelin 10/28/01 12:44am):

"...Indeed ask yourself why both Japan and Germany are strongholds for terror groups run by the likes of Osama bin Laden to equip and raise funds in their fight against imperialism..."

That question pretty much stands alone zep. How can it be taken out of context? I certainly don't agree that the answer I gave in any way takes that question out of context. But one thing I would add to my previous answer, is that these guys don't give a rat's ass about "imperialism". After all, they're trying to establish their own empire.

"...I will ignore your your comment as to being nuked et al."

How convenient...the context of that comment was the basis of my arguement in favor of BMD! But, why ignore that comment otherwise? Do you think a nuclear detonation in the US, Europe or Russia is impossible? There's a distinct possibility that it may happen...remember the missing Russian suitcase bombs? I have no doubt that these will be used by Al Qaida if they can get them and we don't catch them in time. Those aren't HUGE bombs but they would certainly devistate downtown "Anyplace". They'd cause far more casualties and worse destruction than the airplane attacks.

"...However whilst I can agree its "better safe than sorry" Star wars will not make anyone safe! Indeed the opposite,..."

I'd like to know your rationale for that statement! Why didn't you present it? If a BMD system were to stop even one missile out of 10 do you think the folks in the place that didn't get hit would think it hadn't saved them? What can you be thinking?

"...moreover create more bin Ladens and destroy any real coalitions, making both the UK and US targets."

The US, UK and the rest of Europe are already targets in case you hadn't noticed...or did you think the 9 September attack was just an accident? That it was really aimed at Argentina? :-) Don't be naive, led.

But I'd also like to hear your rationale as to why a defensive system would create more bin Ladens...I'm having some trouble making a connection. Can you help me out?

As to coalitions being devastated by US BMD development, I wouldn't worry too much about that. I believe that the Russians will see the light WRT BMD and allow revision of the ABM treaty. They're already sending those signals. They're realizing that they are alread in range of the current technology that China is selling in the region. I don't see much potential for BMD development to have an effect on other "coalition" members, I suppose for the same reason that I can't see why it would make more bin Ladens. There's just no obvious connection.

gisterme - 06:36pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10267 of 10657)

"The forum to which I directed you is live-moderated and goes to read-only when the moderator goes home. Keep trying."

Thanks Mike.

I hope you'll bear with us a bit more in our current discussion. The threat that BMD will address is exactly what we're discussing and I'm trying as hard as I can to keep this on topic. If there were no threat then I'd agree in a New York minute that BMD development would be silly. But there is a threat and it's turning out to be one that's on just the scale that the proposed BMD system would address.

(390 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense