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?

11111pbh - 08:32pm Nov 10, 2001 EST (#10307 of 10657)

With all this talk about a national missile defense the Bush administration continues to push for (after they CUT funding for programs to help Russia tract nuclear material and keep scientists busy), I wonder why we don't pay attention to more realistic fronts. Osama can get nukes easier than making a highly sophisticated inter-continental ballistic missile that would track straight enough for a system to work against. Why don't we spend those millions on working towards on securing nuclear materials around the world? What civilized country doesn't want better monitoring of nukes? Russia (and the military) are amidst a stage a 'gangster capitalism' thanks to rapid, needed reforms. Russina soldiers sometimes sold their guns to Chenchens in the war there. The miltiary there is a monster, without proper funding. Look at the Kursk. fiasco. TheRussina military is dangerously underfunded. Think they won't sell nukes to the highest bidder, think again. The last thing we need now is some Russian selling a nuke to an Osama buddy, so he can get some vodka and bread. Forget some high tech/future weapons. We have an immediate need for global nuclear security. The Bush team needs to ensure nukes are not going to fall in the hands of terrorists, not chase abstract, high-tech program. We are having a hard time beating cavemen, we need funds to address realistic threats. Bring back realism in national security.

gisterme - 08:46pm Nov 11, 2001 EST (#10308 of 10657)

almarst-2001 11/9/01 11:01pm

"The use of the "Deplete Uranium Bombs" against the Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq during the Gulf War"

The disgusting Iraqi propaganda link you posted pretty much shows your level of credibility. What evidence is there that these claims are true? NONE. More than likely those unfortunates pictured were the result of malnutrition caused by Saddam who spends his money on weapons rather than food for his people. Perhaps they are even the result of carelessness or purpose in Saddam's developoment of chemical and biological weapons. But the types of things shown there are definately NOT the types of effects one would see following the use of "Deplete Uranium Bombs" as the link says.

Depleted uranium is not dangerously radioactive and to the best of my knowledge, not used in bombs. Depleted uranium IS used in gun ammunition because of its high mass and pyrophilic properties. If DU were so intrinsically dangerous it would be impossible for armorers to handle it while loading guns.

You should consider the source before you embrace the outrageous claim, almarst.

What does your publication of this Iraqi propaganda have to do with missile defense?

gisterme - 09:47pm Nov 11, 2001 EST (#10309 of 10657)

11111pbh wrote ( 11111pbh 11/10/01 8:32pm ):

"With all this talk about a national missile defense the Bush administration continues to push for (after they CUT funding for programs to help Russia tract nuclear material and keep scientists busy), I wonder why we don't pay attention to more realistic fronts..."

Firstly, tracking of Russian nuclear materials is a Russian problem that I'm confident they can handle. If we can help them, great; but threats based on a lack of such funding from foreign sources smack of extortion. You know, the veiled "pay us or we can't be responsible for what happens" threat that's commonly used by mafias world-wide? It's just the classic "protection" scam. Americans have been learning to deal with that for most of a century. In itself, it is a form of terrorism. You might imply such a threat 11111 but the Russian government doesn't.

Secondly keeping Russian scientists buisy has little to do with missile defense. Again, if there are things we can do, great; but those scientists are a Russian national resource not "belonging" to the USA. Still, once again, the "Pay or else" threat you imply is the same. Do you think that Russian scientists, employed or not, don't love their own country or have any conscience about the well-being of the planet? I don't think that.

"...Russia (and the military) are amidst a stage a 'gangster capitalism' thanks to rapid, needed reforms. Russina soldiers sometimes sold their guns to Chenchens in the war there. The miltiary there is a monster, without proper funding..."

Whose problem is that? Since when is it America's responsibility to fund the Russian military?

...Look at the Kursk. fiasco..."

Look at what about that? Whether that tragedy was caused by a weapon manfunction, a suicide attack or even a collision, it was not caused by a lack of funding.

...The Russina military is dangerously underfunded. Think they won't sell nukes to the highest bidder, think again. The last thing we need now is some Russian selling a nuke to an Osama buddy, so he can get some vodka and bread..."

Let's hope that together. Still, I think it's highly unlikely that Russians are walking around with nukes to sell as if they were Kalashnikovs. Most likely anybody who may have a nuke to sell is not in need of bread or vodka. All that said, if you happen to know someone who want's to sell such a nuke, you should adivise them to contact the US government. They would undoubtedly be the highest bidder.

"...Forget some high tech/future weapons. We have an immediate need for global nuclear security...

"Forgetting" the high-tech possibility while doing the rest is like locking the door against the thief but leaving the window open.

"...The Bush team needs to ensure nukes are not going to fall in the hands of terrorists, not chase abstract, high-tech program..."

The world-wide anti-terror team needs to do both.

..."We are having a hard time beating cavemen,..."

Are we? I hadn't noticed.

"We need funds to address realistic threats. Bring back realism in national security..."

Both are exactly what's been happening since September 11.

almarst-2001 - 04:22pm Nov 12, 2001 EST (#10310 of 10657)

Looting, violence reported in Mazar-i-Sharif: UN (AFP) - November 13 3:06 am - http://sg.news.yahoo.com/011112/1/1rnuc.html

"UN officials sounded an alarm about reports of looting, kidnappings, roving gunmen and summary executions in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif since its capture by opposition forces."

The familiar Bosnia-Kosovo scenario. At least this time no one claimed the "humanitarian" intentions.

(347 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense