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?

jonathanbaker - 09:22pm Dec 8, 2001 EST (#10347 of 10657)
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

It does not seem terribly likely that Russia or China are ambitious to initiate a nulear exchange in the immediate future.

Osama bin Laden has already praised Pakistan for developing such weapons, and no doubt suffers from severe projectile-envy. Which leads to the obvious: a Star Wars system, even if it worked with 100% accuracy, would be helpless against the most likely aggressor: Al Qaeda or some comparable death cult.

They would simply deliver the nuclear payload the way millions of tons of drugs are delivered: walk it over the boarder, or ship it in by boat. Very simple. Goodby New York City, Goodby Washington D.C. Goodby Western Civilization.

Lotta good Star Wars will do us then . . .

mazza9 - 10:54pm Dec 9, 2001 EST (#10348 of 10657)
Louis Mazza

jonathanbaker:

So why is North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq developing missiles to deliver WOMDs. Are they stupid?

LouMazza

armel7 - 12:03pm Dec 10, 2001 EST (#10349 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

News:Powell and the Russians talk MD

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

lchic - 02:42pm Dec 10, 2001 EST (#10350 of 10657)

Bush said last month that the United States would cut two-thirds of its stockpile to reduce levels to about 1,750-2,250 missiles. At the time, Putin made no such commitment, but Monday Powell and Ivanov said an agreement is on the table.

My thought was that we 'did' hear a figure related to Russians, back then. In that the Russian approach is to 'have a figure in mind' - then not move from it.

11111pbh - 01:23am Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10351 of 10657)

mazza9 12/9/01 10:54pm

N.Korea suspended tests. Their tests show they still have a long way to go, and any ICBM they would produce would most likely be a 'wobbly' missile.

I reall think Bush is pushing to hard for NMD. He has put breaking the ABM as a key stance in our interactions with the Russians. I don't see this as a real pressing issue. Tests for a theater missle defense can be done without breaking the ABM. Bush is too eager to get us to a point in NMd where we can't return. I don't think this is so important, given more realistic threats, and the fact it has clearly upset our Russian and European allies.

armel7 - 04:30pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10352 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

News:Bush to withdrawal from 1972 treaty...

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

jonathanbaker - 07:09pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10353 of 10657)
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

mazza9 12/9/01 10:54pm

"Are they stupid?"

Apparently. It would simply be cheaper and more efficient to simply place the bombs within the cities to be vaporized, then detonate at one's leisure.

Or just ship them into the harbor of choice. What could be less complicated or cost-effective?

I don't think China would attack us directly if they could, simply because they would instananeously plunge into a desperate economic depression with no way out for decades. Remember? Without us their economy crashes with nowhere else to pick up the loss. We are their salvation and they know it.

mazza9 - 10:26pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10354 of 10657)
Louis Mazza

lllllpbh

"He has put breaking the ABM as a key stance in our interactions with the Russians."

The 1972 ABM treaty is "null and void" It has as much standing as any treaty between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. If one or both of the parties to a treaty cease to exist then the treaty is worth as much as a Confederate Dollar!

LouMazza

lchic - 10:41pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10355 of 10657)

If China dumped the US as a trading partner .. China would look for 'other' markets .. might even build alliances with non-first world economies to get them functional .. a task the US forgot to do in the Century past. Just think how advanced the Americas would be had the USA worked with and for the peoples .. rather than proping up corrupt regimes as per C17 European political game play .... having a C21 eye on the ball should be the new game.

jonathanbaker - 11:56pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10356 of 10657)
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

lchic 12/11/01 10:41pm

China would look for 'other' markets ..

Where, exactly? Russia? Africa? South America? India? South Korea?

To put it on the end of a stick: if the NYC and Washington D.C. were vaporized the United States immediately retreats into an fascist-fortress by necessity, and whatever country is associated with that attack will be immediately destroyed. Most likely several hundred million will perish within days. The temperment (over the top rage) of the body-politic in America will demand this, and it will be realized without regret. At that point the entire world is in retreat.

Markets are simply not created at will. Just ask Wall Street. Only the European collective-economy can compare with the U.S., and the Chinese are already saturating the European market to the hilt, and that market will not increase merely with the demise of the U.S.

If the U.S. is devastated then the world declines into a Dark Ages for a limited time with no guarantees for the outcome. In the current game, only the U.S. can afford to extinguish entire civilizations with impunity, but not without ghastly ramifications.

Only death-cult Islamic psychos seriously and actively scheme for the annihilation of the West.

(301 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense