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.

manjumicha2001 - 02:31pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11841 of 11863)

rshow,

Please note that this report came out fully two years before theie 1998 space launch vehicle test.

I do think the accurate presentation of NK nuclear capability is necessary bad for healthy criticism of Bush's MD program. If is not a workable solution, then it needs to be pointed out. On the other hand, it would be a high treasobn for any US official NOT to pursue such program if it is technically feasible, with or without NK threat, don't you think?

Personally I think you are right about the technical challenges of MD program but also the hawks might argue that even an imperfect system will give US the strategic advantage when dealing with states such as NK since it presents an element of uncertainly as to the true effectivenes of their strategic capability should the showdown comes.

manjumicha2001 - 02:41pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11842 of 11863)

"I do think the accurate presentation of NK nuclear capability is necessary bad for healthy criticism of Bush's MD program."

Sorry, I meant to say "I do NOT think......"

rshow55 - 02:46pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11843 of 11863)

I'm reading and rereading with interest. The article quoted in manjumicha2001 2/26/02 2:26pm came from where?

It recites a situation at considerable variance with other reporting -- which I trust more.

If it is true -- it indicates a competence of N. Korean missile makers far in excess of what one finds among other nations -- the Japanese had many serious problems, and had to do many tests, to get a missile working MD8242 rshowalter 8/30/01 12:23pm .

Where did your reference come from? Could you come up with other sources (even if not in English) to support it?

rshow55 - 02:48pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11844 of 11863)

On another subject, I'm for effective missile defense. That rules out programs that don't and can't work.

If N. Korea is as far along your the article claims, interdiction has to be seriously considered.

But I doubt your source, as of now.

Finding ways to TALK to those people ought to be considered carefully, too. They can't be totally crazy in all respects -- there's reason to know that.

manjumicha2001 - 02:59pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11845 of 11863)

I think Japanese had ICBM capability way back before any of this stuff about H2 rockets came about.....I believe their H2 rocket program is quite different issue from ICBM capabilities.

As to the references, those reports come from military analysts based in either Tokyo or Beijing (laundered through Hong Kong). It seems people there have better and more clearer channels of communications with NK establishment (and of course less hindered by other political considerations).

Btw, I am not too big on links and such (not enough time nor dicipline in that department).

But I do admire your neat cross-references.

manjumicha2001 - 03:07pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11846 of 11863)

I agree that NK is not crazy as otehrs say they are. And I think even the most strident hawks agree that the negotiation is the only option at this point with NK.

After all, giving them full diplomatic recogntion and allowing them to join the world economic system would not be a bad trade-off for eliminating the NK threat without firing a shot.

On the other hand, NK has always been known as empire-busters throughout its history (just ask any chinese historians). So if they are attacked in any form or shape, I do not believe US continent would be immune from it either.

Probably such message has been conveyed to Washinton many times so no wonder Rumsfeld & Bush feel that even an imperfect MD system is better than nothing? At least, it might help in that grand show-down to be followed by the bargaining game?

manjumicha2001 - 03:15pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11847 of 11863)

And lastly for now, rshow

I would not put too much faith in DOD or even CIA reports on NK military affairs that come out for US public or media consumption here.

Understatement or overstatement, depedning on the issues at hand, seem to be the norm rather than exceptions when it comes to NK discusssions here in the states (at least public ones).

rshow55 - 03:19pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11848 of 11863)

Don't believe your source. But I'll consider it as a hypothetical. The one part I might believe is that the N. Koreans have said a lot of crazy, threatening, blustery things over back channels -- since they do such things in public, as well.

Here's my first question - - wouldn't the US, facing such a circumstance, want all the responsible nations in the world as ALLIES?

Just now, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of President Bush's "bedside manner."

Back in a while.

rshow55 - 03:20pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11849 of 11863)

manjumicha2001 2/26/02 3:15pm . . . everybody makes mistakes sometimes --- even when they try to be truthful -- something DOD and the spooks don't always try to do.

I've heard that even the NYT has made a misake or two.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense