New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

otto5 - 12:59pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2802 of 2818)

olliver: I will try to answer your questions one by one.

1. "How can anyone possibly perceive the first serious anti-missile initiative to be itself an act of aggresion?"

It's actually easy once you realize that peace between the nuclear states was guaranteed by the knowledge of all of them that the initiator of a nuclear attack would suffer certain, massive retaliation. Thus the costs to the aggressor were prohibitively high. Hence, no war between nuclear states and consequently, limitations on their foreign policies.

Now, let one of these states announce its intention to implement a system which makes it immune to retaliation. This signals that the state in question, unhappy with the need to balance its interests against those of the others, intends to pursue an unlimited, unilateral foreign policy. Which is aggression in the sense of a ruthless pursuit of one's ends. And which in a capitalist state, means the ruthless pursuit of corporate profits.

Your wording of the question suggests that you have trouble grasping these simple facts.

2. "All those who are genuinely concerned about arms build-up should welcome this kind of non-aggresive defense as a step toward real defense (that is to say, real peace)."

Will the other states sit back and watch as this happens. Of course not. They will work on countermeasures to the countermeasure, as has happened with every weapon system ever invented. So much for the NMD alleviating concerns about the arms race.

3. "Why should the United States appease Beijing and Moscow? Will that truly make them less likely to act aggresivley(sic) in the future if ever a rogue took control of one of these nations? The policy of appeasement has failed each time it has been tried back to the days of WWII. Why should one think the principle will somehow suddenly prove effective?"

Why should Beijing and Moscow appease the United States ? Will that truly make it less likely to act aggresiveley in the future if ever a rogue took control of it? The policy of appeasement has failed each time it has been tried back to the days of WWII. Why should one think the principle will somehow suddenly prove effective?

4. "I applaud the president's bold plans to defend our borders in such a way that will alleviate some of the need for the more conventional and 'offensive' military."

To answer this one all I have to do is to change one word to make it into a statement uttered by millions of patriotic Germans as Hitler introduced his new Blitzkrieg weapons in the mid 30's. And we all know how that turned out.

I applaud the Fuehrer's bold plans to defend our borders in such a way that will alleviate some of the need for the more conventional and "offensive" military.

Think it through again olliver.

Otto Hinckelmann

dmassiah - 01:01pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2803 of 2818)

Not much to say here, it seems everyone can see that NMD is not going to work. Again, we are being taken backwards to the Reagan era. Just hold on this idiot will be out of office in three and half years.

So far he has offended North Korea, China, Russia, European Allies. Domestically, Higher gas prices, Higher energy prices, higher food prices, dirty air, less green space.

Hell, I don't know if I can afford the next 100 days.

jeffchuang - 01:09pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2804 of 2818)

It would be nice if we had a way to defend ourselves from accidental launchings and rogue states, and I think Russia, China, and Europe feel the same way for their own safety. The problem is that if we develop defense unilaterally, then it destabilizes the stalemate of mutually assured destruction.

Why not work with China, Russia, and Europe to develop a defense system together? Scientists from various countries work together to cure diseases. Couldn't we work together to safeguard humanity from a nuclear holocaust?

I propose that the U. S. form a collaboration with these other governments for DEFENSE, which is what the military is supposed to be for in the first place. A true defense technology, as this missile system is supposed to be, should be shared.

applez0 - 01:10pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2805 of 2818)

"But effectiveness for deterrance no longer requires nukes, and the systems, in the new internet world, are so inherently unstable that we should take them down. And we CAN."

This actually isn't true. The computer systems for our nuclear weapons (and for many of the other nuclear powers) are largely independent of the Internet. So there is little risk on that count.

What is true, however, is that NMD and even nuclear weapons themselves are less and less useful in countering the kinds of threats that we are likely to face in this new century. How would either protect us from denial-of-service or viral hack attacks? Or against the less-exotic, but equally dangerous madbomber or violent ideologue with little national identity or cause?

I think the most damning argument against NMD and to a lesser extent, nuclear weapons, is their lack of cost-effectiveness. The value of nukes, IMO, is not as a military weapon, but as a political one. Full stop. One can't use them, but one does get attention and respect for having them. One may even get even more respect for unilaterally doing away with them (as South Africa and Brazil did).

cookiess0 - 01:11pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2806 of 2818)

rshowalter - 12:39pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2793 of 2804)

I hate to bust your bubble, but I am not bill clinton. You had that conversation with me. If you examine the posts you will find the same language, even errors in spelling which I'm infamous for:) I also cut and pasted my past perspectives over again.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense