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?

suzanne_hollman - 09:42am May 3, 2001 EST (#3119 of 3130)

One point: Could someone explain to me the logic that Bush used when he stated that the ABM agreement was simply a "relic" of the cold war and that, in fact, he was moving us closer to peace by breaking the shackles of this agreement? Oh, one other thing..."Rogue state"? Would that be the "them" or "other" that I am always reading about???

decker_j0 - 09:52am May 3, 2001 EST (#3120 of 3130)

Bush argues that the world has changed since the ABM Treaty was signed. Of course. What hasn't changed; it is still more difficult to hit a missile on the fly than a fixed target and a lot more expensive. Furthermore, defensive missiles have a first strike capability look to other nations. That is, if a nation plans a preemptive attack, it would have defensive missiles protecting its key assets. Both of those factors portend an expanding arms race.

cookiess0 - 09:52am May 3, 2001 EST (#3121 of 3130)

I am against NMD,Star wars, or whatever the Pentagon wants to call it this week. I'm against on grounds that it supports the concept of NUTs. Nuclear Utilization Theory. I'm against it because the largest holder of nuclear weapons whom seeks a to deploy a system designed to thwart a nuclear strike undermines the stability of all nations worldwide. It forces rational states to seek out and build similar technology. It enters the world we live in into another arms race, in which the final objective is a space based system. Like all technology each nation will have different levels of capability-nuclear deterrence is destroyed among all states. This system introduces the concept of chance into a doctrine that maintained no chance for survival exists. In doing this, one allows for the consideration of nuclear weapons in times of crisis because chance of survival has been introduced. Being a citizen of the United States, the nation whom introduced, and further utilized nuclear weapons against another nation state, I find NMD to be a great risk to the nation and to the world. If one wants nuclear weapons, one needs to embrace the idea of holding its citizens nuclear hostage. It may sound counter to the interests of the nation, yet it is not. By maintaining an atmosphere by which without question your nation and its citizens will be destroyed in a nuclear strike you increase the crossover point from which nuclear weapons may be introduced in times of a conventional conflict going nuclear, among other things. If you create a system in which chance of survival is introduced into a game where no chance of survival existed prior you increase the gamble the nation will take. In particular during times of crisis in which conventional conflict can pass into nuclear. Survival increases the wager. That is why SALT I and the ABM protocols were introduced. They were signed because it without question maintained that the two largest nuclear powers would always keep the others citizens nuclear hostage. If as we have seen with nuclear weapons, proliferation is natural among states, then you will also see proliferation of NMD among nations. Each at different levels of technological design. This is my view is highly unstable. It was not the correct course of action for the largest nuclear power. It now requires all other nations to follow suit in order to protect themselves. Consider what it would be like if India and Pakistan have NMD. The risk of nuclear conflict increases for chance of survival has increased. This is what every nation will now be faced with.

strick.vcn.com - 09:58am May 3, 2001 EST (#3122 of 3130)

The problem with the new star wars is that it could be easily defeated. If a rogue nation fired a missile containing two 55gal. drums full of BB shot and exploded them in space. Satelites and missile defences would be out of business because there's no way to differentiate between the BBs and any other object in space. I don't trust the Department of Defence to report accurate test results. I was in guided missiles in the Army and helped the Army fake an AA missile intercept in a demonstration for NATO leaders. Strick@vcn.com.

cookiess0 - 10:02am May 3, 2001 EST (#3123 of 3130)

strick.vcn.com - 09:58am May 3, 2001 EST (#3122 of 3122)

As a critic of this system, whom ran campaigns against it in the 80s, I can tell you that the “technological argument” is the weakest argument against NMD. It is the easiest to counter by those whom support this system. They simply point to the space race and critics whom viewed the moon landing as impossible at that time. The real weak point in NMD is that it reduces the safety of the nation and costs to much period.

leungki - 10:07am May 3, 2001 EST (#3124 of 3130)

As an engineer I can only add that the technical issues can, given time and money be solved to everyone's satisfaction. The debate should center not on the technical feasability of missile defenses but on their desirability within our current global geostrategic environment.

Yes, it will trigger an arms race and indeed, no it will not defend against some nut with five liters of nerve gas hidden in his backpack, traipsing towards the White house.

cookiess0 - 10:09am May 3, 2001 EST (#3125 of 3130)

leungki - 10:07am May 3, 2001 EST (#3124 of 3124)

Your right. The technology attack against is the weakest approach to take. I urge those whom are against this to not take this front. Instead learn about the theoretical implications.

lunarchick - 10:17am May 3, 2001 EST (#3126 of 3130)
lunarchick@www.com

Hudini came unstuck!

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense