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?

cookiess0 - 10:29am May 3, 2001 EST (#3131 of 3142)

rshowalter - 10:18am May 3, 2001 EST (#3127 of 3129)

Listen pal,

You need to LISTEN to others instead of flooding the forum with poetry and long rants.

The more you just rant the more people will just not read some of your more interesting perspectives. You need to maintain focus.

As I said before. Nuclear weapons are technology; they will only go away when something more destructive makes them obsolete. Nuclear weapons actually DECREASE conflict among major powers. You cannot "rid" technological developments that exists. Nations do not trust. That is why all nations spy. Nations for the most part embrace Hobbes. America the largest holder of nuclear weapons had the chance to mold future international nuclear policy. The largest holder of nuclear weapons had a chance to maintain the status quo, acknowledge nuclear weapons are here for now and lower the risk they maintain too the world at large. Instead they have thwarted it and increased the dangers to everybody worldwide. Including the United States

leungki - 10:32am May 3, 2001 EST (#3132 of 3142)

Showalter, you propose assasination as a valid instrument of nuclear disarmament policy. Your statement is officially treason under the laws of the United States of America. The problem is that assasination for reasons related to our biology and to what are called "tit-for-tat" survival strategies is in fact not a stable policy and having been tried in many different places at many different times has proven itself beyond any doubt to be exactly that.

Regardless of this fact you have an interesting point that NMD might stimulate a debate of sorts on nuclear disarmament. This would be true if we weren't talking about the USA here. The only debates I have ever witnessed in the USA are of the following type:

A: you are wrong ! B: No, you are wrong ! A: Oh yeah ? Well you are wronger than wrong ! B: Well f*** you, you [insert epithet here like "liberal" or "conservative nut" etc...] A: You disagree with me so we cannot be friends and cannot have any more discussions about anything.

As a final point I would like to add that MAD as a form of deterrent against conventional conflict is not such a bad thing. Basically if you are sure that your opponent has the capacity to completely annihilate you if you attack him, you will not try anything really stupid.

cookiess0 - 10:44am May 3, 2001 EST (#3133 of 3142)

rshowalter - 10:19am May 3, 2001 EST (#3129 of 3132)

Your position is bigoted by the way.

rshowalter - 11:06am May 3, 2001 EST (#3134 of 3142)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Nuclear weapons are technology; they will only go away when something more destructive makes them obsolete."

The world is full of "technology" that doesn't get used, and other technology that gets used for a while, then supplanted. Some technical arrangements, that seemed a good idea for a while (for instance, the use of asbestos) get prohibited, when that is the reasonable thing to do.

rshowalter - 11:09am May 3, 2001 EST (#3135 of 3142)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm interested in word usages. cookiess0 5/3/01 10:44am

It hadn't occured to me that my position was bigoted. (I've worried about being wrong, but the bigotry angle hadn't concerned me -- maybe it should have.)

How am I being bigoted?

slrskuld - 11:15am May 3, 2001 EST (#3136 of 3142)

As per usual the times gets the ABM treaty wrong. The US and USSR _are_ allowed to deploy two ABM sites. One to protect the capital (which the USSR actually did around Moscow) and one at an ICBM site. The US did deploy a site near Grand Forks, ND in the 70's but congress ordered it closed.

The US Safeguard/Sentinal ABM system _did_ work but wouldn't be PC to use today. That's because the warheads on the missiles used 5 megaton or 1kt neutron nuclear weapons. A nuclear warhead means you don't have to 'hit a bullet with a bullet', you just have to get close which we can do now.

slrskuld - 11:17am May 3, 2001 EST (#3137 of 3142)

Oh and the ABM treaty allows either party to drop out of it with a 6 month notice to the other side.

rshowalter - 11:18am May 3, 2001 EST (#3138 of 3142)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That's an important point.

rshowalter - 11:21am May 3, 2001 EST (#3139 of 3142)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A nuclear explosive ABM might be practical for a few missiles -- not for many though. For one thing, after the first nuke goes off -- goodbye radar, goodbye much of the electronic infrastructure of the nations below, and, almost certainly, goodbye all the controls that would make hitting the next missile possible.

Or do I have this wrong? AMP is a pretty strong effect, as I recall.

rshowalter - 11:22am May 3, 2001 EST (#3140 of 3142)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Which raises the point -- if ONE nuke is set off, high up -- doesn't that neutralized any of the ABM systems being proposed? (And doesn't this ALSO do great damage to infrastructure?)

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense