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?

cod37 - 11:06am May 8, 2001 EST (#3501 of 3504)

Re Rumsfeld (NYTtimes today) The space-based boondoggle proposal phase begins. An an engineer, I know these things are difficult, expensive and in the case of NMD close to impossible. But I can't see any need for this stuff whatsover. It does not add to wealth building of our economy. And I can't find the enemy. It's certainly not the Russians and the Chinese space program is minimal. Sadam is a space-cadet who can't get there. As they say in the military, it's all about "assymetric threats". That is guys in small boats carrying plastic exposives.

rshowalter - 11:08am May 8, 2001 EST (#3502 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is beautiful in some terms - I bet many of the technical proposals are of high aesthetic quality - at least at the level of the commercial art, and presentation.

But in terms of a larger picture -- and larger needs -- ugly.

rshowalter - 11:10am May 8, 2001 EST (#3503 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Recall the phrase .. "going wrong, for want of anything to do." .... ?

It seems to characterize a good deal that DOD is proposing.

rshowalter - 11:29am May 8, 2001 EST (#3504 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

coltakashi0 5/8/01 10:31am made a fine post -- and we have some common ground. We both agree -- I think everybody agrees, that

" The worst possible threat to the environment is a nuclear war. Anything that makes nuclear weapons less powerful and less effective is good for the environment. "

I think the argument of coltakashi0 5/8/01 10:31am .. is excellent -- on the basis of some assumptions about fact and context.

But are the assumptions about fact and context correct? We're dealing with a big-scale matter of life and death here -- it is important that we act correctly.

Assumption: "offensive nuclear ICBMs (the US's) are going to be replaced with non-nuclear anti-ICBM systems. That is only going to happen if non-nuclear-ICBM systems WORK.

The argument that it is "nicer" to just blow up their missiles in space rather than their people on the ground" is surely right -- it is "nicer" -- but is it a realistic option --- only if the anti-ICBM systems work -- and they can't.

There's also a hidden assumption -- that it is either missile defense, or nothing.

There's also a major question of context -- is the US benign -- is the US acting as a force for peace and decency in the world. In view of history, and the secret way decisions are made -- that's not a context assumption everybody has reason to accept.

Given the facts as they are, it seems to me that the women who want to resist everything about the current missile defense initiative are in the right. They are against an unworkable, destabilizing fraud. That is surely the way it seems, so long as US policy remains as agressive as it has been.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense