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?

rgbrasel - 09:42am Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8262 of 8264)
RGBrasel@hotmail.com

I think our defense policy makers are missing the point: there are currently no present threats to the US from nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. A nation exists to preserve itself, and I don't think that North Korea or Iraq is willing to risk incurring our Response-In-Kind policy. It is conceivable that a low-yield (40-60kt) missile could be launched against a friendly target, but our response would be overwhelming. Let's see--let's nuke Dhaharan, and sacrifice everything within a 50 mile radius of Baghdad. I hardly think that Hussein is considering that. (And don't even think of the destruction if a nuke is launched against Israel.)

The threat is real from terrorist attacks such as the one on the USS Cole. With less than 250,000 US Dollars, a terrorist can use a Scarab boat, a heavy machine gun (such as a Russian KPV), and strafe the conning tower of an AEGIS cruiser, disabling the bridge--and the comm equipment, radar, etc. It's very cheap to disable enemy equipment (e.g., multimillion dollar guided missile destroyers) with a minimum of low-tech equipment, a complete disregard for one's own life, and the will to carry out the mission. That's the real and present threat our soldiers and citizens overseas face day to day, and I'm afraid that no matter what security measures are taken, we will never completely remove the threat of terrorism. But this is where we must spend our defense dollars--on the real threat, not on a percieved threat and a specious proposal. A so-called national missile shield isn't impervious. One or two major nuclear strikes on our major population centers could effectively paralyze our country. A hurricane is one thing, but FEMA would be hard pressed to respond to a nuclear airburst over Los Angeles and San Francisco. In one instant, the power grid of the West Coast and the technology industry in Sunnyvale would be knocked out by the EMP, as well as the military bases in and around Los Angeles (possibly as far as Twentynine Palms). The immediate deaths would probably number in the hundreds of thousands. . . However, this is a fantastic scenario. We should proceed with the research--there's no doubt that it would be useful in protecting the space station or even the planet against celestial objects--but let's be realistic. Let's face the immediate threat first.

rshowalter - 09:52am Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8263 of 8264)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And we should do research on things that have a chance of working.

Lots of things that "work on paper" have problems in the actual building. But if calculations show that some specific project is very unlikely, for a clear reason - - then that reason has to be dealt with. If the problem is "swept under the rug," any money spent on that project is overwhelmingly likely to be wasted.

In missile defense, the administration is asking people, again and again, to bet on projects that are grossly improbable, given the technical problems.

That's no service to the United States of America -- putting the matter gently.

applez101 - 02:07pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8264 of 8264)

Thought experiment -

Okay, let's place ourselves in the minds of a potential adversary and ask the following questions:

a) What is your international objective?

b) What is the best means of achieving that goal?

In the case of a national entity, such 'rogues' as Kaddafi or Hussein, missile technology is within reach, as are various WMD opportunities. However, being a national entity, it has no interest in putting an end to that existence, something guaranteed through MAD.

So, if your goal is to increase your nation's profile, and/or reduce the bite of international sanctions; one has to turn to more duplicitious and unorthodox methods.

For a start, violence is counter-productive, the threat of violence is much more useful. So, large-scale sabre-rattling, regional destabilization through resource-transfers and political dialogue are better techniques: and ones employed by both example personalities.

If one is a sophisticated 'rogue' nation - one could employ biological, chemical, and IT methods to unbalance your foes: and with little ability for them to trace these attacks back to you.

The more likely threat of actual violence, then, comes from parties with a less vulnerable profile: proto-national and ethnic terrorist groups with precious little to lose, and losing one's life for a cause is considered a good trade.

Yet, in the case of such groups as the IRA, even they recognized the futility of provoking actual violence and instead resorted to terrorism in the truest sense. That this has more or less lead to a successful political dialogue is a testament to the validity of this strategy - albeit with such drawbacks as splinter groups and Omagh.

Frankly, it is the more stupid and unsophisticated groups that are of greater concern: such as Bin Laden (solitary cause is killing Americans as far as the public knows) or McVeigh (tiny group, hard to trace, and rudimentary 'anti-government' stance: no interest in promoting reform through legitimate political means).

Furthermore, we would do well to worry more about domestic terrorism more: and the best solution there is education and enfranchisement, not surveillance and further militarization of your police forces.

As for foreign threats: sure there have been domestic attacks, but those have largely been unsuccessful or incomplete in relation to the scope of the original plans. Richer targets are US personnel overseas - and unfortunately this involves reducing America's ability to properly do its business overseas (in the case of embassies especially) - but better intelligence is more useful than more bomb barricades, IMHO.

Lastly, missiles? Why bother? They're big, expensive, easy to trace, hard to assemble, (thanks in part to the numerous enforced treaties concerning these technologies) and not all that conducive to the sorts of strategies and tactics I illustrated earlier.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense