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?

rshowalter - 08:23am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9988 of 9998)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You people have been spending money for practically no purpose but to spend it, and to give some officers chances for advancement -- and much of your core stuff is "a triumph of technique over purpose." Nor are the motives unquestionable in other ways.

MD9284 rshowalter 9/17/01 11:06am

Mystro a drum roll for these big-ticket items in procurement for the military industrial complex:

F/A-18E/F Fighter

F-22 Fighter

Joint Strike Fighter

C-17 Transport Aircraft

V-22 Osprey Aircraft

RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter

Crusader Artillery System

NSSN New Attack Submarine ("Virginia" Class)

Ballistic and National Missile Defense (BMD)

Reading from the page - the same page everyone - can anyone pick 'winners' from the above ?

Not a single one of them is worthwhile from the viewpoint of a reasonable United States citizen, unconnected with the military or military contractors. The aircraft are not needed to respond to any credible threat -- and with advances in radar that are now either in place or possible, none are even viable. The Osprey is grossly defective. We don't need another submarine for either defensive or offensive purposes -- though the Navy and the contractors may want it.

rshowalter - 08:27am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9989 of 9998)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Partial correction - - if you had missile defense programs that were technically viable, they might be worth supporting. But except for Garwin's proposal, which is a tangential part of what is being funded, I don't think you have a damn thing that can work, for reasons that can be checked.

(Most of the checking could be public, and any questions of "miracles" -- could be checked for in other ways.)

kangdawei - 08:27am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9990 of 9998)

"You should get every anti-missile defense that can work funded"

So does that mean you support upgrading our existing fleet of Aegis Cruisers ?

the sea-based option is the most popular near-term solution since it can be done using our existing fleet of Aegis Cruisers (Ticonderoga class) and Aegis Destroyers (Arleigh Burke class) currently tasked with defending America's naval battle groups from air attack. Called the Navy's Theater Wide System, the Aegis Cruisers double as a missile defense platform by retrofitting the ships with modified Standard II, Block IV Interceptor missiles, performing some improvements to the ship's computer systems, and interfacing the ship's missile tracking systems with infra-red satellites.

rshowalter - 08:29am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9991 of 9998)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Don't know. Insofar as I know, it might mean that. Details matter, and I haven't seen enough of them.

rshowalter - 08:31am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9992 of 9998)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If you fixed some math, the systems you have at sea ought to have a much better chance of hitting things.

kangdawei - 08:43am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9993 of 9998)

Good. That's a starting point. Then by all means, let's beef up Aegis. I believe that along the way we will develop some technologies that will startle even The Critic Roger himself.

Roger, would you support a mass public relations campaign informing the American public that, in fact, they are wrong. That their belief that a missle defense system exists is an erroneous belief?

rshowalter - 08:45am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9994 of 9998)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I certainly would.

kangdawei - 08:54am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9995 of 9998)

That's great.

And on the subject of "only what works", I do think the entire military procurement process should come under strict scrutiny --- as should all govenment funding details. Now is not the time to waste money. Whether we're buying latrine shovels for the infantry or new missle defense systems for the American homeland.

But on the subject of whether we should attempt to defend ourselves from the certain future threat of ICBM blackmail (or worse, actual launch) I definitely do not want to be guided by what the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans or committed anti-defense-spending zealots have to say on the subject. Especially when said zealots are often motivated by the idea of Moral Equivalence. That the USA is Morally Equivalent to Iraq (for example). As we have seen by certain posters in this thread.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense