New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 02:37am Apr 15, 2002 EST (#1368 of 1369)

Even Mike has trouble with the 'Right wing nuts' : http://www.michaelmoore.com/2002_0222.html

rshow55 - 09:47am Apr 15, 2002 EST (#1369 of 1369)

Pentagon Optimistic About Missile Shield by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/15/national/15MISS.html

" On one hand, Mr. Bush wants to show that effective missile defense is nearly at hand and that the program is not a waste of money. On the other hand, the administration is also trying to respond to critics, including Republicans, who argue that the interceptors in Alaska will be inadequate to defeat missile attacks. . . . .

" Since President Ronald Reagan vowed to build an impenetrable shield over the United States, the Pentagon, by some estimates, has spent more than $60 billion on antimissile technology, yet does not have a working system. The Pentagon expects to spend nearly $8 billion more this year on missile defense.

Gross revenue for the NYT is ~ $3 billion

" The administration plans to start work this summer on a small missile defense base at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks, that would house five missile interceptors. Though initially intended for testing, the site could be used to defend the United States against a missile attack, the Pentagon says.

"could be used" - - and "missile attacks" can be flexible words.

" Once you have that built, then there's an inherent capability there for whatever use the country might need of it at the time," General Kadish said.

. . . whatever

" Hit-to-kill technology depended on a nonexplosive interceptor packed with sensors to find an enemy warhead and destroy it simply by crashing into it. Some scientists argue that those interceptors could be tricked by balloons shaped like warheads.

It is easy to put the warhead inside a balloon essentially indistinguishable to radar or light detection, and hide among MANY other balloons - - and this has long been known. Countermeasures for the "missile defense" may cost as little as a millionth the development and deployment cost of the system -- and by any reasonable accounting - countermeasures are easy.

" Despite recent successes in the hit-to-kill program, the Pentagon has also had some missile-defense setbacks. A prototype booster rocket for carrying a kill vehicle failed in a test in December. A network of 24 low-atmosphere missile-tracking satellites known as Space Based Infrared System-low has been so over budget and behind schedule that Congress has threatened to cancel financing.

They are not doing anything that can reasonably defend the United States -- but their objective is to spend money - - and they are spending it.

As they do so, other nation states are watching, and judging the credibility, honor, and good sense of the United States of America.

Under circumstances where our credibilty and good sense are important, and our resources are limited, this "missile defense" boondoggle undermines America.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense