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.

rshow55 - 07:40pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1675 of 1703)

almarst-2001 4/22/02 5:09pm

almarst: 1. How to distinct an attack from a commercial or scientific lunch. Or an attack against someone else or even a defensive counter-missile lunch during a boost?

During a boost, you really can't tell. Which makes for some problems, no?

almarst: 2. What could prevent the wareheads to be loaded and dropped from a satelites?

Nothing could prevent it -- and with good re-entry controls, such warheads might be accurately placed. One of many reasons why political controls, agreements, and inspections are more promising than "trying to defend against everything." Because n! increases very fast - and there's a lot of "everything" out there -- too much to defend against.

almarst: 3. How to defend against submarine or deep-continental lunches the Russia and China are perfectly capable of?

Defense against subs is very difficult with any reasonably forseeable ABM guidance system - - especially since sub-launched missiles can be quite short range. It isn't much distance between US coastal cities and the sea - - not so much more than artillery range - or drone range.

Almarst: There is no doubt in my mind the MD is aimed primarily against China and possibly Russia.

I think that in the minds of some "artsy" people, and politicians, that may be true. Among the engineers, I believe that the target has been, for a long, long time, only the US taxpayer. That's the only realistic target they can hit - because, alas, there are so few intelligent defenses.

rshow55 - 07:47pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1676 of 1703)

There's a good cartoon about hitting the US Treasury, the only reasonable target for these systems, in an OpEd Advertorial of a while back http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/5241

In a better world, that Advertorial, and cited links, should sink the program.

The MIT Journal pieces cited here show a lot. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/postol0402.asp

How do we get facts accepted ?

On issues of missile defense, the question of fraud, and other forms of systematic deception, aren't the only questions. But they are questions that need to be adressed.

almarst-2001 - 07:58pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1677 of 1703)

Thank you, Robert.

Your answers confirm what I expected.

Deep down I still believe its not just am attempt to suck the tax$ into the big black hall.

As I mentioned before, I can imagine the Pentagon's frustration with the idea that 400bn military force may not be usable against a country 10 times weaker militarely. They surely hope to establish an unconditional dictatorial power over the World.

almarst-2001 - 08:06pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1678 of 1703)

Air Force Space Command landed its own four-star general Friday, part of an effort to strengthen development of the nation's military space operations. - http://www.gazette.com/stories/0420loc1.php?section=2

almarst-2001 - 08:09pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1679 of 1703)

'Rarely can one phrase have caused such confusion and controversy', wrote BBC journalist Jon Leyne in early February, after US senators started asking awkward questions about President Bush's 'axis of evil' speech - http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D443.htm

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense