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.

brer_rabbit - 10:19pm May 29, 2000 EST (#17 of 11858)

jemoyer - 08:26pm May 29, 2000 EDT (#16 of 16)

The article's main contention seems to be that the ruthless dictators will act rationally. That because we could anniliate them, they would never do the irrational thing of launching the missles.

Point one, the ruthless dictator can hide in a very deep hole in the ground. They will survive personally. They may think that they will come out on top. Can't rely on their good judgment.

Point two, even if these ruthless dictators all act as rationally as Russia, how many dictators with the ability to seriously damage the US can we have around before it is probable one will do it? 10? 50? If there are 20 dictators that can all destroy the US, one will most certainly do it eventually.

Point three, loss of 5% of the American population may bother us more that the loss of 90% of the population bothers a ruthless dictator.

Point four, after putting the American people's head on the chopping block for 50 years to defend the Europeans, there is no reason to expect them to support it. They want to make sure that the American people's head stays on the chopping block since they think that their head can't be removed.

Point four, the Russians are looking for a bribe. I say give it. Beats another Cold War. If not, so be it. We at least have some evidence that they will act rationally. Unlike the flock of dictators.

brer_rabbit - 10:54pm May 29, 2000 EST (#18 of 11858)

Heck the ruthless dictator might be overthrown or something. Happens all the time. Lots of room for mischief there.

As the rebels close in and the ruthless dicatator has little to lose, he climbs in his deep hole and launches the missles. Best strategy for political and biological survival. Lots of stuff like this.

It's a big secret, and a good idea that it is, but I doubt that the president could launch without other approval. There is no "button" to push. Remember Al Haig scamping down to the WWIII room during the Nixon impeachment? Just to make double sure Nixon couldn't launch? If Al Haig thought Nixon might do it, when his biological survival was not at stake, there's got to be a ruthless dictator out there somewhere that is more irresponsible than Richard M. Nixon that would launch for biological survival.

toast117 - 01:17pm May 30, 2000 EST (#19 of 11858)

I hate to lend support to an opposing viewpoint, but in the interests to fairness, there is considerable credence towards viewing "rogue states" as irrational. Or, rather, viewing them as potentially irrational.

Being fortunate enough to live in the U.S., we often take for granted our government's accountability towards the public. The combination of a free press, congressional oversight, a strong and enforceable constitution, works (surprisingly) well in limiting our executive without degenerating into anarchy. Given either the unilateral authority that characterizes dictatorships, or the factional nature of states such as China (replete with its irrational radicals), as well as the relative independance of their militaries... A state that is rational under these conditions may not be rational for long.

sonofnils - 12:29pm Jun 2, 2000 EST (#20 of 11858)
Cogito Ergo Addendum

Help, Spock, my universal translator has smoke coming out of it!!

wangzho1 - 01:14pm Jun 5, 2000 EST (#21 of 11858)
wang zhong(ŸŠ’†)

What will be the role of missile in the new geopolitical climate and in? The new scientific era?

It will be more logical in algebra, Flexibility flying, Means different way to dance in the earth orbits.

However, the missile are going to has "weight loss, small volume, =bargain, undetectable".

As china science fiction novel, applet catches a bird into space. However, he finds that bird is faked object, it is missile.

wangzho1 - 01:18pm Jun 5, 2000 EST (#22 of 11858)
wang zhong(ŸŠ’†)

What will be the role of missile in the new geopolitical climate and in? One thing American can do it. But they will not do it.

The reason is a good missile denseness design should be: 1.love your enemy. 2.forgets your country. 3. to be discipline a bit. …. Etc.

swimmah - 09:12pm Jun 5, 2000 EST (#23 of 11858)

Actually, I don't believe that missile defense should have a place in our political climate of the day. Why do we have to keep on finding newer ways of promoting a system that seems to be very provocative and alienating towards certain parties. A missile defense project seems pretty unpractical in a time where we should start looking away from military threats and patterns as a way of life, and towards a newer age of actual peace. It occurs to me that this cannot end in a good way. It scares me to think that I still live in a world where I am told I must fear the huge threat of missiles from rogue states, enough so that we must build a huge missile defense system to shield us from them. Yikes. Personally, if I was a rogue state, I would not take this action as one that promotes good faith. Perhaps there is no history implying that there should be good faith; but I know that the construction of such a system would not foster trust or good relations in any way, if I knew I was the reason for such a silly defense system. And why do we need to spend so much scientific dollars to research harmful systems for our country, shouldn't we spend the money on something more practical, instead of on a system chasing ghosts in the sky? If scientific research was diverted away from such sillyness just imagine what kinds things could be accomplished or discovered. If we took our scientists and led them down a path that involved productive things that did not include finding better ways of destroying the human race and it's home, I think our country and our world would be better served. Of course, this is all idealistic dribble, and isn't worth anything in a world obsessed with destroying itself, but hey I figure that someone has to be positive, and positive in a way that could benefit all human kind, not just the select few that happen to live in the same country and stand to gain from others losses.

johnberndt - 10:38pm Jun 5, 2000 EST (#24 of 11858)

If it were that pie in the sky no one would be worried. Other countries are concerned because they think we might pull it off.

(11834 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense