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.

kgblankinship - 12:21pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#57 of 11858)

I used to work in the missile industry on a couple of missile defense programs. Although Postol has often done insightful analysis, he often does not have access to data of sufficient quality to adequately base his conclusions. He has been a consistent critic of missile defense starting with Patriot in Desert Storm, and seems to have accepted as an article of faith that technology cannot provide an adequate defense against ballistic missiles.

It has been my experience otherwise. Perhaps the tests of this missile system were rigged. But can interceptors be designed to distinguish warheads from decoys ? The answer is yes. There are a number of ways interceptors can be designed to pick out the warhead: using infrared signatures, radar signatures, and by tracking the warhead/decoy trajectories.

The real issue of missile defense is political. If the US is vulnerable to nuclear missiles from countries like IRAQ, it is much less likely we will go to war against them. Would we have attacked in Desert Storm if Saddam had the ability to destroy Los Angeles ? Most likely not. However, doing away with missile defense appeals to pacifists who do not want the US to intervene militarily in countries overseas. It's the Vietnam thing all over again.

gdare - 12:52pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#58 of 11858)

Actually, Postol's argument is that missile defense is not ready for prime time. It's not just him, the case of Dr. Nira Schartz (ex-TRW) has been going on for a couple of years. Back in the days of SDI, Professor David Parnas (an RTOS pioneer) objected to the feasibility of such a system and he turned out to be right.

Given the irrational exuberance over the Patriot's performance, Ted Postol merely pointed out the obvious: less than 25% effectiveness.

None of these people are opposed to doing the engineering research. The "failure" of SDI contributed to the wireless computing and communications boom that started in the 90's and sky is the limit as we stand in 2000. The research is worth pursuing, the spin-off benefits are unknown but look what happened after the space program, after SDI, etc. Making premature commitments to deployment and not laying the diplomatic foundations for it are the big problems.

michaellinder - 12:59pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#59 of 11858)

Star Wars was a clever bluff which helped accelerate the fall of the Soviet Union, but how do you play the same hand once you've shown your cards? Lie about it, as the military-industrial complex is doing to keep itself in business at enormous cost to American taxpayers.

Mr. McCreary (Comment 55) is correct. Missile delivery systems are but one way to deliver nuclear weapons and missile defense does nothing to deter rogue terrorists. Republicans, however, would rather use paranoia to promote their business partners' big budget schemes. Follow the money trail. "We have met the enemy," said Pogo, "and he is us."

longiiland - 01:09pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#60 of 11858)

"However, doing away with missile defense appeals to pacifists who do not want the US to intervene militarily in countries overseas. It's the Vietnam thing all over again."