![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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.
 
  (68 previous messages)
longiiland
- 07:27pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#69
of 11858)
Right now the President has a choice to two responses should a
missile armed opponent attack. First, take the hit
Exactly: Thus the primary point of nuclear deterrence to hold
your nations citizens hostage in exchange for holding all nations
holding like citizens hostage. This creates the inability to view
nuclear strikes as something one can survive against. It destroys
the very core of what one fights to protect. The Nation. ABM systems
put the 'win' and 'chance' back into nuclear war. It makes nuclear
war a tool to be utilized, lowers conventional war crossover points
and gives a chance when no chance existed before.
Killing millions in the process. Either way, a lot of people on
both sides of the conflict are going to die.
Exactly-thus all rational states view attacking another state
with nuclear devices as the absolute destruction of themselves at
the same time. .
You notice I haven't said we just sit back and take it.
Exactly-Nations maintain nuclear deterrence with, and quite
clear to the world what is/is not going to have anothers regime
destroyed if they choose to use WMD against another state..
A missile defense system, even a basic one, will complicate any
attack scenario.
It would 'complicate it' for the wrong reasons. It would view
nuclear warfare as a chance to be taken since the risk of survival
has now been increased with the deployment of such a system. It
destroys worldwide deterrence. ..
Once an ABM system is deployed, it will be continuously improved.
Correct. Until the ultimate platform is that of a space
based-laser system. Knowledge cannot be locked down. Each rational
nation would see the largest nuclear weapons state moving ahead with
plans to 'survive' nuclear war-to make it 'winnable' even if not the
intent of the US that is what is doing. Thus worldwide nuclear
deterrence is destroyed and all nations allied and despot will seek
to enhance themselves. Just like nuclear bombs proliferated from 45
onward one only needs to apply the same concept to this system. Each
nation would have varying levels of systems designed to survive-and
thus the risk for nuclear crossover points would increase.
Conventional conflict would lead far quicker to brushfires of
nuclear exchanges because no longer is one side absolute in knowing
he may be destroyed. The largest nuclear power has the ability in
our time to prevent the majority of this world the rational actor
nation-from moving ahead with such things. All America needs to do
is not design it.
longiiland
- 07:34pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#70
of 11858)
People fail to consider that the irrational actor need not fight
according to the DOD war books or the Pentagons models of warfare.
CIA perspectives place the use of such devices in the future as
high-but belong to no-state-but rather the individual irrational
actor-or movement-and not be flown in via a tranjectory. Rather
fluid nature of Americas borders and its democratic freedoms allow
for security to not exist. Total security is impossible-.Attempts to
persue it are counterproductive and only make you more insecure
because your actions require all rational state to examine how to
defend themselves against you.
pauld115
- 07:55pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#71
of 11858)
I got to agree with Vic, I do not think that regardless of what
happens someone else will come up with a ABM system sooner or
later...why wait until some other nation decides it has the capacity
to build one..which in time will happen...I would prefer to be the
first one on the block to have such a system rather than catching up
with another nation....we have the technology build it...it will act
as more of a deterent, .. if a country posseses a means to survive
and retaliate..what country would dare to strike when faced with the
prospect that thier own systems may be marginalized..and knowing
that any such action may likly end up with a massive retaliatory
strike....
longiiland
- 08:11pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#72
of 11858)
will act as more of a deterent,
actually it will act as LESS of a deterrent
canaryx
- 08:23pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#73
of 11858)
ABM is stupid because it can't accomplish its mission -- which I
assume is to prevent a missile attack from causing great harm. I
worked in the defense business where ABM was viewed as impractical
but a nice source of research funding. Why is ABM a bad idea? 1)
Accuracy problems -- we won't be able to knock off many incoming
missiles. 2) Detection problems -- it's easy to confuse an ABM with
chaff and decoys. 3) Fallout problems -- if we do hit any incoming
missiles, what will happen to those below the debris? 4)
Proliferation issues -- since a few won't do the job, we'll want to
keep throwing good money after bad, fielding more and more ABM
systems in different locations. 5) Cost -- it's going to cost A LOT
OF MONEY -- which we could spend on real deterrents such as
diplomacy and well-trained and equipped military forces. 6) ABM
gives us a false sense of security and diverts us from the true US
mission need: to strengthen our world relationships so we are at
less risk of being attacked in the first place.
canaryx
- 08:24pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#74
of 11858)
ABM is stupid because it can't accomplish its mission -- which I
assume is to prevent a missile attack from causing great harm. I
worked in the defense business where ABM was viewed as impractical
but a nice source of research funding. Why is ABM a bad idea? 1)
Accuracy problems -- we won't be able to knock off many incoming
missiles. 2) Detection problems -- it's easy to confuse an ABM with
chaff and decoys. 3) Fallout problems -- if we do hit any incoming
missiles, what will happen to those below the debris? 4)
Proliferation issues -- since a few won't do the job, we'll want to
keep throwing good money after bad, fielding more and more ABM
systems in different locations. 5) Cost -- it's going to cost A LOT
OF MONEY -- which we could spend on real deterrents such as
diplomacy and well-trained and equipped military forces.
Furthermore, ABM gives us a false sense of security and diverts us
from the true US mission need: to strengthen our world relationships
so we are at less risk of being attacked in the first place.
(11784 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
