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.

longiiland - 11:56am Jun 15, 2000 EST (#82 of 11858)

I am glad to see that a forum now exists for the discussion of this topic.

By perusing a concept that attempts to survive nuclear warfare you give nuclear warfare a ‘chance’. That ‘chance’ of survival destroys the very essence of the worldwide deterrence model. That is why the international community has overwhelmingly tipped the scales in opposition to this system. That is why SALT I and the ABM protocols exist between the two largest nuclear powers. Deployment of such a system embraces the theoretical perspective of Nuclear Utilization Theory. It may not be the intent of those who deploy-but every rational state views the system as a total embrace of a theory designed to win a nuclear war. That perspective (NUTS)(grin) implies that not only will nuclear war be fought-but it mussed be fought to survive and win. In such a pursuit, you lower conventional warfare thresholds and lower the crossover points at which conventional conflict goes into nuclear conflict. This is due to the very fact that one has added a chance to something in which no chance existed prior. You cannot posture yourself against the irrational actor- the minority of this world. Doing so only requires the majority if this world (rational actors) to balance against your own actions. You cannot thwart the irrational actor because the irrational actor has no limits or boundaries. The very name implies that the irrational actor is impossible to deter. As noted by the CIA of May 19th 00, the terminology of ‘rogue’ state has no significant in the course of debate regarding missile deference because ‘rouge’ implies that such states are irrational and every state America has labeled rouge is rational. The rational/irrational actor model is core issue regarding deterrence. As the CIA pointed out, rouge state has ‘more political significance then true value to the structure of deterrence’. In short the largest nuclear power embarking on the deployment of a system designed to survive nuclear strikes creates the impetus for every rational actor, depost to allie to do the same. All at varying levels of technological development all at varying levels of effiencey. In doing so-you destroy nuclear deterrence-the very concept that has maintained no use of nuclear weapons against states since 1945. If one recalls our operational experience in Desert Storm is that while missile defense did not work very well, deterrence did work very well. Saddam Hussein had poison gas-tipped Scuds that were available for launch at the time of the war, and he did not use them. Subsequently, after the U.S. military interrogated some defectors and some captured Iraqi leaders, it became clear why not: Saddam Hussein did not want to get blown up. Before the war, the United States, Britain, France and Israel had all stated, both publicly and privately, that if he was the first to use weapons of mass destruction, he would not be the last to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his kindred despots in other countries that we are worried about have not survived for extended periods of time by being stupid or careless. They are ruthless and cruel and sometimes reckless, but they don't remain in power, despite our repeated attempts in the case of Saddam Hussein to dislodge him, by being careless about the survival of their regime. Saddam Hussein understood very well that if he initiated the use of weapons of mass destruction, our retaliation would annihilate his regime. So the notion that missile defense is the only bulwark we have against weapons of mass destruction attacks from these regimes simply flies in the face of our actual experience, in which deterrence has worked very well and missile defense has not worked very well at all.

longiiland - 11:59am Jun 15, 2000 EST (#83 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.

enaidus3 - 12:25pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#84 of 11858)

Suppose we could come up with a idiot-proof system by spending a few hundred billion dollars of freshly printed C-notes that would stop the incoming missiles over their origins! Wow, hell why stop there, let's get rid of all the rogue states... that's quicker and much cheaper! And, we're worried about how well the other nuclear powers control their stockpiles - let's nuke them! We can ask our "scientists" how to overcome the genetic monsters world-wide from the fall-out...What do our game-crazy REALPOLITIK experts say about such a lose-lose scenario ? How do we convince a science-illiterate population about the technical dead-end of the missile-defense gamble? How do we convince the people who hope to profit cash-wise and power-wise that their tactics are irrational and perverse - and may even provoke an impatient demagogue to get us before we can get the "fence" up!

(11774 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense